716
/ q Num.xxi. 14. καὶ "καθὼς Μωσῆς ὕψωσε τὸν ὄφιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, " οὕτως
9 τν]. 28; xii. 32.
αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, add’?
ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: 15. ἵνα was 6 πιστεύων εἰς
ἔχη {why αἰώνιον. 16. οὕτω γὰρ
> , ς A a / Lid ‘ ca -€ A 9 ~ ἠγάπησεν 6 Θεὸς τὸν κόσµον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα was ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, GAN’ ἔχη ζωὴν
1 un αποληται αλλ omitted in NBL 1, 33 vet. Lat.
person. This person He describes as “‘ He that came down out of heaven,” adding as a further description ‘“‘the Son of Man” (whois in heaven]. This descrip- tion identifies this person as Jesus Him- self. He claims therefore to have a unique qualification for the declaration of truth about heavenly things, and this qualification consists in this, that He and He alone has had direct perception of heavenly things. He has been in heaven. By ‘“‘ heaven” it is not a locality that is indicated, but that condition which is described in the prologue as πρὸς τὸν θεόν. And when He speaks of coming down out of heaven He.can only mean manifesting Himself to those who are on that lower level from which they had not been able to ascend to the knowledge of heavenly things. In short, we have here the basis in Christ’s own words of the statement in the prologue that the Word was in the beginning with God, and became flesh to be a light to men. Why is 6 vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου introduced? It identifies the person spoken of, and it suggests that He who alone had the knowledge of heavenly things now wore -human nature, was accessible, and was there for the purpose of communicating this knowledge. The words added in the T.R., 6 dv ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, affirm that although He had come out of heaven He was still in it, and they show that a condition of being, not a locality, was meant by ‘‘heaven”.—Ver. 14. If the Son of Man alone has this knowledge, how is it to be disseminated and become a light to all men? ‘This is answered in the words, καὶ καθὼς Μωσᾖς . . . τοῦ ἀνθρώπου [modern editors read Μωνσῆς: so also in LXX]. The emphatic word is ὕψωσε. When Moses-made the brazen serpent, he did not secrete it in his tent and admit a few selected persons to view it, but ὕψωσε τὸν ὄφιν, gave it an eleva- tion at which all might see it. So must the Son of Man, the bearer of heavenly light and healing, ὑψωθῆναι, that all may sce Him. The “ lifting up” of the Son of Man is interpreted in xii. 33 to mean His lifting up on the cross. It was this
which drew human observation and human homage. The cross js the throne of Christ. In the phrase δεῖ ὑψωθῆναι the aorist is used in accordance with Greek usage by which an aorist infinitive is employed to express the action of the verb even though future after verbs signifying to hope, to expect, to promise, and such like. Thus Iph. in Aul., 462, οἶμαι γάρ viv ἱκετεύσαι, where Markland needlessly changes the aorist into the future. Nicodemus could not see the significance with which these words were filled by the crucifixion. What would be suggested to him by the comparison οἱ the Messiah with the brazen serpent might be something like this: The Son of Man is to be lifted up. Yes, but not on a throne in Herod’s palace. He was to be conspicuous, but as the brazen serpent had been conspicuous, hanging on a pole for the healing of the people. His elevation was certain, but it was an elevation by no mere official appoint- ment, or popular recognition, or heredi- tary right, but by plumbing the depths of human degradation in truest self- sacrifice. There is no royal road to human excellence, and Jesus reached the height He attained by no blare of heralds’ trumpets or flaunting of banners or popular acclaim, but by being sub-