Subject: Tramsfiguration Jesus have return 2 Heav |
Bible Note: Hi parpar Yes, I can see were it could (though it may be a stretch) be taken like that in a broad view of the whole counsel of Scripture, but we should be careful to look first at it's immediate contextual interpretation before we take it (outside) of that interpretation. I believe John Gill's expo, on v 62 tells it pretty well. By the way, you can get it free, on line, at, http://www.freegrace.net/gill/ I should point out too, that John was a baptist and, of course much of his exposition reflects Baptist doctrine, though this particular view in v 62, has no seemingly overt nor obscure baptist slant. (Not that I have a problem with that) God bless John --"Ver. 62. [What] and if ye shall see the son of man,.... Meaning himself then in a state of humiliation, and was taken for a mere man, though the true Messiah, and Son of God: ascend up where he was before? for Christ was, he existed before his incarnation, and he was in heaven before; not in his human nature, but as the word and Son of God: and he intimates, that when he had done his work, and the will of his Father, for which he came down from heaven, by the assumption of the human nature, he should ascend up thither again; and which would be seen, as it was, by his apostles; and which would prove that he came down from heaven, as he had asserted; see Eph 4:9; and that his flesh and blood were not to be eaten in a corporeal sense; in which sense they understood him: and he hereby suggests, that if it was difficult to receive, and hard to be understood, and was surprising and incredible, that he should come down from heaven, as bread, to be eat and fed upon; it would be much more so to them to be told, that he who was in so mean and lowly a form, should ascend up into heaven."-- John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible. |