Cheryl Schatz

Welcome Ramona,

You said

however, when the instructions for the Garden were given, she was not yet created

The very first time that the instructions were given what they could eat is found in Genesis 1:29 and it is said to a plural “you”. While the prohibition is not quoted in the first chapter, it is mentioned in chapter 2 and chapter 3. But of interest is the first mention of what they could eat was placed in chapter 1 and said to both of them.

You said that Eve could have been told about the prohibition by Adam. You said

In that view, this message about not eating from the forbidden tree could very well have been relayed to Eve by they one God clearly did tell -Adam.

If Adam had told Eve she would have used the term “us”. The inspired words of Scripture has Eve quoting God saying “you” (plural), thus we know for sure that God gave the command about the forbidden tree to both of them. According to chapter 2 of Genesis God gave the command as a singular “you” to Adam when Eve was not yet created, and He also gave the command to both of them after Eve was created (chapter 3 plural “you”). We don’t need to guess. The text tells us.

The idea that “don’t even touch it” was an addition from Adam is refuted by the inspired text “you” not “us” and after Eve had quoted God saying that, and we have no reason not to believe Eve, God did not reprove Eve, even though He reproves those who adds to His Word. The first sin was not adding to God’s words. Adam did not add to God’s word and neither did Eve.

You said that Eve was naturally in Adam’s care, however the Bible said that God made a helper for him, not a needy person that needed to be cared for as a child. Eve met Adam’s need. She was a strong helper.

You also said that Eve could be more tempted because of what her husband said. However, the Bible never said that Adam tempted Eve. The clear words of Scripture say that the serpent deceived Eve. She was tempted because she was deceived by the lies of the serpent. Nowhere does it say that God did not speak the prohibition to Eve. Her testimony is that God spoke to both of them when she was with Adam.

You said that both Adam and Eve were to blame, yet the Scripture clearly states that Adam was not deceived. (1 Timothy 2). Eve was the one deceived and the blame is placed at the feet of the one who was not deceived. God curse the earth because of Adam’s sin, not because Eve was thoroughly deceived and ate in that state.

You wrote:

Eve paid her dues for sure….and her desire was for her husband but he would rule over her henceforth. I feel like that says something about the created order, but not that Eve was less.

If it was “created order” for Adam to rule over Eve, then God would have stated that at creation. It is not created order. When Eve was deceived and Adam sinned with full knowledge, not being deceived himself, it was at least 100 years after creation. God told Eve what the man would do to her. God never spoke to Adam about ruling over his wife. Those words were not said to him as if God was directing him. God said “he will” not “I will that he rules over you”. It was over 100 years since they were created so how was it God’s non-command words about what the sinner Adam would do, suddenly become created order? If she was created to be ruled, wouldn’t we see that in the creation account rather than over 100 years later at the fall?

You said that maybe Eve needed a little more protection than Adam understood, but think about this. If Adam failed to protect Eve when she was being deceived by the serpent and Adam knew that the serpent was lying, why would God place her husband over her to rule over her after the fall when Adam had already failed her before the fall? God’s words are a reflection of the result of the fall on Adam’s relationship with Eve. They can’t possibility be about the created order. Adam and Eve were in the garden for a long time before the fall and no accounting of the man’s rule over the woman was documented. For sure Adam failed Eve. He was not deceived and he let her be deceived without letting her know that the serpent was lying and saving her from the deception. Adam’s rule over Eve was Adam’s own sinful idea predicted by God. God warned Eve about what Adam would do. God never told her that she was created to be ruled.

You said that we don’t know how much a powerful influence Eve had on Adam. We do know for sure that Adam was NOT deceived. Eve could not have had a powerful influence on Adam because Adam was not deceived. Adam was not deceived by the serpent and Adam was not deceived by Eve. He simply was not deceived.

I think it is important that we pay attention to all the information given to us by the Scripture. Paul told us that Adam was not deceived and we cannot make an excuse for him. Adam is the one who brought sin into the world and Jesus is the second (or last) Adam. Through one man sin entered the world.

I hope this helps!

Wendy to my blog! You are saying that John was really just asking his disciples to ask Jesus if the rumor was true that Jesus is a prophet. The first thing I would say is that Jesus said nothing about being a prophet until the disciples of John left. See Luke 7:24 “When the messengers of Jesus left…” What Jesus answered to the disciples of John was nothing about being a prophet, but He told them to go and report to John about all the miracles He did including that the dead were raised. And He said that one should not be offended at Him. So I think you missed what Jesus was saying because in Luke 7:21 Jesus right at that time in front of John’s disciples Jesus performed healings. He said not one word about being a prophet. John already had the witness of the Father that Jesus was higher in rank than John and that Jesus existed before John. John had no reason to doubt what was given to him by special revelation. John 1:30 (NASB95) 30 “This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’

Salvation is available to all by faith both “pre” Jesus and those who were born “after” Jesus. Jesus’ death was in time but once for all. Abraham was saved by faith through grace by the price that Jesus paid many years later.

Michael that your comment did not get addressed sooner. It ended up in my spam box for some reason.

Note on Leigh’s comment above: I removed an advertising note that Leigh posted to her comment which I did not think was appropriate on this subject or this blog.

One other thing. The serpent was under the influence of the devil. Adam was to protect the garden but Adam was not the spokesman for the serpent or the devil.

God called all to account as He should have. Adam could not have stopped that by an apology.

Joseph, I should also comment that your suggestion that Eve got the prohibition wrong because she was afraid is found nowhere in the text. Eve replied God said, and she gave His prohibition. Fear is not mentioned and error about God’s words is not corrected by Adam or God. And lastly, fear happened after they sinned not before.

I hope this helps.

Joseph,

Your third possibility is not possible. Where in the text does the Bible say that Adam was was the only one accountable and answerable? Where does it say that if he would have said “my bad” God would not not held the serpent responsible for his actions and Eve not personally responsible for her sin? Adam was the one who was not deceived. Adam was created first. There is no indication that the deception of Eve should not have been exposed or that individuals would hear personally the results that came from their actions.

I think you need to go back to the Scripture and look again. A possibility needs connection back to the text as proof.

I just found out that Diane Sellner passed away June 27, 2018.

Hi Garth,

I missed seeing your post. I will have to check again to find out why I didn’t receive an email when your post was added. I do get emails from new posters so this is something I have to look into.

Anyway, thank you for your comments and I agree with you about the prepositions. It is so important that we pay attention to the wording of the Scripture because God placed the grammar and the words for a reason. Believing this has helped me immensely through the years to understand the context.

Your insight is appreciated! This is why the body of Christ is needed. Sometimes we can miss seeing things that others pick up when they meditate on the words and grammar of the text.

I am doing well. That is in spite of going through much persecution through the years. Persecution is used by God to help us endure and grow in His image. I am still working on a video project on John 6. It has been years of work and the size of the project will be many times more than my WIM DVDs. There is much insight that I think will be helpful to many people.

I do plan on adding a few articles here on this blog in time as I am able. But unless I am challenged, I am not sure how much more there is to add to this topic. I have tried to look at each of the tough Scriptures on women from every angle.

Thank you for your kind words! They made my day.

Joseph, welcome to my blog!

This is not an issue of prophecy. The context is instruction that God gave to Adam and Eve. God personally brought Eve to Adam in Genesis 2:22. In Genesis 3:8, Adam and Eve heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. When God spoke to both Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, He asked them both what they had done because both of them were responsible for their own disobedience. In Genesis 3:13 it says that the LORD God “said to the woman”. God spoke to her and her testimony is that He spoke to her previous to the serpent speaking to her.

As far as the woman’s words about what God said, there is no evidence in the Bible that she lied or that she was so childlike that she was unable to understand a simple prohibition. Also, God’s words to Eve were simple, “What is this you have done?” He neither mentions the eating of the fruit to her nor touching it.

So the question to those who believe that Eve did not speak the truth about not being allowed to touch the fruit, is did Eve sin first by lying? Or is it possible that the sinless Eve told the truth and these were the words of God spoken to both of them?

Welcome to my blog, Bill. Thanks for your comments. Looking at Ephesians 4:8, it doesn’t say that gifts were “purchased” at the cross. In fact, verse 8 is about the resurrection of Jesus, and the gifts given to the church after the resurrection are listed in verse 11. Ephesians 4:11 11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, There is nothing in the passage that says faith is purchased on the cross and given to unbelievers who have been picked from eternity past. Rather, the gifts are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. The reason is also given: Ephesians 4:12 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; The reason is for the building up of the body of Christ. It isn’t faith given as a gift or salvation, but gifted people to grow the church in faith so that we come to maturity and unity (verse 13). So, Calvinism is not correct because of Eph. 4:8. My article stands as written and I welcome any challenge to that position. Purchased faith isn’t biblical.

Go ahead Heidi and email them. Thanks!

Good reasoning, Heidi!

Seems to me that the strongest people speaking into his life have been strong women. The response of a bully doesn’t show strength but reveals weakness.

I wish you well. May God protect your heart.

Heidi,

I am also working on a DVD project that refutes Limited Atonement specifically from John 6. https://mmoutreach.org/tg/. When I was dealing with Slick years ago, he tried to push me on this issue. I didn’t know anything about the subject at the time and so I just quoted Scripture to him and he went away. Apparently the women’s issue was his hill to die at the time at least in regards to me.

Heidi,

I agree with you. I also agree with Prov. 9:8. As one who has sat across from him within a couple of feet and seen the hatred spewed out IN PERSON, I know this for a fact. In fact, Matt’s daughter contacted me and told me that Matt hated me more than he had ever hated anyone. His ability to hate has greatly affected his own family and his daughter is now a self-professed atheist. I am sad for that.

New post here at https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2018/02/13/christian-woman-spiritual-covering/ answers Hansel’s question.

Hi Hansel,

I will answer your question in a new blog post likely within a week or so. I will post the link to the new post here in the comment section. Thank you for your question and welcome to my blog.

Cheryl

Thank you Ineke! I appreciate the kind words.

Just a note for those following the discussion. On Sunday, November 26, 2017 I spent six hours on my only day off answering the challenges of Peter McKenzie. I took what he claimed was the truth from the text and I tested that claim using the Scripture. I went to a great effort to help Peter see the context and grammar. I provided a very detailed explanation of the Greek using screen shots of the Greek grammar. Rather than engaging with my argument, Peter chose to brush off all of my hard effort and in his subsequent emails to me he said that he merely scanned through the material rather than reading it. By email he also described my response to him as abusive and arrogant. I have him on moderation and I am praying for him. God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble James 4:14. I simply do not have the hours of time to answer Peter when he is unwilling to even read what I have written.

I have posted another response to an October podcast of Dr. James White. My response is here https://mmoutreach.org/tg/what-comes-before-giving-james-white/

George, welcome to my blog. I am grateful that you were willing to share your discomfort with some of the material and that you persisted to the end. Below are several verses put together that should also help in understanding how God the Father teaches through His Word. Hebrews 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, The prophets is the Word of God. God spoke to them and they wrote His words. The Word of God is the revelation FROM the Father ABOUT the Son. Jesus is there in the Old Testament although in a more hidden way, and Jesus is completely revealed in the words FROM Jesus and ABOUT Jesus in the New Testament. So when we come to this verse… John 6:45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. …we can understand this to mean that everyone who hears and learns from the Bible (which is the revelation from God the Father) WILL come to faith in Jesus. The Bible is our teacher and God speaks through it. When one believes God through what he/she reads in the Bible, that person will be given a revelation of who Jesus is so that the person puts their faith in Jesus. God has placed within us a knowledge of God as we have a conscious and we can see the work of His hands. However, God mainly speaks through the Bible. Understanding that it is the Bible that has God speaking to us, we can understand that “in His Son” in Hebrews 1:2 does not mean that we are looking to hear a voice to hear. Jesus speaks through His Word. Hebrews 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. So I can say with certainty that you did hear the teaching from the Father and you learned from Him, and because of the revelation of God’s Word, you came to believe in Jesus.

George, I have been accused of being painfully thorough. I think that is because I believe every question is important and worthy of being answered. I don’t think I missed any of Dr. White’s points, although if I did, I am sure that he will instruct me in any area that I missed.

Tiro Lynn, it is nice to reconnect again!

Peter, Sunday is my day off and with so many deadlines, this is probably the only day I can fit in a discussion. I appreciate that you admit that you may have come across as accusatory. I understand that you feel that you were free to “take the gloves off” because you think I was the first to be accusatory. This is the reason that I paraphrased a quote from a Calvinist even though I didn’t quote him directly or even mention that I was paraphrasing someone else. In essence this Calvinist said that people find it hard to be objective and to evaluate issues about which they feel very strongly as they find it extremely hard to have an open mind to hear what the other person is saying and they tend to evaluate the other position with prejudice. I happen to agree with that Calvinist and I said you appear very sensitive. This is one of the reasons why I said that – it is not an accusation to ask if a person is an Arminian, a Calvinist, a Dispensationalist, etc. These are categories that help one to understand the box that a person places their doctrine within (although some people have a tendency to go past the edges and it is difficult to put them in any one box). Asking about a theological box is not an accusation. If I took offense at these kinds of questions, I myself would be at a great disadvantage, because I would not be willing to hear the other person, and I could not be an effective witness to others who have accepted a doctrine that is untruthful. I have to try to be objective as much as possible and to hear and ask questions to understand as best I can. So, if you could give me the benefit of the doubt that my comments come from a place of grace and not from an attack, it would probably be easier to have a good iron-sharpening-iron discussion. By the way I am still praying for you. I do not know your circumstances, but it seems to me that there is some kind of deep hurt that may have flowed from theological issues in the past,. The Lord Jesus is able to work in these situations because He knows the hearts of all people. We can pray effectively even while not knowing the details. That said, your recent longer post is much more along the line that I have been asking you for. Instead of just saying your view fits with the context and what people were thinking at the time, you actually made an effort to look back at previous verses and spelled out what you mean by the context. I greatly appreciate that and I will respond to that in my next comment.

Peter, I had not read your previous comment. Apparently you added a paragraph that was different than the one that did not show up when this blog was in limbo as I transferred my sites to a different provider. You wrote: More recently, I called you out again and you ignored that comment. Now you are accusing me of accusing you – and are trying to paint me as a dysfunctional, wounded person. I don’t know what comment you mean. I have let you know that I have been too busy to respond back as I have major deadlines and cannot spend working time on this blog. Frankly, I have not been able to catch up with all that you have written,. This is again what I mean about being too sensitive. You are accusing me of trying to paint you as “dysfunctional”. You have added a very perjorative term that I did not say and that term and anything like that did not enter my mind. You are extremely sensitive and you are responding to an attack that is not there. I have seen this many times and I have compassion for those who are hurting. I said I was praying for you because I care. I think it is obvious to those who read these responses that you are very sensitive and you feel attacked and are responding to the feeling of an attack that is real for you, but which does not exist in my words. Next comment on context.

Peter, Your case as presented is that in John 6 the term “coming” is a physical coming that means a physical following Jesus so that those people whom Jesus is talking about in John 6:37 must actually see Him and follow Him. It is to these alone that John 6:37 directly applies. To prove your case you bring up words that you believe limit the term “coming” to a physical presence of real people alive at that time that must be able to actually see Jesus. This is an evaluation of your contextual proof. We look at the Greek words translated “come” in John 6:37 to compare them with the context. All that the Father gives me will come – Greek word hēkō …and the one who comes to Me – Greek word erchomai These are two words that Jesus used that are connected. We will have a look at BDAG lexicon to see if these terms are synonymous with “follow” in a bit. Your point is that while Jesus said “come” He also means physically follow. You gave these two as direct context: – verse 2 – “a large crowd kept FOLLOWING him” – verse 5 – “..he looked up and saw a large crowd COMING toward him…” – In verse 2 the term “followed” is the Greek word akoloutheō. It is not a term found in John 6:37. – In verse 5 the term “coming” is erchomai. This one is one of the 2 Greek words used in John 6:37. You also gave this example as direct context: – verse 24 – 25 – “…they themselves got into the boats and WENT to Capernaum LOOKING for Jesus. When they FOUND him…they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you COME here?” – In verse 24 “went” or “came” to Capernaum is the Greek term erchomai. This one again matches one of the terms for “come” found in John 6:37. – In verse 25 the term “found” is the Greek word heuriskō. This is not a term Jesus used in John 6:37. – In verse 25 the term “come” is ginomai. It is not a term that Jesus used in John 6:37. You also used as direct context: – verse 26 – “Jesus answered them, Very truly, I tell you, you are not LOOKING for me (for the purpose of being true disciples)..” (italics mine) – In verse 26 the term “looking” is the Greek word ginomai. It is not a term that Jesus used in John 6:37. I will talk about the verses you quote that are at the end of John 6 shortly. So, in your context that you presented, most of the terms are not the words that Jesus used. We can agree that the crowd was not seeking Jesus because they had faith in Him. They were seeking Him because they wanted a full belly – forever! While the narrative uses different terms than Jesus used, the narrative is helpful for us to understand the mindset of the crowd. But to understand what Jesus meant, we are helped by looking at the context of Jesus’ own words that you missed. Was Jesus telling the crowd that they must physically follow Him? Jesus’ interaction with the crowd shows that His intention was faith: John 6:29–30 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” 30 So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? Notice that in context, the crowd understood Jesus. They Notice that the crowd, in context, understood that they were being asked to “believe” Jesus. Just before verse 37 Jesus said: John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. Jesus directly connects the term “comes” with “believes” not physically following (following is not a term that Jesus used in verse 37). The Greek term for “comes” in verse 35 is erchomai the same term as Jesus used in verse 37. Verse 35 is a direct context of verse 37 but you didn’t quote it. In verse 35 the direct context of verse 37, Jesus attaches coming with hunger and thirst. Jesus says that very same thing in the next chapter. John 7:37–38 37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. 38 “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’ ” Here the direct context of the words of Jesus is that “coming” is connected to “drinking” and believing and “living water”. Coming is not connected to following but to a personal experience with Jesus, something that the crowd did not do. You also did not quote verse 40 which is the direct context and Jesus attaches the term “beholds” with “believes”. John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” The Greek term for “beholds” is theōreō. It means to see with intention. What is the intention? To believe. The direct context around verse 37 is not what the crowd does, but what Jesus says. He defines His terms, and the crowd does not. Jesus gives more context of His own meaning in chapter 5. John 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. The Greek word means to hear with intention. Jesus gave a solemn truth saying here that attaches hearing (just like seeing) with believing. He also attaches this believing with eternal life (passed out of death into life). So is it what the crowd DOES in the context, the defining of the meaning of Jesus’ words? You have not proven that the crowd’s actions defines His words. Let’s look at the BDAG meaning of the terms that Jesus used in John 6:37. I will add the screen print here. hēkō means: of the coming of a worshiper to a deity. https://mmoutreach.org/tg/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/John-6-37-coming-to-diety.jpg The other Greek word that Jesus used for “come” is erchomai. This Greek word can mean a natural or sensory phenomena or a transcendent and moral-spiritual phenomena: of spiritual coming of God. https://mmoutreach.org/tg/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/john6-37-spiritual.jpg I will continue in the next comment after I insert the actual screen shots into this comment.

Peter, You presented the context of John 6:37 as the words of Jesus at the end of John. You wrote: Also, in verses 65-67, it is interesting to notice that COMING is juxtaposed against GOING AWAY: – verse 65 – “And he said, For this reason (some didn’t believe) I have told you that no one can COME to me unless it is granted by the Father” – verse 66 – “Because of this many of his disciples turned back and NO LONGER WENT ABOUT WITH HIM”. – Verse 67 – “So Jesus asked the 12, ‘Do you also wish to GO AWAY”? The context and the meaning must start earlier because you missed something. Starting with verse 60: John 6:60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” The immediate reaction of “many” was to say “who can LISTEN to it”. The term “listen” is the Greek word akouō. This Greek word means to listen, hear, pay close attention to, and usually respond in conformity. https://mmoutreach.org/tg/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/john6-60conformity.jpg What the “many” was NOT saying is who can actually HEAR with the PHYSICAL ears. They were saying who can pay attention to this teaching and respond positively to it. Jesus responds to the ones who cannot accept His words with this statement: John 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. Jesus defined His own words. They are spirit and life. Then Jesus shows that their response was unbelief. John 6:64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. – In verse 66 the term “no longer walk with Him” is the Greek word peripateō and it means to walk, live. They were no longer willing to listen. – In verse 67, Jesus asks if the 12 want to “go away” also. Did Jesus’ disciples interpret this as physically going away? Or did the disciples interpret this to mean are they also going to turn away and not listen to Jesus? The disciples’ answer shows that this is all about whom will they listen to not about a physical walking away. John 6:68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. The “going” is connected to listening. To WHOM are they to go to listen? Jesus alone has the words of eternal life. The context is all about belief and unbelief, willingness to listen and unwillingness to listen. I will answer the last part of your context comment on my next comment.

Peter, I have walked through your case and find no evidence that the actions of the crowd define the meaning of the words of Jesus to be a physical looking at, a physical following. You wrote: It is merely drawing a conclusion from doing the basic reading of the text. To ignore these findings FROM the text is to potentially rip the words from their context. Given that all other mention of the word COME carry a literal meaning, do you think that John would: – arbitrarily plunk a spiritual meaning of the word in verse 37? The basic reading of the text is the words of Jesus. You did not include most of what He said about believing and coming and eating and drinking in your “context”. Is it not fair to allow Jesus to define His meaning? You also suggested that I am reading in John 6 that the apostle John added a spiritual meaning in verse 37. However, John does not define Jesus’ words. Jesus defines His own words. John merely reported the amazing words that Jesus said. You also wrote that John would not: – arbitrarily switch the nuance of the narrative from a literal understanding (that flows with the narrative) to a theological principle that carries a symbolic meaning, wherein the hearers may have questioned (huh?) and perhaps not understood? John’s words about the crowd are indeed the narrative of their following Jesus, but shortly after that John quotes the words of Jesus that their following Him was not for spiritual reasons but was for physical food. John understood that Jesus’ words were spirit and they were life, because he was there when Jesus said it. But John gives no interpretation himself. Jesus does. The fact is that the crowd understood that Jesus was telling them that they needed to believe, they needed to listen to Him with intention. They walked away because they were unwilling to do that. You wrote: PROBLEMS WITH A “SPIRITUAL COMING”: (I almost didn’t include this piece – as I fear you will focus on it and not on my MAIN point above). – it ignores the context. I have included screen prints of the BDAG lexicon showing the spiritual meaning. If you won’t accept their expertise, who will you listen to? The fact is that most of the words that you appealed to were not in John 6:37. They are the actions of the unbelieving crowd. They cannot be used to determine the meaning of the words of Jesus. You wrote: – it ignores the components of the setting: 1. pre-existing people LOOKING FORWARD to the earthly incarnation of Christ. 2. by extension the obvious fact that LOOKING FORWARD is a moot point given the ascension of Jesus. The context is unbelievers. There is no words that say “looking forward” in the passage. Jesus said that unbelief is the reason why He said what He said in John 6:65. John 6:64–65 64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” Notice that Jesus didn’t say that people looking forward to the earthly incarnation of Christ is the reason why He said these words. It is the unbelief that is the direct context of Jesus’ words in John 6:37. If you can find faithful waiting for the Christ from the crowd in this passage, perhaps you can show that to me. You haven’t proven your point at all from the context so far. You wrote: The ones that are said to be the “GIVEN” ones in ch 17 were those who believed in a coming Messiah – not ones that were to believe in a Messiah who had already come. John 17 does not disprove the present tense in John 6:37. You are assuming that your conclusion is true without proving that the present tense of the giving ends without a single verse saying so. This is a logical fallacy. It is called circular reasoning. You wrote: – the example of Paul coming to faith without being “given by the Father” defeats the notion of a “spiritual coming” in John 6:44. “No one comes to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me”. Paul’s conversion was post-cross and it CANNOT be said that the Father drew him. You again are assuming your own conclusions. Jesus Himself stated that His death brings about His drawing. John 12:32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” You wrote: – your example of Lydia does not hold up as there is no mention of “giving” in the passage – you read that into the text. If this had happened before the cross you would have used this to prove that the people at that time who were believers were given to Jesus. You discount the faith of Lydia and discount the words that the Lord opened her heart as you have already closed the door to believers brought to Jesus through the gospel. You wrote: It is clear to me that you are trying to build a doctrinal construct without paying attention FIRSTLY to what the context and the setting are saying. I am ABSOLUTELY paying attention to the inspired words of Jesus. I am willing to let Jesus define His own words. How on earth would we let the actions of an unbelieving crowd define the words of our Lord and Master? The context is Jesus, Peter, not the actions of unbelievers that put Him into a box. You wrote: To insist, that COMING and SEEING and GIVING are words that have spiritual meanings PRIMARILY is to get there by way of assertion. I said NOTHING of the sort! That is clearly a misrepresentation. The context defines the meaning. When the words are used of the crowd they have a natural physical meaning. Natural meaning is primary in a natural setting. When Jesus uses the words they have a spirit and life meaning, because that us what He said. You wrote: It is a straw man when you object by saying that my premise here denies further application for us today. I AM NOT saying that. I do not believe I ever said this. What I would have said is that your premise denies that people can be given to Jesus today. Your premise sets up a boundary requiring only people alive on the earth when Jesus was here can be given to Jesus according to the words of Jesus in John 6:37. I say that no Scripture limits the giving to those people and no ending date or event is ever listed as fulfilling the outside date of that prophecy. You wrote: What I AM saying is that any application is not useful for us today if we don’t start by CORRECTLY reading the passage as a first exercise. It is completely improper too read the passage by taking the action of unbelievers to define the words of Jesus. John didn’t define the words of Jesus. The crowd didn’t define the words of Jesus. Jesus defined the words of Jesus. Anything less then this is not proper exegesis. You have not taken the time to look up the Greek words and the Greek grammar, but I have. I have tested your theory and it has been found wanting. This is not an attack against you. I have just done as I am instructed to do by the Scripture. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; Amen! The words of our Lord Jesus will stand firm. If you are offended by my testing your theory, I feel for you. But perhaps I have shown you how a theory is tested by the Scripture and with a really good Bible software program. It is amazing in this day and age what we now have available to us at our fingertips with a computer and a good software package. What used to be only available to scholars is now available to the ordinary man or woman. I encourage you to purchase a good software package and use that to test all theories and to prove the integrity of the inspired text. I recommend Logos Bible software. https://www.logos.com . They are having a very good sale right now. I think that it will be worth your while to invest some money into a good software package. 2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.