Cheryl Schatz

Lynda,
Thanks for your thoughts and welcome to my blog!

I would like to point out that there was no designation of “formal” and “informal” meeting of the church in the NT times. Believers met in homes and their gatherings were gatherings of the church. The place of meeting was not the “church”. The believers were the church. So the only way that one could really say to a woman that she could teach outside of the church would be to say that she can teach the unsaved. The problem of course would be that once they are saved, she would have to move on because discipleship is a duty of the church.

However having said that, I do appreciate hearing about those complementarians who gave women the opportunity to use their gifts outside of a formal building. For although I believe they are being inconsistent with their own doctrine, I applaud their inconsistencies when it releases women to serve their Lord and Savior without fear of being disciplined by the church for doing so.

Thanks again for your comments!

Shannon, I am so honored that you came to my blog! Welcome!! I am also happy to see that we treasure the little treasures that God gave us even if they really embarrass us. It is wonderful to know that one day we can laugh our heads off remembering these embarrassing times. My little guy is now a full grown man with three children of his own. My little grandson is the spitting image of his dad at the age when he thought babies could have fish heads!

Gazza,
You said:

The Romans 6 passage dosn’t actually say anyone is dead now rather that the believers should “count themselves dead to sin” Paul then explains what being dead to sin would look like.

What does being dead to sin look like?

Romans 6:12–14 (NASB)
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,

It means that it has not right to reign in our lives. It also has no right to demand that it be obeyed.

13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

Dead to sin means that you do not give your body to sin to be used as an instrument. Instead, being alive from the dead means being alive to God to give Him our bodies to be used as instruments of righteous acts.

14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Being dead to sin means that sin cannot make us a slave since being dead to sin means that we are not under the law. We have been placed under grace.

Why did Paul say this?

Romans 6:10–11 (NASB)
10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

It is because in Jesus’ death, He died to sin once for all and this has an effect on us. Because Jesus died once for all we are to understand that because of Him we are also to be dead to sin. It is a present action that carries makes us dead right now to sin.

Ephesians 2:1–2 (NASB)
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

The tense is also present in Ephesians 2. Are we dead to the sin in which we formerly walked? Are we dead to the course of this world and are we dead to the power of the prince that rules this world? We should be if we are in Christ.

Ephesians 2:3 (NASB)
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

In verse 3 Paul talks about what we all were. This is not present tense. It is what was, in the past.

Ephesians 2:4–6 (NASB)
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, …

Here again the verb in verse 5 is present tense. And the word translated as “even” is a logical ascensive conjunction.

The word “ascensive” refers to “reaching a climax or crescendo.” Hence an ascensive conjunction is one that adds one last piece of information or comment to a grammatical element (i.e., word, phrase, or clause).
Heiser, M. S. (2005; 2005). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology.

Ephesians 2:4–6 (NASB)
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

It is God’s riches in mercy that caused us to be (present tense) dead to our sins and alive with Christ. Made alive is indicative aorist.

In the indicative mood, the aorist usually denotes past time,
Heiser, M. S. (2005; 2005). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology.

“dead to sin” is present tense and “made alive with Christ” is a past action already accomplished.

Is it God’s mercy that we are dead to sin and made alive with Christ? If not why is the verb “eimi” in the present tense while all the other verbs are indicative aorist?

If being dead in transgressions is current then how does that fit with the description “as you used to be” and “lived among them at one time”? It is clearly referring to the state in which they were in before they had faith in Christ. Are the believers still objects of wrath?

It appears to me to be “being dead” (present tense) to what you used to be alive to. The believers were children of wrath when they were alive to their sin nature – and being children of wrath is not present tense. In fact the only present tense is the verb “being” or “eimi” which has to do with being dead to sin.

How do you explain the present tense? In Romans 6:11 we are to count ourselves as dead to sin (present tense) and in Ephesians 2:1 Paul says you “eimi” or “being” (present tense) dead to sins.

You said:

The present tense is referring to the current nature of being dead in transgressions when we were made alive in Christ by God in His mercy.

How is this a “current nature” is it is what one was when they were in sin? “Current nature” and “present tense” are equivalent. It says this is what we are not what we were when we were lost.

This is also consistent with the juxtaposition of the life/death imagery. For if while alive in Christ we are still presently dead in our transgressions then it would be saying that Christs sacrifice in itself was not sufficient would it not?

No, for Christ Himself became dead to sin and in Him we would need to be dead to sin too.

Romans 6:10 (NASB)
10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

Is this not what we are in Christ? Dead to sin AND made alive in Christ?

I am really stymied about how Calvinists can deal with the present tense in Ephesians 2:1. It just doesn’t fit the mold that has been painted.

Gazza,

I should probably add this. You said:

Thus the believers in Romans are to be dead to sin in just the same way the Eph were dead to life in Christ through their transgressions before God made them alive.

So yes we are dead in transgressions when God made us alive in Christ.

Ephesians was written to the saints. Eph 2:5 is present tense. Paul isn’t saying “we are dead in transgressions when God made us alive”. If he was saying that, it would have to be past tense not present. But if Eph 2:5 and Roman 6:11 are saying the same thing, then what is Paul really saying?

Gazza,
You said:

I would have thought the usage of the present text in Romans 6:11 is exactly in line with what I was saying about Eph 2:5. In the Romans passage Paul tells the believers to “count themselves dead to sin” what does this mean – they should not let sin reign in their body, they should not offer parts of their body to sin and sin should not be their master.

The problem that you have is that Romans 6:11 shows that we “are dead” right now. It is present tense. Because we died with Christ and we raised with Him, we are dead to sin. But Eph. 2:5 is also the same. It is a present “dead”. It isn’t something they “were” in the past, but present tense. Right now, dead. How does Eph 2:5 correlate to Romans 6:11? Is it that we are dead to our sins and alive with Christ? The tense is not different. Thoughts?

I think I finally caught up to you Mark. Whew! I will let you catch up again and deal with the questions I gave you.

Mark,
You said:

“Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”

And then you said “Jesus says that “all” (not some, but all) that the Father “gives” Him will (not maybe, but will) come to Him. He also assures them that the one who comes to Him will not be cast out as a rejected one.”

So I was a bit disappointed because you didn’t actually address why they didn’t believe- you missed it. It is obvious that the reason they do not believe/come is because the Father has not ‘given’ them to Jesus.

Sorry to disappoint you. The reason that they do not come to him is later in the passage. I meant to express that the passage will tell us, but we haven’t come to it yet.

Yes, it is obvious that the reason that they do not believe in Jesus is the Father has not given to Jesus, but the reason that they are not given to Jesus will be clearly shown later. However even in this passage we can understand that they are not given to Jesus because they do not belong to the Father. All those who belong to the Father will be given to Jesus.

So although they had seen all his miracles they were unable to be saved because God the Father did not allow them to come/ believe in Jesus- they were unregenerate.

This is not what the passage says. We learn the reason in verse 45 and later.

You are correct that the verse says ‘all who the Father gives will come… but that is far different from the text saying that ‘the Father gives all to come’. The meaning changes completely, so this text does not support a prevenient grace theology.

There is a difference between giving of the person and enabling them to believe. In the passage we are discussing, it is people who are given to Jesus. The passages that I quoted you show that all are commanded to come. Commanding cannot be done without God enabling. We cannot come on our own.

I like that you emphasised ‘will’ come. That is they ‘will believe’ (since we agree on the synonymous words)- this is a clear text to support irresistible grace.

No, it doesn’t support irrestistible grace. It supports the teaching that these people had listened to and learned from the Father. Those who already submitted themselves to the Father will also submit to the Son. They have already received grace from the Father and anyone who loves the Father will love the Son.

Also I like the way you emphasises that Jesus will never cast out those who come/believe. It is important to realise that true believers can never lose their salvation as Jesus rightly points out.

Those who fear God and who continue in their faith will never be cast out.

Regarding this verse I was abit concerned about how you swapped the ‘Father giving’ with those unregenerate who ‘feared God’. I don’t think this verse supports that at all. Those who the Father foreknows are those who the Father gives.

Sorry, Mark but the verse does not say that those whom the Father foreknows are the ones given to Jesus:

John 6:37 (NASB)
37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

We haven’t come to verse 45 yet, but it is important to look at right now in our discussion.

John 6:45 (NASB)
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.

Jesus didn’t say that all that the Father foreknew would be given to Jesus. He said that all who had heard and learned from the Father would come to Jesus. It is therefore important to understand that those who heard and learned from the Father belonged to the Father. They could be given to Jesus because they were the Father’s to give. The Father never gave haters of God to Jesus. Those ones didn’t belong to the Father, so they couldn’t be given to Jesus.

To make it conditional on one’s ability as an unregenerate person to fear God concerns me. You are reading way to much into the verse.

God commanded people to fear Him and many did. Just a brief check of the words “fear God” or “feared God” in the OT produces many amazing verses and nowhere does it say that those who feared God had to be made regenerate before they could fear.

For example you conclude

“The requirement then to be “given” to Jesus is that they believed the Father first. I do not believe this at all.”

This is what John 6:45 says. I believe it. Apparently you do not.

Salvation in Jesus is not ‘conditional’ on anything we do beforehand- it is a gracious gift of God. To say that one had to ‘do’ something before they were able to come to Jesus is outrageous- you are essentially saying people had to work their way to be given to Jesus.

There you go making faith in God a “work”. Scripture never calls it a work. You see I don’t have any presuppositions that would require me to disbelieve this verse:

John 6:45 (NASB)
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.

The verse clearly says that ‘all the Father gives me will come to me’. We agreed that ‘coming’ is synonymous for believing, but now you are saying that they had to ‘believe’ the Father BEFORE they could believe in the Son.

Jesus said that the Pharisees did not believe God’s word through Moses. Because they didn’t believe the Father’s word, they could not believe Jesus’ words.

John 5:46–47 (NASB)
46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

You said:

It seems like you are only applying these verses to first century Jews- is that a fair statement? Since only they could fear the Father before the Son became incarnate. We post incarnate do not have that ability right?

No, not true. We are all commanded to fear God and God is righteous enough to give us the ability to fear Him.

“We can confidently know that the crowd of unbelievers were not given to Jesus because they did not first belong to the Father. To belong to the Father one must believe the Father. They did not believe the Father so they did not believe Jesus.”
It seems like you are contradicting yourself. You have said that the crowd were ’seeking’ for everlasting bread, but now you are saying that they did not believe the Father (by the way what did they have to believe about the Father to qualify to be given to Jesus. Maybe you can point it out from the text).

No, I didn’t say that the crowd was “seeking” for everlasting bread. I said that they asked Jesus for what He said He had to give. The crowd had to believe the words of the Father in the OT Scriptures. Jesus said that those who heard the words of God was “of God”.

John 8:47 (NASB)
47 “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

I don’t think you can have it both ways. You can’t say these people were seeking for everlasting bread and then say that they didn’t believe the Father.

Like I said, I didn’t say that.

The crowd was not “of God” since they did not learn from the Father and listen to Him.

I’m not even going to go into the ‘will’ debate at the moment. There is too much other stuff for us to discuss at the present time. But it is interesting how Jesus relates ‘his will’ to ‘heaven’ not just the incarnation. Food for thought!

Jesus came to do His Father’s will. He recognized every one that had been given to Him by His Father. Here is another one who Jesus recognized belonged to the Father:

John 1:47–49 (NASB)
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!”
48 Nathanael said to Him, “How do You know me?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”
49 Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.”

Mark you said:

Second point, not all are ‘able’ to receive Christ. People are blind (2 Cor 4:4).

But people are blind for several reasons. One of the reasons is that they do not love the truth and another reason is that they love wickedness. These people do not come to the light to receive salvation.

2 Thessalonians 2:10–12 (NASB)
10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,
12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

God makes a difference between those who love their sin and those who practice the truth. Those who love their sin will never come to Jesus even though God draws them. Drawing is not the same thing as coming.

John 3:20–21 (NASB)
20 “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21 “But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

Only those God inwardly calls are justified (Rom 8:29).

Romans 8:29 does not say “inward call” and the washing by the baptism into Jesus’ death is our justification.

1 Corinthians 6:11 (NASB)
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

It is Jesus’ blood that justifies and He freely gives His salvation by His death to all.

Jesus himself says that the crowd could not come because the Father did not enable, remember also that we agreed that ‘comes’ and ‘believes’ are synonymous. So only those that the Father brings to Jesus can come/believe. Jesus never says that all are able to come/believe.

We haven’t come to this part yet. We will deal with these verses in their context as we come to them. I look forward to it!

Give me one verse that says God enables ‘all’ to come/believe (remember they are synonymous) in John 6.

I just gave a bunch of verses in a previous comment that I did tonight. You will find the answer there.

It seems you are confusing a lot of different terms. All are enabled, but yet some refuse to believe and then they are not ‘drawn’ to Jesus. The Bible has a different order. We are all hard before regeneration (Eph 2:1, Rom 8:5-8),

Ephesians 2:1 doesn’t mention hardness and Romans 8:5-8 is not about all. Abraham and Noah and Job were not those who set their minds on the flesh. We can deal with this one further when we get to these passages.

then God draws/enables us (Jn 6:65, 37, 44) and then we believe.

You have the order right here. God always draws first and in His drawing He enables us to obey His command to believe. Since God first starts His work in us, it is His work first and then we believe.

You are making being ‘drawn’ to Jesus conditional on something we do (some sort of believing that is not believing in Jesus since it comes before being drawn to Jesus). I can’t accept that- it’s contrary to scripture.

No, not at all. There are many who have already been drawn to God and they now belong to Him. These ones who have been drawn to the Father and now promised to Jesus. They belong to the Father and are given to Jesus. The Father is not giving haters of God to Jesus. He only gives those who have heard Him and obeyed Him, to Jesus.

John 6:45 (NASB)
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.

The Bible never says that those who are evil will be given to Jesus and neither are those who refuse to learn from the Father given to Jesus.

“And how can the “belief” of a person be their own choice if God gives faith as a gift?”

Easy the Bible says so. Faith is a gift (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 12:3) yet we are told to believe so it is something we must do.

Ephesians 2:8, 9 is not talking about faith as a gift because the term is singular and faith is said to be the thing that the gift (salvation) comes through. If faith were also a gift, then the Greek term would have been plural.

In Romans 12:3, faith is a genitive. “The genitive is the case that qualifies or restricts a noun by means of a specific characterization. “The genitive normally marks a noun as the source or possessor of something, or refers to the kind of relationship that noun has to another noun. It is typically expressed in English by the preposition “of”. For example, in the phrase “throne of the king” the noun “king” is in the genitive and qualifies the type of throne. In “blood of Christ,” Christ is the genitive noun which describes possession. The genitive case is also used for the objects of some prepositions.”

In C.E.B. Cranfield’s “A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans” Cranfield asks and answers what kind of genitive “faith” is in Romans 12:3. It isn’t a gift but a measure of a standard.

What kind of genitive is (faith)?…Every member of the church, instead of thinking of himself more highly than he ought, is so to think of himself as to think soberly, measuring himself by the standard which God has given him in his faith, that is, by a standard which forces him to concentrate his attention on those things in which he is on precisely the same level as his fellow-Christians rather than on those things in which he may be either superior or inferior to them—for the standard Paul has in mind consists, we take it, not in the relative strength or otherwise of the particular Christian’s faith but in the simple fact of its existence, that is, in the fact of his admission of his dependence on, and commitment to, Jesus Christ.3 When Christians measure themselves by themselves (or by their fellow-Christians or their pagan neighbours), they display their lack of understanding (cf. 2 Cor 10:12), and are sure to have too high (or else too low) an opinion of themselves; but, when they measure themselves by the standard which God has given them in their faith, they then—and only then—achieve a sober and true estimate of themselves as, equally with their fellows, both sinners revealed in their true colours by the judgment of the Cross and also the objects of God’s undeserved and triumphant mercy in Jesus Christ.
Cranfield, C. E. B. (2004). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (615–616).

Mark,
You said:

By the way i did just a quick bit of research to see whether your claim that no lexicons prove my point about the word ‘world’, and unfortunately for you your wrong.

For example if you had a closer look at the ‘Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament’ by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich you would have seen one of there definitions.

“5.b. of all mankind, but especially of believers as the object of God’s love”

My friend, you are not correct once again. I saw that and it clearly says “of all mankind” “but especially of believers”. This includes believers within all mankind so the believers cannot be removed from “all mankind” but are included within. That is why “believers” is not a separate entry but goes with “all of mankind”. This is why I said very confidently that all the lexicons I have shows the universal “all mankind” application.

Let’s look at their examples that you gave:

It is also interesting to note what NT references they use to come to this conclusion “J 3:16, 17c, 6:33, 51; 12:47.”

Let’s take it exactly as BDAG gives the meaning from their lexicon and applies it to these verses:

John 3:16 (NASB)
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

This then means according to BDAG that God so loved “all of mankind, but especially believers as the object of God’s love” …
(notice how the believers are included in a special way, but all of mankind is included in the full meaning?)

John 3:17 (NASB)
17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge “all of mankind but especially believers as the object of God’s love”…

John 6:33 (NASB)
33 “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”

For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to “all of mankind but especially believers as the object of God’s love”…

John 6:51 (NASB)
51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven, if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of “all of mankind but especially believers as the objects of God’s love”…

John 12:47 (NASB)
47 “If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge “all of mankind but especially believers as the objects of God’s love”…

My friend, you cannot remove “all of mankind” from the entry on BDAG. In the same way, Paul uses the same term to include the whole and emphasizes the small portion within:

1 Corinthians 14:1 (NASB)
Prophecy a Superior Gift
1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

Prophesy is part of the full category of spiritual gifts.

Philippians 4:22 (NASB)
22 All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household.

Caesar’s household is a part of the full category of the saints.

And “believers” is a part of the full category of all mankind.

If BDAG wanted to make the believers as a category to itself and not a part of the whole (all mankind) they would have made it a separate number. They did not. So again, I am sorry to disappoint you, but “the world” is not a small number of a few chosen people. It is an expression not of “the few” but of “the many”.

Mark you said:

Let me say it again as I already have done. I am not saying one can receive eternal life apart from the death of Christ. The issue is whether ‘world’ is meant to be understood universally.

Then I don’t understand why you had such a hard time with what I said, since I have always agree that the giving of life is the giving of eternal life. I think you were considering the implications of what you might be agreeing to, and that hindered your full agreement.

“I think that we can agree that it is eternal life that is the meaning in John 6:33.”

I’m glad we agree!

That sure took a long time for you to realize that, eh?

“It is interesting that the term “world” has no reference to the elect.”

Are you sure…look again at your ref. “6) sum total of particulars in any one field of experience, world, totality”… a sum total of ‘particulars’. Your own ref proves you wrong.

“Jesus can be the one who gives life to all without all being saved.”

This is a nonsense statement. You agree that John 6:33 is about eternal life, but yet you say the above. How does Jesus give life (not offer) to the world yet not all are saved-it’s a complete contradiction. Obviously ‘life’ isn’t given to the every single person. This is where you are substituting ‘offer’ for ‘given’.

No, that is not true at all. I am not substituting “offer” for “given”. Jesus gave life to all by the atonement. But giving something doesn’t mean that the person has it. This is where the questions I asked you come in. If Jesus “gave” you eternal life at the cross, then why didn’t you have it when you were born? Did He give it to you at the cross or just offer it? Or for what reason did you not have eternal life when you were born and you needed to be born again?

“Not true. The Bible says an emphastic “yes”! It is given to everyone. This is the key importance of the atonement – that it was a universal sacrifice that no man can ever blame God for not giving on his behalf. It is a “paid for” sacrifice that is “applied” by faith.”

So everyone is given eternal life (not offered) but you don’t hold to universalism? You confuse me! How can their sins be ‘paid for’ if they are still punished? Obviously you do not believe their sins were paid for because you reject universalism.

This is the problem that you have. You have been conditioned to think that there are only two choices – unversalism or Calvinism. But there are not just two choices. There is the Biblical doctrine of universal atonement yet not all are saved. I do believe that everyone’s sins are paid for. We will be able to discuss more as you answer the question about how you could have any need for forgiveness when your sins were completely paid for on the cross.

“Eternal life is “given” to all but “received” by only a few.”

This sentence is obvious how you substitue ‘offer’ for ‘given’. They are not given eternal life in heaven because they go to hell. They are offered it sure but not given.

“Do you believe that the atonement on the cross fully forgives all of your sins or did the application of the atonement happen later? In other words were you already forgiven before you were born or did the application need to be a separate even from the actual atonement?”

Yes I believe that the atonement enables all of my sins to be forgiven.

Ah, it is a “to be forgiven” not a “done deal”?

Of course the application is necessary- I do not deny that.

Then let’s focus on the application if we both agree that an application of the fully paid price must be applied.

But that is different to saying that those who never apply the atonement have already had their sins atoned for.

How is it that those who have never had their sins atoned for are commanded to believe (apply) the atonement? Do you not see a contradiction here?

Jesus only atoned for those who the father gives, those who have and will believe.

My friend, Mark, you are adding that into the Scripture, because Jesus never said it. Jesus talked about those who would come to Him, but He never said that He would only atone for those who would come. By adding to the Scripture one goes beyond what is said.

He does not atone for those who have or will not believe.

Where does the Bible say that?

And of course God knew and predestined those who would believe thus enabling Jesus to atone for only them.

These are Calvinist doctrines but they cannot be proven from the actual Scriptures since to believe them one must add to what is written. That is why I don’t believe in Calvinism. I would rather believe in what is actually written in the Scriptures.

“Were they wrong believing that Jesus was the Savior for the whole world?”

Let me say again that universal language need to be understood in the first century backdrop. It is best understood as God’s elect from every tribe, nation and language.

Surely Jesus could have said that clearly. Why didn’t He say that he would save only a select few the God chose? Why didn’t He make it clear that those who did not believe Him had been selected by God to go to hell? Why would He have chosen words that were universal rather than limited? Doesn’t it appear that to accept Calvinism would require a reinterpreting of what has been inspired as universal language? If it is really truth, what should we have to do that?

We see this in the book of Acts when the Jews are astonished that even the gentiles receive the holy spirit. The first century was very ‘exclusive’.

But they were wrong and the OT makes it clear that God’s intention was for all nations to know Him and not just one exclusive nation. They failed to see God’s universal intentions and they held on to a wrong view because of it.

“If God does not enable all to believe, then it would be a lie to say that Jesus gives life to the “world”. All are “able” unless they reject what they have been given.”

2 points. Jesus did not lie. You argue like this because you misunderstand what ‘world’ means.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe that Jesus lied. I believe that He told the truth. He said world and He meant world. He died for “many” just as he said. He did not die for “few”. The definition of “world” is the definition of the “many”. It is all encompassing and for those who wish to redefine world to mean a “few”, how could we reject the inspired words of “world” and “many” and reinterpret this to be “unconditionally selected” and “few” regarding the atonement? It just doesn’t match with the Scripture.

More to come in the next comment….

Mark,
You asked questions of TL. Now I know that he/she can answer for themself, but let me take a stab too, okay?

Now TL, does God ‘draw’ every single person, yes or no? If yes, show me one verse that saids that.

Yes.

John 12:32 (NASB95)
32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

Jesus as God said He would draw “all men” to Himself. I believe Him.

Does God the Father ‘grant’ everyone to come to Jesus, yes or no? If yes, show me one verse that saids that.

Yes. Permission is granted to anyone who is thirsty to come.

John 7:37 (NASB)
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.

In Isaiah God commands all to turn to Him and be saved. This is once again a universal statement with the term all the ends of the earth.

Isaiah 45:22 (NASB)
22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other.

In Isaiah 55:1, God calls all to come. The universal language of “every one” who thirsts is part of the command to come. This is the quote that Jesus made when He spoke in John 7:37

Isaiah 55:1 (NASB)
The Free Offer of Mercy
1 “Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters;
And you who have no money come, buy and eat.
Come, buy wine and milk
Without money and without cost.

You asked:

Did God choose Israel above all the other nations of the world?

Yes, but it was for an earthly purpose. Nowhere does God say that He chose Israel unconditionally to be saved and all the other nations of the earth unconditionally to be damned.

Did he choose Jacob over Esau? Did he choose Isaac over Ishmael?

Yes. But the Scripture never says that the choice was for unconditional salvation vs unconditional damnation. The choice was for an earthly purpose.

Does God have mercy on whom he wills, and harden whom he wills?

Yes God has mercy on whomever He wills and hardens whomever He will. But He tells us whom He will show mercy to and whom He will harden. Please show me who are the ones that God wills to have mercy on and who are the ones that He chooses to harden? God gives His answer in the Scriptures. What do the Scriptures say?

Mark, you said:

So therefore i disagree that God forgave or ‘atoned’ for non believers sins.

The fact is that we were all non-believers and sinners at one time and yet Christ died for sinners.

Romans 5:8 (NASB)
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 5:6 (NASB)
6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Unbelievers are are ungodly yet Christ died for the ungodly. Paul could have said that while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the elect. But he didn’t say that. He said that God died for the ungodly. So if one is ungodly and a sinner, we qualify as one that Christ died for.

You said:

Yes the atonement requires our faith to be effective but the only sins atoned for by Jesus on the cross were those God determined to be his.

Is the atonement not complete if it requires our faith? Is it just an offer and not given by Christ before our faith?

The atonement acheived something for God’s people. It did not just merely make it ‘possible’ (contra Cheryl).

Yes the atonement achieved something for God’s people but it also achieved something for all sinners. I never once said that it merely made salvation “possible”. You are claiming something for me that I never said and do not believe. Why do you do that? I have made it quite clear that the atonement was fully paid. It was not a mere “possibility”. It was all of our sins paid fully and complete.

Your view in my opinion makes the atonement a non-atonement. It didn’t actually acheive anything, because the effectiveness is only depended on my own faith.

What is the atonement dependent on? Is the atonement effective without your faith?

Now you can dismiss all the texts you like and say ‘many’ is synonymous for ‘all’, but i think that is wrong.

You can think what you will, but thinking doesn’t make it so. You need Scripture to back up your view. Where is “many” ever synonymous with “few”?

There are so many cases in the New Testament of universal language being used in a limited sense- we use it ALL the time. After all you don’t say that that Christ justified ‘all’ men do you?

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. ?

Eternal life is justification and yes this is given for all men. Just as one act of sin condemned all, so one act of righteousness gave life (and justification) to all. If it isn’t universal in both cases, then it doesn’t make sense. We could then say that the “all” that is condemnation isn’t really for all after all. What it means for one side, it must mean for the other or the comparison is meaningless.

This is the inconsistency in the Arminian position- it picks and chooses which texts to use. It ignores the cultural backdrop to help understand what the NT authors meant.

This is the inconsistency in the Calvinist position not my position. I am consistent. I take the texts for what they say and the comparisons are realcomparisons making Jesus truly the last Adam.

I look forward to see how you explain the atonement. I wonder how you believe that unbelievers sins are forgiven on the cross yet they are not forgiven on judgement day.

Please explain further so that I can have a full picture of what you believe. It will help me to use your own words in my explanation so that we can be in a position of understanding. One cannot refute a position that he does not understand.

Finally, the whole arguments about God’s mercy and love are unconvincing.

It isn’t an argument jhust about God’s mercy and love but about the very character and nature of God. If God tells us what His nature is and He explains it clear in the Scriptures, we need to listen and understand.

God is merciful that we can even breath right now becasue of our sin. The mind of the ‘flesh’ cannot even please God yet he gives people happy healthy lives. This is God’s common grace. He is gracious to all of us, even those who always have the ‘flesh’ nature of the first Adam

This is getting into Romans and we can go on to whatever chapters and books you want to discuss next. But I don’t want to go verse by verse through that very important passage until we get there.

Your position does not make God anymore loving or merciful (unless you hold to open theism of course).

Oh really? Why does God sending His Own Son to die for all not make her more loving and merciful than God sending Jesus to die for just a few select individuals who have been chosen unconditionally?

An arminian perspective on God at least upholds the biblical teaching on God’s foreknowledge, so is not God creating people who he knows won’t respond in faith?

Sure, God’s creates people who He knows won’t respond in faith. But that doesn’t mean that He is not allowed to purchase their salvation? If so, please show me this from the Scripture.

The Arminian position does not overcome our notions of injustice- it remains the same. God still creates people knowing they are going to be sent to hell.

Their position is vastly different than yours. They believe that God purchased the salvation of all, even though the salvation is rejected, but your position has God purposely creating people whom He has chosen them to go to hell and God has chosen to withhold from them what they need to be saved, yet the position also has God pleading with them to be saved and then getting angry with them that they are not able to obey Him because He has purposely withheld from them the ability to obey His command. That sounds a lot like injustice to me and any earthly judge who would act this way would have the world in an uproar about his injustice.

That is why i at least appreciate the open theist perspective- it is the logical conclusion to the Arminain position although most arminains attempt to dispute that.

It isn’t logical at all. It creates a God who isn’t Sovereign and who not only lies about his abilities but he also is not able to act in advance but only able to react. What on earth would that God do if one of his elect dies that he was counting on for a work? No. The open theist position is not logical and it is not Biblical. I am quite concerned about you, that you would even consider it logical.

“The problem that you have here is that Jesus is prophesied to die for “the nation”. But not all of the nation became believers, yet He died for the nation. ”

Cheryl look again at verse 52 in John 11 and then see what ‘nation’ should mean. Those that Jesus died for ‘nation’, ’scattered children of God’, John saids, God will “bring them together and make them one”. Doesn’t sound like non belivers to me, does it to you? Those Jesus died for will be brought together as one!- God’s church or elect. Not all Israel is Israel!

Let’s have another look at the verse and compare it to what John himself said in the book of 1 John. John is not going to contradict himself.

John 11:52 (NASB)
52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

1 John 2:2 (NASB)
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

John said that the price that Jesus paid is not for the nation only, but for the whole world. If John had meant that it was for only the elect in the world, he could have said that. He doesn’t just say “world” here but “whole world”. The term whole is another universal term. It shows that John is not referring to a “few” individuals but the “whole” world.

Anyway i could go back over all of what you said but we need to move on in the exegesis. After you attempt to show me what your understanding of the atonement is, i will respond to your latest exegetical points.

Let’s stick with this a little while longer. I can see that you have no understanding what I have been saying and so it makes it all the more important that we work toward understanding. I am not saying that you must believe as I do, but it is our time to understand what the other believes. So go ahead and answer the questions here and if there is enough understanding, I can fill in the blanks that have not yet been said.

Thanks cobber!

Mark,
You said:

I have already said earlier but you must have missed it. I agree that the atonement becomes effective by our coming to salvation. When Jesus died, he died for past, present and future sins.

Do you actually mean that the atonement becomes effective by our coming to faith in the Lord Jesus?

So why is it that God did not take the complete payment of Jesus at the cross and put it to your account at the time that Jesus died? Was His payment not full and complete at that time?

However God was not limited in knowing who his sheep were (contra open theism) both past and future. He knew who were his elect and so Jesus bore there sins on the tree enabling them to be granted ‘atonement’ from their sins once God regenerated their hearts and they put faith in Christ. Even an evangelical arminian agrees with this. God is not limited in knowing who will be his sheep.

So you will agree that there was a condition that must be met first before the atonement can become effective for you?

Gazza,
You said:

Eph 2
4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

God MADE US alive even when we were dead and unable to act for ourselves. Our desire for God is a symptom of the new work He has begun within us. Without His work it is a desire we are unable to have as we are dead in our transgressions.

There is a problem with this verse as used. As the verb is present in Ephesians 2:5 just as it is present tense in Romans 6:11. Thus it is that we “are dead” present tense. How do you explain that?

Ephesians 2:5 –

Romans 6:11 –

Mark,
Thanks for your quick response. You said:

It is important to note that the atonement is the ‘canceling’ of our debt. That is, Jesus took our sin and the punishment for our sin onto his shoulders. Now if Jesus atoned in exactly the same way for every person, how is it that they are sent to hell- are not their sins ‘atoned’ for?

I agree that the atonement is the complete payment of our debt and that Jesus took all of our sins and the punishment for our sins on his own body. Because Jesus paid for our sins on the cross there was not a single part of the payment for our sins that could happen after the cross. It was “paid in full” as Jesus Himself said when He cried out “It is finished”.

The entire work of redemption had been brought to completion. The single Gr. word here (translated “it is finished”) has been found in the papyri being placed on receipts for taxes meaning “paid in full” (see Col. 3:13, 14).
MacArthur, J. J. (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (Jn 19:30).

Mark you asked:

Now if Jesus atoned in exactly the same way for every person, how is it that they are sent to hell- are not their sins ‘atoned’ for?

It is for the very same reason as why your sins were not forgiven by God before you were born. Or perhaps I should not assume that you believe as I do. Mark tell me were your sins atoned for and forgiven on the cross so that not even one sin that you would commit in the future would be held against you? Were you created with your sins already forgiven since Jesus’ atonement on the cross happened before you were born?

Perhaps Cheryl, you believe that the sin of ‘unbelief’ or ‘rejection’ of the message of salvation was not atoned for. If that is what you believe then that worries me, because then you are saying the atonement was only ‘partial’- it did not atone for all sin.

The only sin that was not atoned for on the cross was the unpardonable sin and this cannot be done in ignorance. Every single forgiveable sin was paid for completely on the cross. Not a partial payment – but a full and complete payment.

Now some passages regarding the ‘limited’ nature of the atonement.

Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Now you object Cheryl because here Jesus does not say ‘only’. That is true- but look at verse 16. His sheep are from other ‘folds’ and he must bring them also.

You rightly picked out my objection. Jesus did not say that He laid down His life for only the sheep. As far as “bringing” other sheep, this is a far different thing than dying for all. I am not saying that Jesus “brings” all into the flock. Therefore the issue of Jesus bringing other sheep does not answer my question. I am asking where you get the doctrine that Jesus died only for the elect. John 10:15, 16 does not say that He laid down His life only for the sheep. So let’s agree that Jesus doesn’t bring all into the sheepfold. But you must still answer the question about the extent of who Jesus died for.

This is evidently how we should understand the term ‘world’- people from every tribe, language, nation. Universal language needs to be understood against the backdrop of the first century when the Jews were astonished that salvation was given also to the gentiles.

I agree that Jesus died for the “world” as in every tribe and every language group and every nation because Jesus died for all. But where does the Bible say that Jesus did not die for everyone and that Jesus died only for the elect? Where is this limitation clearly stated?

You said:

Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
Joh 17:20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

Jesus ‘consecration’ is his atonement. It is for his disciples and for those who ‘believe’ through the disciples teaching (Christians). This is in the midst of Jesus prayer where he specifically says he is not praying for the ‘world’ (non-believers) in the context.

Consecration is not the sacrifice but it is a dedication and a making holy of something that is already cleansed. There is not a single lexicon that I have that says this Greek word means the sacrifice. You are simply wrong in using these verses to refer to the atonement. Jesus is praying for believers and for those who will become believers. His dedicating Himself and He is dedicating them for unity. The dedication is for that which is already cleansed and we will become one – the reason for Jesus’ dedication.

I agree that Jesus in this Prayer to the Father in John 17 did not pray for the unbelieving world. He only prayed for believers and future believers that they may see Him and His glory. But this is far from any kind of proof that Jesus died only for believers. Consecration is not the atonement. Only believers will see Jesus in His glory in heaven and Jesus’ prayer was rightfully only for believers.

Is this why it was so easy for you to become a Calvinist? Did you accept by faith that consecration meant the atonement rather than looking the word up to see what the actual Greek word meant? It is impossible to get the atonement into this passage and say that Jesus limited His death to only a few.

Joh 11:51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,
Joh 11:52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Again we see here more clearly how we should understand universal language. Jesus not only died for the jews but also the ‘children’ from abroad (the world)

The problem that you have here is that Jesus is prophesied to die for “the nation”. But not all of the nation became believers, yet He died for the nation. It is universal language that includes Jesus’ death for all whether they were believers or not. Once again a wonderful passage that proves universal atonement even for the unbelievers.

Revelation 5:9, “Worthy art Thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for Thou wast slain and by Thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”

Same again. Note it does not say every single man in the world. It is limited

Once again the passage you quoted does not say that Jesus died only for a select few. His blood ransomed people from all tribes, all tongues and all peoples and all nations. The passage cannot be used at all to say that Jesus died for only a select few people.

The verses that you are using are the most powerful ones that show the universal extent of the atonement.

You said:

John 11:51-52, “He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”

1 John 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Note the parellel between John 11 and 1 John 2:2(often used against limited atonement). It’s clear John is using universal language to mean people scattered abroad (from all tribes, toungues etc). Also remember that ‘propitiated’ sins cannot be punished. So if the propititation is every single person then every single person is excluded from punishment= universalism.

I will discuss this after you answer my earlier question. If Jesus’ death was a propititation for your sins, then were your sins completely paid for before you were born so that you were born sinless in God’s eyes? Were your sins paid for and forgiven with no sin left to be forgiven while you were still a sinner? And how could you be a sinner if your sins were already forgiven? Again, I will answer your questions very clearly after you answer about your own sins and Jesus’ death.

More…

Mar 10:45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

‘Many’ not all.

Many is a synonym for “all”. Many is not a synonym for few. How do you explain this? Jesus did not say that He came to give His life for a few yet He clearly said that only a few would find life.

Matthew 7:14 (NASB)
14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

If Jesus said that only a few find life, then how come He also said that He died for many and not few? This verse proves the universal extent of the atonement and not that Jesus died for the few but rather for the many.

You said:

And again

Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 9:28, “So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

My answer still stands. How can the few now become the many? Did Jesus die for the few or the many?

More…

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

The people who benefit from the atonement are the church…not all men. Christ gave himself up for ‘her’.

Yes, the church benefits from the atonement, yet Paul did not say that Jesus gave Himself up only for the church and no benefit was made for rest of the world. The fact that only the church will believe cannot be used to prove that Jesus dying for the many is the same thing as Jesus dying for the few. How do you explain this contradiction?

Titus 2:14 “He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.”

Christ redeems ‘us’ the church, not all men.

Again these verses are all true, but none of them reads that Jesus died only for the church and that He did not give up His life for all men.

Finally
Rom 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

See the link between the atonement and God giving us all things. If the atonement is for all men, then the promise of this verse is destroyed.

Why do you think that?

To conclude Jesus only ‘atoned’ for God’s children- the elect.

I understand that this is what you believe Mark, but I also fail to see how someone convinced you from the Scriptures that Jesus died only for a select few. None of the verses that you quoted says that. How on earth did you accept so easily that Jesus the God of mercy could not have mercy on more than a very few that He would choose before they had faith? How does this give glory to the God of Mercy who is gracious and merciful?

Psalm 145:8 (NASB)
8 The LORD is gracious and merciful;
Slow to anger and great in lovingkindness.

Is the Almighty God now devoid of grace and mercy except to a very few that He chose without any condition of faith? Is He now less than great in lovingkindness since He chose unconditionally to bestow His lovingkindness and mercy on so few? I fail to see how God’s unconditional choice of just a few and sending Jesus to die for just a few is Biblical just as I fail to see how it is glorifying to the amazing God who ABOUNDS in mercy. How does His abounding in mercy show from the Calvinist limited atonement doctrine?

Rather than a limited atonement preplanned for just a few, the Scriptures are replete with the joy of God’s abundant mercy:

Psalm 103:8 (NKJV)
8 The LORD is merciful and gracious,
Slow to anger, and abounding in mercy.

Can you show how God is abounding in mercy with a rare and scarce atonement?

Mark you continued:

Redemption is preached to all, but the actual nature and effect of the atonement belongs to those for whom Jesus actually atoned- the elect.

This position really makes God out to be a God of mockery. What is the purpose of preaching redemption to all and requiring all to believe what for most is a lie? How could we require one for whom Christ did not die to believe that Christ died for him? Is that not a lie? Yet he must believe this lie and is required by God’s wrath to believe the lie? How is that consistent with God’s view of truth? Can any of us preach the salvation of Jesus on the cross to one who was not included in the atonement but who is not excluded in the command to believe it? This seems to me to be a twisted plan of mockery which is far more consistent with the nature of satan than that of God. I am not trying to accuse you of anything, but just giving you my Biblical understanding of a doctrine that requires the non-elect to repent and believe when by the very nature of their “place” as one who has been picked as an eternal reprobate, they cannot act in belief as one of the elect but are required to believe a lie or suffer God’s wrath. Who could demand such a thing while withholding from them the very thing that they need to respond, repent and believe?

If the atonement was universal then we must accept a doctrine of universalism which I am not willing to do.

This is a false dilemma. It is not either or. It is not just Calvinism or universalism because there are not just two choices. Who convinced you that there are Biblically only two choices?

You cannot say that Jesus bore the sins of all men and then say that people are still punished for their sins because of rejection of the gospel. If this is true, then Jesus never actually atoned their sins anyway. Cheryl you must have a very different definiton of what ‘atonement’ actually means. It cannot mean ‘full forgiveness of sins’ because the wrath of God fell on Jesus.

Again, I will answer this after you answer my questions. I will ask in a slightly different way right now. How can your sins have been forgiven by the atonement of Christ yet you were still called a sinner and in need of being regenerated because of your sin? Why did the atonement which was paid on your behalf have no affect on you until late in your life? Do you have an answer for that? I am quite anxious to hear your answers. And I am quite anxious to respond to your questions after you are given a full chance to explain yourself.

Mark, it would be a good time to remind everyone that I believe you to be a brother in Christ – one who has been saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus because of the atonement of Christ on the cross. This debate is not between a believer and an unbeliever. It is an inhouse debate between believers.

That’s all I had time for right now. I will get to the next comments of yours later when I have another break to respond.

Kirsten,
I agree. What is of the world certainly doesn’t belong in the Kingdom of God!

So sorry, Mark. I guess I got ahead of you. It is okay to slow down a bit and my being away also slowed us down. We can work on the differences for a bit before we move on. I’ll let you decide on when that will be.

I look forward to carrying on as both of us are able. I will be back home within two days.

Moving on to the next four verses.

John 6:39–40 (NASB)
39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
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.”

We can see several things about these verses:
1. Jesus is revealing the Father’s will
2. There are people who belong to the Father and these people will be given to the Son
3. Those who already belonged to the Father and are given to the Son will not be lost
4. It is also the will of the Father that the Son will raise to life all who see the Son and who continue to put their faith in Him.

John 6:41–42 (NASB)
41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”
42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”

Here the Jews were complaining secretly about Jesus that He was claiming to be something more than He is. He could not come down from heaven, in their minds, because He had a human origin. They believed that Joseph was Jesus’ father. They refused to believe Jesus’ words that He came down from heaven.

Mark you said:

regarding my exegesis you said…
” Jesus revealed in verse 33 that the bread of God (which is later revealed as His flesh) is given for the life of the world. So naturally the crowd asks for this bread. They were not asking for something that He wasn’t offering.”

You’ve missed the point. The crowd asked for the bread becasue they thought it was physical like with Moses(32). That is why when Jesus continues they actually abandon him- only after they realise what he is ‘actually’ meaning. They are not naturally asking for ‘the bread that gives eternal life in the spiritual sense that Jesus means.

I understand that they don’t fully understand what Jesus was offering, but the point that I was making was that they asked for what Jesus was offering – this eternal bread. The fact that Jesus offered the bread shows that it was given for their behalf, not just for given for the elect.

Your last sentence is wrong. They ‘were’ asking for something Jesus wasn’t offering. Jesus was not offering physical bread like they wanted. Once they realise the truth of what he means, they run, they do not ask again for the spiritual bread.

Mark, they were asking for everlasting bread. They just didn’t understand that it was “spiritual” everlasting bread. They did not run because they found out that it was spiritual bread. They run for another reason. We will get into that when we continue shortly in the passage.

“So the question I would like to ask, did Jesus offer eternal life to the crowd?”

No he did not offer- he told them to ‘believe’, there is a difference.(29). Problem was the crowd was blind to what he was saying- as we have already agreed they were thinking physically not spiritually. And as we will see no one can ‘believe’ unless God enables them.

The problem that you have with the text is that Jesus said that what He gives is for the “world” and although the crowd misunderstands what it is that He is giving, they do understand that they are included in the term “world” otherwise they would not have asked him to give them the bread.

John 6:33–34 (NASB)
33 “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”

If Jesus gives life to the world, then God is merciful to enable all to believe. If God does not enable all to believe, then it would be a lie to say that Jesus gives life to the “world”. All are “able” unless they reject what they have been given.

“What you missed is that Jesus said “whoever” which is not a term that limits faith in Jesus to a select few who are alone “gifted” with faith. Rather they come and they believe as their own action since the word “believes” is a present, active verb. It is not passive as if it were a gift given.”

Again you missed the point of the verse. The question is can everybody ‘come’ and thus ‘believe’ in the first place? John 6 says no- only those the Father enables can ‘come’ and therefore believe.

That is not true. God enables all. But when ones who have been enabled harden their heart against God and refuse to believe, they will not be drawn to Jesus. Is that fair? Of course it is. If they refuse to believe the Father, why should He draw them to Jesus? We will see more of this in the coming verses.

‘Whoever’ means exactly what it means- whoever the Father enables to come will never thrist or hunger- or paraphrased God’s call does not come back empty. I agree that the ‘belief’ of the person is their own choice and action- that has never been a matter of contention so the present active confirms what i believe.

Whoever means whoever. If God was picking favorites to come to Jesus then the term would not be “whoever” but “the elect”. It would be a definite people not a general term.

And how can the “belief” of a person be their own choice if God gives faith as a gift? If faith is a gift that one receives without doing anything on their own, then the belief would be passive as it would be given to the person and not something that they themselves must do. You are being inconsistent here.

To be continued…

Mark,
I will get to the last part of your comments the next time I can carve out some time away from my family. Thanks for your patience.

Mark,
Do you believe that the atonement on the cross fully forgives all of your sins or did the application of the atonement happen later? In other words were you already forgiven before you were born or did the application need to be a separate even from the actual atonement?

Why do you believe that Jesus would say that He was giving the truth that he gives Himself for the life of the world when He really only meant for a few people? Why is the established meaning of “World” not mean elect in the lexicons? And why did the Samaritans believe that the Savior would be “of the world” not of the “elect”? Why did they qualify to have Jesus be their Savior? Were they wrong believing that Jesus was the Savior for the whole world?

Mark,
You said:

People can only recieve eternal life by being reconciled in Christ. That is precisely why ‘life’ can only be ‘given’ to God’s elect, because only God’s elect have their sins ‘atoned’ for.

You keep saying that only a specific group of people can be given life and have their sins atoned. Where is your proof of this? Please show me one Scripture that says that Jesus died only for the elect. You cannot keep claiming that this is truth and then never prove it by the Scripture. If you can’t prove it, then you can just say “pass”, but you will need to stop claiming that Jesus died only for a select group.

Instead of a select group, in the passage that we are discussing Jesus gave His solemn declaration that He gives life to the “world”. If Jesus gave this witness, why should we not believe Him?

John 6:33 (NASB)
33 “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”

Your last lot of comments have diverged again. PLease stick with the verse in question. To show how you do this you asked me if i disagree with the ‘calvinists’ you quote, but neither of the quotes were dealing with the verse we are discussing.

Did you even read what I quoted? I am really concerned that you are only skimming and don’t bother to read. If you did read what was written, you would know the quote was about the verses that we are dealing with. Let’s take another look:

6:51 This pronouncement exactly reiterates vv. 33, 35, 47, 48. My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world. Jesus refers here prophetically to His impending sacrifice upon the cross (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). Jesus voluntarily laid down His life for evil, sinful mankind (10:18; 1 John 2:2).
MacArthur, J. J. (1997). The MacArthur Study

(i) the “living bread” has descended from heaven, i.e., he is the Incarnate One who has life in himself for others (cf. 5:26); (ii) the “bread” is the flesh of the Incarnate One which he is to give on behalf of the life of the world, i.e., he is to die that the world may live.
The “bread” is defined as “flesh” rather than the “body,” almost certainly by reason of the Evangelist’s insistence that the Word became flesh (1:14). But the conjunction of the terms “give,” “flesh,” and “on behalf of” in v 51c strongly suggests a sacrificial death for the sake of others
Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John. Word Biblical Commentary (93–94). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Both quotes refer to John 6:33 and 6:51. We had been talking about John 6:33 so the quotes are in context.
I is also interesting that I have two different Calvinist authors who agreeing that John 6:33, and John 6:51 are talking about Jesus giving his flesh as a sacrificial death on the cross. It is very apparent that the passage is not discussing the giving of life in a way that is outside of Jesus’ death. If these Calvinist theologians can agree that this is the case it shouldn’t be a problem for you as a Calvinist to also accept.

You are discussing ‘responses’, flesh and bread etc, none of which is dealing with the verse.

Verses 33 & 51 are speaking of the same thing and verse 51 gives further information on what the “bread” is. It is Jesus’ flesh given for the life of the world. So verse 33 which we were discussing is in context and it corresponds to verse 51 which is also in the context of John 6.

John 6:33 (NASB)
33 “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”

John 6:51 (NASB)
51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

Also “believing” is a response to God since it is an action verb rather than passive. Therefore it is a response to God just as I said.

Perhaps we should stop and give some definitions for the words in question.
What is ‘life’? In the context Jesus is talking about eternal life.
‘Bread’- is ‘he’ or Jesus.
‘World’- has to mean God’s elect for the following reasons.

Okay let’s work with the definitions.
Life:

Life. (1) physical life (RO 8.38), opposite (death); (2) supernatural life, opposite (what is subject to dying) and (destruction, death), received by believers as a gift from God (JN 3.36; 1J 5.11), experienced both now (RO 6.4) and eternally (MK 10.30); (3) viewed as an attribute of God (1J 5.20) and Christ (JN 5.26b)
Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament library (187).

I think that we can agree that it is eternal life that is the meaning in John 6:33.

World:

World. (1) adornment, adorning (1P 3.3); (2) as the sum total of all created beings in heaven and earth world, universe (AC 17.24); (3) as all human beings mankind, humanity, all people (MK 16.15); (4) as this planet inhabited by mankind world, earth (MT 16.26; JN 11.9); (5) morally, mankind as alienated from God, unredeemed and hostile to him world (1J 5.19); (6) sum total of particulars in any one field of experience, world, totality (JA 3.6)
Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament library (235)

It is interesting that the term “world” has no reference to the elect.

Bread:

(1) bread, loaf of bread (MT 4.3); (2) by metonymy food, nourishment (LU 15.17)
Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament library (76).

As far as the meaning of the bread, Jesus said “I am the bread of life…” John 6:35

There is no doubt that it is Jesus who is the bread that is referred to as the “bread of life”.

You said:

It cannot be universal unless you hold to a doctrine of universalism.

This is not true. Jesus can be the one who gives life to all without all being saved. It is because the atonement is accomplished by one payment (the death) and the application. This is consistent with every offering of atonement in the Bible.

Eternal life is not ‘given’ to everybody. You may think it is ‘offered’ but the text is not saying offered, it is saying ‘given’. Now is eternal life ‘given’ to everybody, yes or no? The Bible says an emphatic no!

Not true. The Bible says an emphastic “yes”! It is given to everyone. This is the key importance of the atonement – that it was a universal sacrifice that no man can ever blame God for not giving on his behalf. It is a “paid for” sacrifice that is “applied” by faith.

You can’t argue all you like about offers and sprinkling and all your other points, but that is not dealing with the verse. Do you believe that eternal life is given to every single person? Not offered but given as the verse says? The reality is, eternal life is only ‘given’ to those who trust in Christ- it is not given universally. So the only way to understand ‘world’ has to be in regards to those who trust in Christ- God’s elect.

Here is where you miss the boat. Eternal life is “given” to all but “received” by only a few.

In the same book, John makes this clear:

John 1:12 (NASB)
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

Receiving Jesus (the sacrifice that was given) is receiving eternal life. John writes later in 1 John 5:12 that the one who has the Son has the life.

1 John 5:12 (NASB)
12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

Eternal life is given in the person of the Son and to the one who receives Him, God gives them the right to become children of God.

Now I would like to ask you some questions on these verses and this will be in my next comment.

and to continue….

First of all I should let you know that I will be spending about 5 days with family. I will try to keep up with the back and forth exegesis that we are doing, but if I should miss a day or so, that would be why.

I will only do 3 verses this time too.

John 6:36 (NASB) “But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.

Jesus said that the crowd had “seen” him (they had been a witness and experienced or caught sight of his miracles) yet they did not believe in Him. Now we are going to find out why.

John 6:37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

Jesus says that “all” (not some, but all) that the Father “gives” Him will (not maybe, but will) come to Him. He also assures them that the one who comes to Him will not be cast out as a rejected one.

John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

Jesus also assures the crowd that this is the Father’s will and He came to do the Father’s will.

Now there are two important things about this passage that must be noted. Jesus said that “all that the Father gives me”. These are ones who belong to the Father. They are not unbelievers for God does not give anyone to Jesus who did not first belong to the Father. Jesus made it clear that the ones who have been given to Him first belonged to the Father and were ones who kept His word.

John 17:6 (NASB)
6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

This is consistent with both the Old Testament and the New Testament where those who feared God were brought to Jesus. Now this doesn’t mean that only those who feared God could have faith and believe in Jesus, but only those who belonged to the Father were guaranteed that they would be given to the Son. We know that they had this guarantee because Jesus said that all those who belonged to the Father would come to Him. There was not a single person who feared God and who obeyed the light that the Father gave them who would be turned away and every single one of these would be brought to Jesus.

Psalm 25:12–14 (NASB)
12 Who is the man who fears the LORD?
He will instruct him in the way he should choose.
13 His soul will abide in prosperity,
And his descendants will inherit the land.
14 The secret of the LORD is for those who fear Him,
And He will make them know His covenant..

In Psalm 25:12-14, all those who feard the LORD were promised that they would be made to know His covenant. Jesus is God’s covenant. All of them were brought to and given to Jesus because they first belonged to the Father.

We can confidently know that the crowd of unbelievers were not given to Jesus because they did not first belong to the Father. To belong to the Father one must believe the Father. They did not believe the Father so they did not believe Jesus.

The requirement then to be “given” to Jesus is that they believed the Father first.

John 5:24 (NASB)
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.

Now for a NT example of one who belonged to the Father and who was subsequently brought to Jesus.

Acts 10:1–2 (NASB)
1 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,
2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

Acts 10:4 (NASB)
4 And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God.

Acts 10:11 (NASB)
11 and he (peter) saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,

Acts 10:22 (NASB)
22 They said, “Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you.”

Acts 10:34–35 (NASB)
34 Opening his mouth, Peter said:
“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,
35 but b>in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

Acts 10:47–48 (NASB)
47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”
48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Those who belong to the Father are those who have heard and learned from the Father.

John 6:45 (NASB)
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.

All of these ones who first belong to the Father will be given to Jesus.

Mark,

Now onto the new verses presented. There are more things that you missed.

John 6:34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

I mentioned this in my comments above but they actually belong right here so I will repeat. Jesus revealed in verse 33 that the bread of God (which is later revealed as His flesh) is given for the life of the world. So naturally the crowd asks for this bread. They were not asking for something that He wasn’t offering.

So the question I would like to ask, did Jesus offer eternal life to the crowd?

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

I agree that Jesus is revealed as the I AM and He is the Life. However Jesus also clearly said that just as a seed remains alone (remains as the only one who has eternal life) unless it dies, so He too cannot give eternal life unless He dies. He remains alone in life until He dies.

I also agree that coming to Jesus and believing in Jesus are used as synonymous things.

What you missed is that Jesus said “whoever” which is not a term that limits faith in Jesus to a select few who are alone “gifted” with faith. Rather they come and they believe as their own action since the word “believes” is a present, active verb. It is not passive as if it were a gift given.

Mark you said:
Mark,
Thanks once again for taking the time to work with me through this passage. I think this is extremely helpful in working towards a clear word in the Scripture, but I think it is also helpful for others to see that we can dialog in a respectful manner.

You said:

First of all, I agree that when Jesus give’s his body on the cross- that is the atonement. The question in view though, is whether this text is referring to the atonement or eternal life. Look again at the verse

Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

This text does not talk about Jesus ‘flesh’. It is dealing with Jesus coming down from heaven to give ‘life’. Now clearly in the context this is dealing with eternal life!

I agree that it is eternal life but only through the death of Jesus. You cannot separate the two for there is no eternal life without the death of Jesus. I gave you the verse where Jesus said that if the seed does not die, it remains alone. Why is that if eternal life comes as something that is apart from Jesus’ death? Jesus repeats the same words in John 6:51 and the eternal life is clearly His flesh that He gives for the world. Are you saying that John 6:33 and John 6:51 are not talking about the same thing?

John 6:51 (NASB) “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

Where do you find eternal life in the Scripture that is apart from the death of Jesus?

So is Jesus saying he came down from heaven to give eternal life to every single person- of course not! Clearly ‘world’ should not be understood universally.

And why not? Shouldn’t we come to the Scriptures and see what they say without adding our own presuppositions to them? I have no problem with Jesus’ words. Why do you?

Remember that Jesus said “Amen, amen” which is a solemn declaration. Why would Jesus give a solemn declaration that he came to give His flesh and give eternal life to the world and then that not be true? Surely if Jesus meant something else He would have said something else. Can you explain why Jesus picked this particular word “world” to express a declaration of truth but meant something else?

How is it that the Samaritans understood that the coming one was to be the Savior of the world in John 4:42? This is very important. Were they also misled by the testimony about Jesus?

John 4:42 (NASB)
42 and they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.”

Why did they call Him the Savior of the world? You didn’t answer these questions. Were you planning to try to answer or were you planning to just set this issue aside because you don’t have an answer? If you don’t want to answer, I won’t force you to. But I would encourage you to try. It is worth the effort to dig deep into the inspired words and the inspired grammar of the passage.

Eternal life does indeed come through the atonement, but again the verse is dealing with the ‘life’ aspect. Jesus did not give ‘life’ to every single person because Jesus did not ‘atone’ for every person.

Again, this is your presupposition, but the text does not say that Jesus was going to give His life for only a select few.

I have simply stated what the text saids and that ‘world’ should not be understood universally.

Again show your position from the text. You cannot just say that although the text says “world”, it doesn’t really mean the whole world. Please explain what it does mean, not what it does not mean. And please explain how those hearing Jesus speak would have understood what world meant when He said it. Thanks!

It is you who is substituting ‘life’ for ‘atonement’, when the text and the context is clearly dealing with eternal life not with the atonement.

The text says that eternal life is Jesus’ flesh that He gives for the world. That is clearly what the text says. How does Jesus’ flesh give eternal life except for His death and resurrection?

Please deal with the term ‘life’ first and foremost.

Sure. Jesus’ “life” that He gives for the world is His flesh given as a ransom sacrifice on the cross. Colossians 1:22 says that we are reconciled (we have eternal life) in His fleshly body through death.

Colossians 1:22 (NASB)
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—

What Scripture are you going to quote that shows we have life in His body apart from His death?

Then tell me whether Jesus came to give ‘life’ eternally to every single human. Yes or No- here is your chance- Did Jesus give life eternally for the world? This is what you need to address not going off in tangents about ‘responses’.

Yes. Jesus came to give eternal life to every single human. This was a real offer. But it must be accepted by faith.

Let’s look again at the text.

John 6:34–35 (NASB)
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
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.

The crowd asked for this bread. That is very clear from verse 34. Did Jesus respond by saying that He only gives this bread for a select few? Clearly when Jesus said that He came down from Heaven to give life to the world, they felt that they were qualified to receive this life. They asked for it. The question must be asked why they did not receive this life since they asked for the gift. Was their response good enough to receive eternal life or not?

This is exegetical dancing! First you say ‘many to not have life’ (limited) and then that Jesus gives ‘life’ to the world (universal). You are using ‘life’ to mean two completely different things. The first about eternal life, the second about the atonement.

No I am not. There is no eternal life without the death of Jesus. The atonement is eternal life through the death of Jesus. Just for emphasis I will quote it one more time that our reconciliation and our receiving eternal life is only through the death of Jesus.

Colossians 1:22 (NASB)
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—

Receiving eternal life is being reconciled to God. If you believe that one can have that reconciliation with eternal life given without the atonement, please show me this clearly from the text.

The passage is only dealing with one life- eternal life.

That is right, but eternal life is not presented as Jesus’ flesh given in any other way than through His death. Jesus is qualifying throughout the passage that it is His flesh that is given for the gift of eternal life. Since verses 33 and 51 are a repetition, where do you find eternal life in this passage without Jesus’ death? Does your Calvinist faith require you to see eternal life as separate from Jesus’ death, or is this your own preconceived idea that would not necessarily be taught by Calvinism?

See again how you have included ‘but God requires a response’. Again this is not in the text above.

Actually it is in the text in verses 29 and 40.

John 6:29 (NASB)
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

Jesus said that there was something that they needed to do. The act that was required as the response to beholding the Son is believing.

John 6:40 (NASB)
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.”

Believing is never demanded before God’s revelation. Here it is the response to God’s documented revelation of His Son.

You either have to say that Jesus gives ‘life’ (eternal) to the world (everyone) or that ‘world’ is not meant to be understood universal.

Yes Jesus gives eternal life to everyone because it was His revealed will that He came down from heaven to give life to the world. It is meant to be universal. If it is not universal then Jesus did not tell the truth since Jesus never said that He came to give life to a select few. The term “world” is never used for a handpicked select few. John uses the term in his gospel in a very universal way and this is also the way that the Samaritans understood it.

You can’t just include sub clauses into the text about responses. It is good though to see you confess how you limit the atonement- you limit it’s effectiveness to actually atone; where as I limit it’s application to the elect.

No I don’t limit the atonement. Jesus’ death atoned for everyone. But the atonement that was completed on the cross for everyone must also be responded to in faith. In the Scripture the sacrifice for atonement is always applied by the sprinkling of the blood. The atonement is complete and the blood of the atonement must be applied by faith. I never said that I limit the atonement as if the atonement was not completed on the cross. It was.

Let me summarise. The text in question is only dealing with eternal life. Any thing introduced about ‘responses’ is foreign to the text. Jesus claims that he has come to ‘give life to the world’. There are only 2 options to take- universalism, or mine since the text is dealing with eternal life.

Let me summarize. The text in question is about the flesh of Jesus given through death to fulfill the gift of eternal life. Both John 6:51 and Colossians 1:22 show that our salvation which is our reconciliation with God is accomplished through the body of Jesus through his death. There isn’t any other way for Jesus to give his flesh for the world except through His death on the cross.

It is also worth quoting from two Calvinist sources who also say that same thing as I am saying:

6:51 This pronouncement exactly reiterates vv. 33, 35, 47, 48. My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world. Jesus refers here prophetically to His impending sacrifice upon the cross (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). Jesus voluntarily laid down His life for evil, sinful mankind (10:18; 1 John 2:2).
MacArthur, J. J. (1997). The MacArthur Study

(i) the “living bread” has descended from heaven, i.e., he is the Incarnate One who has life in himself for others (cf. 5:26); (ii) the “bread” is the flesh of the Incarnate One which he is to give on behalf of the life of the world, i.e., he is to die that the world may live.
The “bread” is defined as “flesh” rather than the “body,” almost certainly by reason of the Evangelist’s insistence that the Word became flesh (1:14). But the conjunction of the terms “give,” “flesh,” and “on behalf of” in v 51c strongly suggests a sacrificial death for the sake of others
Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John. Word Biblical Commentary (93–94). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Also there are not just 2 options to take – universalism or your way (by the way you have not yet shown what your way is since you have not shown what “world” means in the passage). There are 3 options. 1) universalism where Jesus paid the price for all and all are saved 2) your way (whatever that is) and 3) universal redemption that is completely paid for but the price is applied to our account only by responding in faith and this is God’s Sovereign plan for the sprinkling of the blood.

So theoretically, the pre-incarnate Jesus could have sent/given the Father to come and die on the cross. It was just by chance that the Father sent Jesus? Why did Jesus choose to come and not the Father or Spirit, since there are no ‘roles’?

The Father gave the Son but Jesus also “gave” Himself. The LORD of hosts in the one united will of the Godhead chose to come to die for us. It was a unanimous decision made by God Himself. It was not made by one person of the Godhead nor was it one will that was commanded toward another member of the Godhead. It was and always has been a unity of wills for a unity of decision. There is complete equality in the Trinity. The only time that one commands and the other obeys is in regard to the incarnation but commanding and obeying is never revealed as a be a part of the nature of the Trinity.

Mark,
You asked:

You emphasised ‘world’ ( i wish i could bold!). Why is that?

I sent you an email that describes how to bold text. That should help.

I emphasized “world” because it is an important part of the truth claims of Jesus. Jesus emphasized his words claiming that they were “Amen, amen” as truth and said he gives his life for the world. It is worth paying attention to.

This text is not talking about the atonement, this text is talking about the ‘life’ that Jesus gives- eternal life.

Please explain how Jesus gives his flesh for the world and this is not the atonement. Eternal life comes only through Jesus’ death and resurrection. If eternal life could come from just a gift and the death of Jesus was not necessary, then God surely made a mistake as Jesus suffered when He did not need to.

If you are going to deny that eternal life comes through the death of Jesus, then you are going to have a big problem with the rest of the chapter, because Jesus talks about the bread as eternal life (verse 27) and the bread that Jesus gives as His own life that He gives up.

John 6:51 (NASB)
51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

Jesus gave a testimony to truth when He said that He gives life to the world. As another testimony to the fact that there can be no eternal life if Jesus doesn’t die, Jesus said:

John 12:24 (NASB)
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

It is Jesus’ death that bears “much fruit”. Here are other truth claims in John showing that Jesus created “the world”, “the world did not know Him”, He “takes away the sin of the world”, “the Light has come into the world”. Also even the Samaritans knew there was to be a Savior of the world” which included them (John 6:51).

John 1:10 (NASB)
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

John 1:29 (NASB)
29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

John 3:19 (NASB)
19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

John 4:42 (NASB)
42 and they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.”

John 6:51 (NASB)
51 …and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

You said:

Clearly Jesus does not give ‘life’ (eternal life in the context) to every single person since he is not a universalist. So here is another clear example where universal language is not meant to be understood to mean every single person in the world.

This would be reading your own prejudice into the text for Jesus claimed to give life to the world. The truth that keeps Jesus’ words as truth and yet allows many to not have “life” is the fact that Jesus gives life to the world, but God requires a response. Those who believe will receive the life. Those who do not believe will be condemned. Yet it doesn’t stop Jesus from giving. For rejecting the gift does not limit the giver’s ability to give. It just limit’s the person from receiving.

Also note that it was Jesus testimony that it was the ‘Father’ who gave the manna to the Israelites. Here we see one example of the differing relationships and roles of the Father and Son.

The giving of the Son (the manna) to the Israelites prefigures the incarnation. The Father gives and Jesus gives. There is no one “role” of giver in the Trinity. This relationship is in the incarnation itself and does not mean that there is a “role” of one giver alone in the essence of the Trinity, but certainly there are differences during the time that Jesus was limited in His humanity here on the earth.

And yes, I do think that humor has a wonderful place in life. We need to step back sometimes and not take ourselves (or our kids!) too seriously.

Alison, I am so glad that others find this little clip as funny as I did. When I first found it, I had been having a sleepless night and I was up on the computer looking for video clips for our video projects as I was trying to make myself tired enough to get back to sleep. When I saw this clip the tears were rolling down my cheeks as I watched and I was chuckling so loud it woke my husband up. He thought that I was in my office bawling my eyes out and he was very concerned. He had to get up to comfort his wife and he was a little miffed that it was only a funny clip that was the culprit at disturbing his sleep.

It reminded me of the time when I was in a grocery store and my son really wanted me to buy him a chocolate bar. The one he wanted was called a Virginia bar but he read the name as a Vagina bar and he kept saying it louder and louder as I was trying to shhhhh him. I could have crawled right through the floor. Or the time that our family was introduced to my mom’s neighour’s new born baby. The baby was at least three months premature, and back then it was a miracle that he was alive. But he hadn’t developed quite right and his eyes were not in the front of his head as normal but rather more on the side of his head. So the entire family is looking at this little baby and my son pipes up “hey mom, the kid has a fish head”. We were all mortified and none of us said anything but we wished we could have crawled through the floor. My silence just made him get louder because he wanted to make sure that he was heard. Loudly he said ” I SAID, the kid has a fish head!” Today we roar when we remember the embarrassment that we all felt by the naive honesty of my son. We were all thinking the same thing, but he had not yet learned how to keep his thoughts to himself. How embarrassing!

To continue–

John 6:31 (NASB)
31 “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.’ ”

Here we can see what kind of food the crowd was looking for. It was a daily food that God had previously given to their fathers while they were wandering in the wilderness. The crowd was looking for God to take care of their physical needs in the way that their fathers had been cared for.

John 6:32 (NASB)
32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.

Again Jesus says “truly, truly” or “amen, amen” showing that what He is about to say is a very important truth. Jesus has now identified that they are seeing Him as another mere human like Moses who would bring food from God. But Jesus refutes that expectation showing both that no mere human being gave manna out of heaven and that God Himself is giving the “true bread” out of heaven. This true bread from God is not like the temporary bread that was given in the wilderness. The introduction of “the true bread” will lead into a revelation of Jesus Himself.

John 6:33 (NASB)
33 “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”

Here Jesus reveals the next piece of important truth. While the temporary bread fed Israel, the true bread of God that comes down from heaven will give life to the world.

Over to you Mark.

Mark,
I would like to add some comments to your exegesis of John 6:26-30 because you missed some things.

John 6:25–26 (NASB)
25 When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You get here?”
26 Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.

When the crowd finally found Jesus and they ask Him when he arrived, Jesus focuses in on the fact that they are indeed seeking Him. Jesus uses the term “Truly, truly” which means “Amen, amen”. It is used with “I say” to give a very strong affirmation of what is stated. The Analytical lexicon defines it this way:

2) used with lego (say) to emphasize that what is being said is a solemn declaration of what is true
Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament library (46).

So Jesus is giving a solemn declaration that we are to pay attention to. He is saying that the crowd was indeed seeking Him but not because of the signs or miracles. The term for “seek” means to devote serious effort to realize one’s desire or objective, strive for, aim (at), try to obtain.

The crowd’s seeking Jesus was actually a desire to seek to obtain the free bread. Next Jesus tells them what they are to work for.

John 6:27 (NASB) “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”

Jesus makes a link between the serious effort that they went to in seeking Him (Jesus calls it “work” as they had come a long way across the sea to get into the free food line). He tells them instead to “work” or put in the effort for the food which is everlasting which He will give to them. They were commanded to make an effort. The term for “work” means to engage in activity that involves effort, work. (Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (389)

This was not a new command but something that Jesus had said before in Luke 13:24

Luke 13:24 (NASB) “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

To strive means to fight, struggle, labor. Thus Jesus means to fight and struggle to enter through the narrow door…and struggling for this eternal food that I will give you is worth your effort.

Next Jesus said in John 6:27 that the Father had set “His seal” upon Jesus. Setting a seal upon something is providing a seal as a security measure. It is the ultimate power given to the Son of imparting eternal life that will never perish.

When Jesus told the crowd that they must diligently strive for the eternal food that He will give them, they were compelled to ask what it is that they must do to diligently strive for the works of God.

John 6:28 (NASB)
28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”

The crowd is thinking that there are many works (plural) that they would have to do to obtain eternal life. But Jesus give them one effort as it is just one work that is necessary.

John 6:29 (NASB) Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

The activity that they were to strive for was to “believe” in Jesus whom God had sent. As you said, Mark, the crowd did not just believe Jesus by the works He had already performed, they asked for a sign that they could see and believe. They asked Jesus for a “work”.

Next comment will be going on to the next verses.