Cheryl Schatz

Helen,
I know all about refining. We need to stay the course even though we are attacked and criticized. It is a painful process but those who will walk the hard path will reap a benefit at the very least in our character. Sometimes we can get mad at God because our expectations have not been met, but maybe we need to see if there is a door open that is different than our expectations. The fields are white unto harvest and the workers are few. Let’s pray for wisdom that God has promised to give liberally to us, that we may see with our eyes and hear with our ears the specific way prepared just for us. Let’s be humble and learn our lessons along the way, and do everything for the glory of the Lord Jesus.

Scott,
Your answer is puzzling. There is nothing in the Scriptures that show Jesus in Heaven is less than Almighty God, and fully capable of executing God’s judgment. No one can stand up to Him and every knee will bow to Him of those who are in heaven, on earth and under the earth.

It seems to me that your answer shows a lack of understanding of the power and authority of Jesus. I wonder if your view of the kingship of men and the subjection of women has tainted your view of the Almighty nature of God.

Scott,

You said:

Perhaps you see me as the male chauvinist fighting to prove that “he gets the last say”.

That isn’t my thought at all.

You said:

Seems I’ve read that if a woman is truly comfortable in her femininity, she has no problem with the idea. Because for a man, it carries quite a responsiblity as well. Whatever happened to the man as hero, provider, nurturer, hunter/gatherer, lover, buck-stops-here male leader?

Femininity is not an excuse not to be responsible. In years gone by, women were expected to forego education so that the man could carry all of the responsibility. But in Christianity, we are all called to be warriors for the Lord and all called to study to show ourselves approved unto the Lord a workman that does not need to be ashamed. Women now realize that we must take responsibility for our own learning as we will all give account to God individually. No man will give an excuse to God for me. Being female is not an excuse to be a fully committed disciple of Jesus, and to use the gifts and abilities that He has given me for the common good. I have learned that I am not to be prejudiced in regards to a man or a woman when I share what God has given me. It is all about responsibility and faithfulness. And the buck stops with me with my own responsibility and faithfulness.

Scott,

I will spiritually defend my own and at the same time defend any who are placed in my influence. I would never want to see someone die spiritually because I didn’t care for them…that they were not worthy of me defending them because they were not my own flesh and blood.

You said:

I believe that God the Father and Jesus the Son are equal yet also not equal. For goodness sakes, there are two simultaneous realtionships there. One of a son to a father, the other as Jesus said, “I and the Father are on.”

There is nothing in Trinitarian doctrine that says that God the Father and God the Son are not equal. They are not the same person, but they are One God. I was specifically asking you questions about Jesus in Heaven so as not to confuse the temporary limitation of Jesus while He was here on the earth. Do you believe that Jesus is under the protection of His Father in Heaven. If so what Jesus Jesus have to be protected?

You said:

I agree, but there still has to be a head- a final decision maker. Do you agree? Howelse will the buck stop somewhere? How else could any organization be run effectively? Multiple equal leaders don’t work.

The Greek term for “head” does not mean “final decision maker”. A marriage is not an organization and when husband and wife disagree and one has not chosen to submit for the benefit of the other, it is an opportunity to come before the Lord to help them make a proper and godly decision without going against the will of the other. If one takes authority over the other’s will, it is a road map for abuse and resentment. God created the man and woman as equals and He told them both to rule over His earth. He never told the man to rule over his wife.

You said:

Mutual submission is in the bible and it is written before specific instructions given more the marraige relationship.

I agree that Ephesians 5 sets up reciprocal (both ways) mutual submission. So what is your point? Does this exempt the man from following God’s way and in loving giving his wife mutual respect and mutual submission?

You asked:

You, with your website or your endeavors, do you not have the final say?

And a web site is a marriage???

Scott you said:

Hold on. “Adam had an obligation to protect Eve because he was not deceived.” Are you saying his obligation to protect Eve was not based on his relationship to/with her?

The Bible specifically says that Adam was not deceived. The Bible also shows that Adam was there while his wife was talking with the deceiver. The Bible also shows that we have an obligation to use the knowledge that we have been given for the benefit of our brother. Adam had an obligation to protect Eve because she was in the state of deception. In that state she was making a terrible choice which was determined by a lie. Adam failed Eve because he had the truth and he didn’t allow that truth to be used for her good.

The Bible never says that the man is the spiritual protector of the woman. In fact in many cases the woman has more knowledge than the man and she then has an obligation not to fail to give out the truth.

Would Adam have had the obligation to protect all 50 people if all 50 of them were deceived like his wife was? Absolutely! There is a great responsibility that comes with knowing the truth. We cannot leave our brother who has been taken captive by the enemy and when we are with knowledge as watchmen on the wall, stay silent and let them be led away to their death. God does hold us responsible.

Are the Father and the Son equal in their Deity? If not where is the defect in the Son in Heaven that requires Him to need protection?

You said:

A wife is obligatied to submit to all others in the body, as is the man. A wife also has an
obligation to submit to her husband- how else would God command it?

The bible is clear that submission is reciprocal, meaning going both ways, not just one way. A woman, a slave and a child would be told that they too need to submit. Yes, the gospel frees them and a slave, for example, has just as much authority in Christ as his master has, but Christ’s example is that even the greatest should act in humility and in submission to the need of the lesser. The best way to show love, is to submit to one another, preferring one another and treating the other with true humility and love. The one who refuses to submit shows a disregard for Christ and a failure to understand that submission and humility are Christian virtues, not virtues of women alone.

The obligation is for any Christian who has knowledge to protect those who are vulnerable and without knowledge. Adam had an obligation to protect Eve because he was not deceived. If Eve was the one who was not deceived, then she would have had the obligation to protect Adam.

Is Christ in Heaven being protected spiritually by His Father? Or are they equals neither one of them needing protection in Heaven?

As far as Paul’s writings, there is a consistent teaching that the body of Christ belongs the “one anthers”. Love one another, submit to one another, prefer one another. It is reciprocal and wives are not excepted from the “one anothers”.

As I said there is nothing that defines the “head” to a determined position of authority. While God will always be the beginning of the humanity of Christ, the Father does not take authority over the Son and in Heaven the Father and the Son are equals.

If you disagree, please show where the Father takes authority over the Son if “head” means authority over?

Scott,
The term “head” in the Greek does not carry the meaning of “spiritual protection”. Let me ask you a question, is God the Father the spiritual protection of Christ right now? If you answer yes, can you tell me why Jesus needs spiritual protection?

Hi Scott,

I don’t think we have a similar message. Submission is very important as a Christian virtue, and it is to be reciprocal “one to another”, men are not set up as a spiritual protection for women as if women need umbrellas. Rather the moral obligation is to anyone who has knowledge that can protect another from the lie, to share their knowledge freely so that God’s truth will protect us all.

Hi chaseb, Welcome to my blog! Your point equates all those who are drawn as if everyone who is drawn is given to Jesus. However my point that I made was: It is important to note that the bible never says that all those who are drawn, come to Jesus. Unfortunately you cannot say that the Greek term for “drawing” means the same thing as the Greek term for “given”. The Scripture does not show these words mean the same thing. Also in Romans 8:30 the term “drawn” is not used at all neither is the word “given”. While I fully agree with your second point that no one can come to Christ without being drawn, my point is that not all that God draws will come to Christ. God’s drawing and God’s giving are not synonymous. They are not the “exact same thing”. I do appreciate that you took the time to give your thoughts. Do you have a response on my 5 questions that are listed on the first comment?

Thanks godrulz37. The consistent pattern of our lives is very important in either direction.

Maurie,

You said:

However, Jesus is also of the seed of Abraham and his descendant, the seed of David, therefore, Jesus must carry the human Ydna of Adam

The seed of Adam comes through Eve. Have a look at my blog post here:
http://mmoutreach.org/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/

You said:

Mary’s egg alone was pure, the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and God provided an exact copy of the original Adamic Ydna untarnished by sin.

The sin nature comes through the man alone, that is why Jesus could not have a human father. The sin nature is the nature of rebellion. Eve was deceived and her sin came because of her deception. Adam rebelled and his sin came through his rebellion. Rebellion can only come through the man because only the man rebelled.

You said:

The Roman Catholic view mistakenly sees the necessity to have Mary “immaculately conceived” as well to provide a sinless Son of God.

The Roman Catholic view is in error, for if Mary needed to be sinless to have the Savior, then obviously her own mother needed to be sinless to have Mary, and so on and so on.

The human nature of Jesus was sinless because He came only through the woman. The God side of Jesus was sinless because He was God.

You said:

now one of the latest to come up with that not even Eve thought about: “The man you put me with utterly “failed” to protect me. In response to this Adam could have turned to God, “Why didn’t you protect me?

Eve didn’t blame God. And as far as Adam, Adam’s walk with God before Eve was created protected him from seeing himself as equal to God. And Adam was not deceived.

Maurie,
You said:

The verse doesn’t really say that Adam was with her while she was being tempted. It doesn’t say when he showed up exactly,

The passage is written as a sequence with no indication that Adam showed up. This would indeed be a major part of the story if Adam was not there with his wife as the entire sequence happened. It is one long sentence that includes Eve “seeing” the fruit, understanding the wisdom she would gain, taking the fruit, eating the fruit, and giving to her husband. There is no place that one can add that Adam only showed up when she was taking a bite. And God could certainly not charge Adam for treason as not protecting his wife if he only showed up after she had eaten.

You said:

I meant that when Adam taught her about God’s command, HE Adam probably added and don’t even touch it, Even understanding that to be part of God’s command.

If that was true, then Eve would have had to use different grammar. For if God spoke directly only to Adam, then God’s grammar would be the singular you, not the plural you. The Hebrew grammar in Eve’s quote is plural and it is worded as a direct quote of God’s, not a secondary quote through Adam. I think it would be wise to understand Eve as having heard the words from God just as she said.

You said:

The seed of goddess worhip was there.

The problem that you have to overcome is that there is not a word given in the Genesis account that Adam was doing goddess worship. In fact if Adam was worshipping Eve as a goddess, then surely he would have protected her as his goddess. And God’s words to Eve in warning what Adam will do by his willful act of ruling over her, doesn’t make her a goddess, but a slave.

You said:

Did God use Mary’s egg? What did He use? How did He fertilize it? We must remember the man Jesus, our Lord, is both fully divine and fully human.

The egg was fertilized with God. The sperm is humanity, not God. God doesn’t need sperm because the Spirit is not human nor tangible.

Maurie,

I can see that you have given this issue much thought. There are some problems with the view, though, as the bible says that Adam was with Eve when she was being tempted. Unfortunately, though he should have spoken up since he was not deceived, he remained silent, and as a watchman on the wall who was to use his knowledge of truth to protect his wife, he failed miserably.

Also it isn’t possible for Eve to be quoting Adam since the grammar she used is a direct quote of God. Eve said “God has said, “You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die”. If Eve was quoting Adam directly, she would have said “We shall not eat from it or touch it…” The “you” is plural showing that God spoke to both of them. Although God’s words are not quoted directly except through Eve’s words, we can know that she did not lie when she quoted God. God did not accuse her of lying about Him or misrepresenting His direct words.

The Bible also describes Adam’s sin as treachery, Hosea 6:7. He does not describe Adam’s sin as goddess worship and this surely would have been identified by God if it was indeed true.

Also God didn’t need to use sperm when Christ was formed in the womb of Mary, since sperm is a human term and Jesus did not have a human father.

I am transferring a comment from Maurie Nord from the old location of this post. Here is Maurie’s comment below:
___________________

great site and arguments are irrefutable, in my opinion.

Meditation upon the bare-bones Genesis record reveals that the temptation of Eve did not happen in a moment. That is, Eve just happens to wander by the tree, the serpent is there and tricks her in a minute.

In spite of all the good and precious gifts God had given her, Eve was tempted to believe that God was not trustworthy and that He was secretly holding out on her regarding the knowledge of good and evil. These thoughts were probably already in Eve’s mind and those very thoughts had led her to the vicinity of the tree on occasional solitary walks, for it is not likely that Adam would stand silently by and listen to her conversation with the serpent. I am persuaded that at the beginning of creation, all animals had the power of speech, and that is why Eve never expressed surprise when the serpent spoke to her. This beautiful serpent submitted to and was obviously possessed by Satan and he begins by questioning Eve about what God had said about the tree of Knowledge. Eve had not been present when God gave Adam the command to not eat of the fruit of this tree, so Adam likely taught Eve himself. Commentators sometimes accuse Eve of adding to God’s word when she states that not only were they not to eat of the fruit, they were not even to touch it lest they die. However, I do not think that Eve was adding to God’s word of her own accord, rather she was probably repeating what Adam had told her. In his warning to Eve about the tree, Adam probably added “and don’t even touch it” as an extra measure to scare her away from the tree entirely. How many solitary trips had Eve previously taken to view the tree and ponder it? And how often had Satan observed her growing interest in it until he managed to get possession of this serpent which finally opened itself to the entry of this evil being? Of course it is speculation, but I find it difficult to imagine Eve so quickly falling to something so seriously forbidden by God. I suspect she loved the beauty and wise words of the charming serpent. She enjoyed more than one conversation with him.

I also suspect that Eve had thought about it for a long time until at last she was “ripe” for Satan’s picking so that when he point blank denied the Word of God and called Him a liar who was holding out on her, she believed the lie and first, she touched the fruit. She did not die as Adam said, so next she ate some and she did not die. On this final walk to the tree, she probably spent so much time in contemplation, that Adam set out to find her. Missing her conversation with the serpent, and arriving just in time to witness her eat the forbidden fruit, he must have been devastated, for now he was faced with the prospect of losing Eve. When he saw that she did not die after eating it, he looked into the lustful, alluring eyes of a fallen woman. He knowingly rejected God and in reality, he loved her more than he loved God. This was the first case of idolatry, the worship of the goddess, mother of all evil perpetuated to this day. Indeed, worship of the goddess is the oldest form of idolatry from which springs all manner of perversions and witch craft. The apostle Paul explicitly teaches that Eve was deceived regarding the fruit, but Adam was not and he made a deliberate choice to join Eve in her consequences. Eve’s egg was protected as pure and passed as pure down to Mary and all women. It is by fertilization of the sperm that a sin nature is introduce. God provided a pure sperm, likely the same as that of the first Adam before he fell, therefore Jesus, the second Adam was pure from sin.

Hope asked: Does he present a model of an egalitarian or complementarian marriage? Or does he not really broach that issue?

In his DVDs he does not really broach the issue.

Scott had written on my blog post from its other location: “Nope, Cheryl. You wrote, ” mutual submission is mandated one to another.” That’s from v. 21 (Ephesians 5) but instructions specifically for husband and wife don’t start until after that verse. How could God command mutual submission and then command the wife to submit to the husband?

The man is an umbrella”

Verse 21 sets the foundation for what comes later. In fact it sets the foundation for all of us. No one in the body of Christ is exempt from submitting “one to the other” (mutuality) Even Christ, the greatest Man that ever lived, submitted to serve the disciples, including Judas, by washing their feet. We are to have this attitude within ourselves.

So while husbands and wives are specific kinds of people within the body of Christ, just as slaves and masters are differing, all are commanded to submit out of our reverence for Christ, because in the body, we are all equal. They are no parts that are better or less. All are to serve one another in love as Christ served us in love.

Documentation:

Clip #1

The woman is the vice regent who rules in the stead or who carries out man’s wish, as man is the vice regent who carries out God’s wish. That’s why, you see, I Corinthians 14 says, “If a woman needs to know something, tell her to go–” Where? Ask whom? Her husband, because man is the sun, and woman is the moon. “She shines not so much with the direct light of God but that derived from man.”

From “The Role of the godly woman” by John MacArthur, transcript and audio found here http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/1845

Clip #2

She demonstrates her significance in the world in response to the direction of men who are given divine dominion. That’s a general truth. That’s a truth that goes beyond the walls of Christianity and the church. It’s just in general.

From “The Role of the godly woman” by John MacArthur, transcript and audio found here http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/1845

Clip #3

Man, then, according to verse 7, “is the image and glory of God,” but look at verse 7 again. Here comes the other part. “But the woman is–” not the glory of God but what? “The glory of man.” Not even a definite article there. “Woman is glory of man.” In other words–listen to this–in other words, the woman was made to manifest man’s authority and man’s will as man was made to manifest God’s authority.

From “The Role of the godly woman” by John MacArthur, transcript and audio found here http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/1845

Clip #4

If it says here a woman praying or prophesying, there’s one place where she won’t do it. Where’s that? In the church. There are other places where she will do it. She will pray in many different places, with other people, with other women, with her family, with close friends.

There are places where she will speak and proclaim the Gospel to unsaved friends and neighbors and to other women and whatever, but the one place where she will not preach, where she will not lead, is in the church.

From “The subordination and equality of women” by John MacArthur, transcript and audio found here http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1844

Clip #5

And somebody else says, “Well, what about missions? What about missions? We need missionaries, what would we do without women missionaries?” God bless women missionaries, but I don’t think women being on the mission field necessarily have the right to violate the Word of God.

From “God’s high calling for women part 4” by John MacArthur, transcript and audio found here http://www.gtycanada.org/resources/sermons/54-17/gods-high-calling-for-women-part-4

Clip #6

Listen, men, that is a grave responsibility. A woman’s deepest and greatest spiritual resource is a man. A man. Vital.

From “The role of the godly woman” by John MacArthur, transcript and audio found here http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1845/the-role-of-the-godly-woman

I do believe that Paul was coming against human tradition that was not compatible with honouring our spiritual head (Christ). What did wearing of long hair do to dishonor Christ that was connected to the veil? I really do not know for sure. One other thing that could come into play is that women also used hair (in the form of a wig) to cover their heads. That would constitute a head covering just as much as a veil. Although it is a “natural” head covering with their own hair, it is not natural when it is a secondary source of hair as a wig. Wigs as hair coverings are discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzniut

Thanks for the discussion LNE. I think it was useful as iron sharpening iron.

Sorry angie, I don’t understand your comment.

LNE,
You also asked:

The variant is in the Textus Receptus and it is the little “n” or “or” particle, which often heads up interrogative rhetorical questions. I don’t know how many manuscripts, and which ones exactly, contain the “n” particle before the “oude” in verse 14, but if that particle is well attested then it does make verse 14 in all likelihood a question, supporting the idea that man’s long hair is a shame (which seems to be the traditional view). I have heard that the “n” particle that is part of the Textus Receptus here is not well attested and does not appear in any Greek critical text. Maybe you know more about this?

I am not familiar with this, but any variant that makes nonsense out of the Scripture, would be rejected. After all, we are all aware that nature teaches no such thing. Paul was not influenced by the Holy Spirit to record nonsense. The sentence is true and makes perfect sense as a statement.

You also said:

I’m hoping to have this cleared up, because your interpretation is the only one I think I have ever heard that remains faithful to the words in the passage and appears to me to be totally logical.

Thank you! I am a huge proponent of paying close attention to the inspired words and the inspired grammar. I am not even so much of a verse by verse teacher, but a word by word teacher. I believe that any exegesis that is faithful to the Scripture will not disregard the words and grammar and will not make the Scripture to contradict itself. Paul is difficult at the best of times, but I believe that the depth that he brings in his writings is worth the effort to understand.

For me, my focus is on understanding what God said and meant so that I can believe God and follow Him. I don’t care for human tradition especially when it contradicts God’s word and makes God out to be confused, a respecter of persons, or a liar. I value truth above all, and I will allow myself to be corrected so that I can sharpen my view of the text even more.

Thanks for having patience with me. I am overwhelmed to say the least. I had hope to have my next video project done by now, but there have been some ministry issues that have taken more time and I am behind my own schedule. I will post here as much as I can and hope that what I say is of value to many.

LNE,
You also asked:

Also, are the verbs for “to have the hair cut off” (keiro) and “to be shaven” (xurao) nearly synonymous, as it seems from the lexicons I’m reading, or does one mean something significantly different than the other?

They are different. For example the Greek term for shave, means nothing else but shave. It has no alternate meanings. The Greek term for hair cut can mean to shear, but that term is used of animals, not people. With people, the rendering is to cut hair. Doing a Greek word search I could find no place in the New Testament where this Greek word is ever translated as “shave” when used for a human.

Also Paul uses the coordinating disjunctive conjunction (n) which expresses an alternative. If both were the same, there would be no need to join to synonyms with a disjunctive conjunction. Two options are needed.

You also said:

It is true that verse 6 is talking about the woman’s shame, but Paul does seem to be tying this to the shame of her “head” (her source, the man) from the previous verses, detailing that when a woman is uncovered, it is the same as being shaven, and she shames her head because of the “shaven head” for whatever reason.
It seems like if a woman shaves her head, she, as well as her husband at the same time, are shamed (in that cultural context).

It certainly may be that both are shamed at the same time, but that is not a given. The man’s shame is cultural thing related to infidelity. The shame for a woman having taken a Nazarite vow is not the shame of infidelity, but a personal shame of a head without hair – baldness.

You asked:

Are you then saying that Paul is telling women who don’t cover their heads to cut their hair, or merely recommending/permitting it?

There is something in that culture that has a logical connection that has nothing to do with shaming a godly woman. If what I propose is not logical, then I suggest that my reader’s give a suggestion that makes more sense. It makes sense to me, that Paul gives full freedom for women in Christ to be free from cultural traditions, but that they should not give mixed messages about whether they are free from the traditions or not.

Thoughts?

LNE,

You asked:

Is this excerpt saying that “let her have her hair cut” is therefore imperative, something a woman must do if she does not cover her head? It seems like the writer of Robertson’s Grammar is saying that both of these verbs are used imperatively, not permissively, even though imperative verbs can be used permissively in other places (but not here according to what I’m reading from the excerpt.). I may be reading this all wrong, hopefully you can straighten me out.

The best that I can say is that it is a logical imperative. This means that there is something that logically goes together the necessitates the cutting of the hair. Let’s take an example of a godly Christian woman who has no need to culturally wear the head covering. Her husband will not divorce her, as he is a Christian man. So she makes the move to freedom in Christ. She is not under a cultural obligation. It may very well be that the sign that one is not under the cultural obligation is that one removes the veil and cuts the hair. It is not one or the other, but both together that spells freedom.

We can be sure that the people of that day understood the logical nature of removing both the veil and cutting the hair.

We can also be sure that Paul gives women full rights to do what they want with their heads.

How do both of these statements go together. I can only surmise that taking off the veil but keeping the long, uncut hair, gives a mixed message. Paul was not one to promote mixed messages, thus the logical imperative for one thing that follows another. If Paul had wanted women to be punished for taking off their veils by forcing them to have their hair shaved off, then he could not have said that women have power over their own head.

Does this make sense?

semar, Welcome to my blog! If Jesus meant that it was better for Judas never to have existed at all, He made a mistake. There is a term for non-existence and that is before one’s conception. Jesus didn’t use that term. He said before his birth not before his conception. Thus Jesus confirmed that unborn babies who die are better off (because they are in the kingdom) than the sinner who ends up in hell. Jesus’ words are clear and specific. We cannot change them to mean something else. See my comment further up where I give screen shots of the different ways that the Greek shows before one’s birth or before one’s conception. Two totally different scenarios.

Hi allennelson4, You said: I’m saying you can break it down like this, “work for the food that endures to eternal life which I will give to you” That’s connected. It is connected, but it isn’t connected by an obligation. It is given unconditionally. Jesus didn’t say work to earn the food that endures to eternal life and I will pay you with the bread. What He did say was to strive diligently for this food, just as you are to strive to enter the kingdom. Those who diligently seek the kingdom will find it. The diligence is towards the finding and receiving, not towards the Giving, or else God would be obligated to give. You asked: How does the grammar not support that? The Greek term for “will give” is in the indicative mood, which is listed as real, thus assured and it is not prefaced with a conditional conjunction. So while the crowd is to strive for the bread, it is guaranteed to them without conditions. Also the term is used for something that is granted rather than an obligation to pay what is owed. If Jesus wanted us to know that the crowd was to “work for” something that was then to be due them, he would have used the term for “pay wages”. So the unconditional certainty of the Giving, and the term for giving, granting, bestowing, rather than the payment of an obligation is used, removes any opportunity to see the giving as a reward for work done. Perhaps you can show why in Calvinism, God is obligated to reward certain people with eternal life following a work that they have done to earn eternal life? Here is my reasoning: 1. Working for the payment of salvation is contradicted throughout Scripture where it is said to be by grace, through faith and not by works (something done to earn this life) 2. However working as in “putting an effort into obtaining (receiving) Gods gift doesnt contradict scripture but agrees with Jesus’ command to “strive to enter” (Luke 13:24) 3. Working to receive something as an obligation for God to give does not match with the context of John 6. As I work through the context of John 6, you will see how it all flows together without contradiction and without disregarding any part of the text. You asked: What if Jesus was only talking to the elect in the crowd? This would be a problem on your side. It would have to assume that the all of the unbelieving Jews that spoke to Jesus were of the elect without exception, or that Jesus was being deceptive by speaking to the crowd as a whole, rather than being truthful and telling them that some should strive for the food and some would be given the food that endures to eternal life, unlike when God gave the food to their Fathers where every single person was freely given the food. There would be no use connecting the original manna to Jesus. It is also a problem because Jesus makes it clear that the ones that he is speaking to are not of His sheep. That is a huge dilemma for you and makes Jesus out to be unclear at best and deceptive at worst. I believe that we must work hard to make the text make sense without its context, its grammar, and with the test of truth of who Jesus has revealed Himself to be. If we come to a conclusion that is missing any part of these essentials, we may be misled to believe something that is profoundly untrue. Would you agree with me on this? You also said: Yes, I understand that the you is plural but that doesn’t have to mean that Jesus means He’ll give the food to every single person who has ever lived Right now my argument is the immediate context, not about every man that ever lived, unless Jesus brings them in. When we get to that type of context, we will deal with it. In fact I have dealt with the term “world” from John 6:33 in this post http://www.mmoutreach.org/tg/doing-seeing/ If one believe that the crowd (or a portion thereof) to be the ones who work for (i.e. do a work that will earn them the bread) then what Jesus said next completely contradicts that thought and the crowd gets it. It is also in my post http://www.mmoutreach.org/tg/doing-seeing/ which deals with John 6:30-33 From the things you have said, it appears to me to be a contradiction. Perhaps you can explain further if I misunderstand. You said: Of course I do not mean that it takes “work” to get to Jesus. Jesus “gives” Himself freely, in an effectual salvific way, to the Father’s Elect. It seems to me that you are believing that Jesus “gives” Himself freely and unconditionally to the elect, but that the crowd (or the elect in the crowd) needs to “work for” the bread that endures to eternal life. Thus Jesus is given freely, but the bread needs to be worked for? You said: I think it fits with the rest of NT theology that tells us work and obedience flow FROM a changed heart, not to receive a changed heart. Remember He says food ENDURES to eternal life, not that it may or may not, but that it DOES. This would be a problem for you, because that would mean that the people in the crowd (at least the elect) already had a changed heart. But Jesus identifies the crowd as unbelievers, not a mixture of believers and unbelievers. You asked: If He GIVES this food (which ENDURES to eternal life) to all, then how are not all saved? This is a fair question and I will answer it in an upcoming post. The format of a post gives me an opportunity to openly explain, and be subject to a challenge, without someone having to read through the comments. You asked: What exactly is the difference between the fact that crowd does not “get” the food but they will be “given” the food? Sounds like just semantics. If you believe that “the giving” means that it is something that is dropped within you whether you are aware of it or not, and that there is no command to receive, then for sure “the giving” would be equal to “getting”. But if the passage shows that God has freely given without payment needed by anyone, but that the giving is not without condition, then there is much more to chew on in John 6. You also said: My take is that there are some in the crowd that Jesus would give eternal life to but not all. I think that’s supported by this verse and the surrounding context. So is “The Giving” of Jesus conditional to some? Are the elect required to work for what is freely given? Or does Jesus pay them a price that is owed to them? By the way, I have never seen a Calvinist theologian say that the work for the food is an obligation to work that produces a payment for the obligation. Do you have any sources that you can give me? I appreciate the challenge. Again, you have been most gracious.

I should add, that we need to pay attention to the crowd’s response? Did they understand Jesus’ words? How does their response show that they understood or misunderstood Jesus?

allennelson4, Have a look at this video on John 6 from Calvinist theologian James White https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWHMA5JPu_o In this video he makes it clear that the ones that are following Jesus in John 6 are not of the elect. They have not been given to Jesus. He also reads John 6:27 at the beginning but does not explain or work through the promise that Jesus makes to the crowd. So James White is not seeing that the elect are in the crowd and that they are promised life as part of the crowd. He sees them as the unelect who cannot come to Jesus.

allennelson4, You said: “work and obedience flow FROM a changed heart, not to receive a changed heart.” So what are you saying? Are you saying that Jesus was saying – Truly, truly, I say to you (the elect within the crowd), you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. (And you the elect within the crowd) do not work for the food that perishes, but work (by having repentance and faith because I have made you alive) for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you (the elect out of the crowd)… If this is not what you mean, can you reword Jesus’ words to the crowd to show what you mean?

allennelson4, You said: Again, what you are trying to put forth here makes everyone saved. Not at all. In fact when you read the exegesis of the rest of the passage you will see that I continually make it clear that not everyone is saved or will be saved. I like what you said here: You say you’re just trying to stick with this verse but if you take it as is with your interpretation it is that Jesus is going to give everyone the bread, and that’s not true, because the bread ENDURES to eternal life. I have not yet posted the next article, and I agree with you that the bread ENDURES to eternal life. Perhaps you can give us what you believe the bread to be. Also if you could answer a question from this; you said: And this type of theology is pretty offensive. That’s why many disciples left once Jesus explained it clearly cf. v.66 What exactly is it, that Jesus said, that the disciples found offensive? Which verse do you use to show what it is that His disciples found offensive?

allennelson4, You said: One of the reasons he doesn’t spend so much time on just v.27 is that because it has to be understood in the context of the entire chapter. Unfortunately James White does not explain the phrase “which the Son of Man will give you”. He doesn’t explain it in his books or in his video. He doesn’t explain how that meshes with what comes next. In fact he pretty much ignores it except to read the verse. In the video, James says something that is quite important. He says that anyone who glosses over a verse in the passage is to be suspect. That is a paraphrase from what he said. By his own words, he has made himself suspect because he does not give the meaning to Jesus’ words that are a promise to the crowd. It isn’t a mystery why he doesn’t work through the words, because James makes it clear that the crowd are not ones whom the Father sent Jesus to die for, and they are not given to Jesus. They are false believers, they cannot come to Jesus, and they cannot receive salvation because they are not of the elect. Now you are saying that they are the elect, although maybe not all of them. May I say that you are saying this because you have seen the clear words of Jesus that He promises to give the bread to them. While James ignores these words completely and never explains them, at least you are attempting to try to mesh the words of Jesus with your Calvinist theology. I give you a lot of credit for trying to pay attention to the words of Jesus. As we go through the passage and hit the next verses, I ask you to work out your view with the foundation of Jesus’ words in verse 27 and see how that fits with the remainder of the verses in John 6. I believe that it isn’t going to work for you, but I am interested in seeing you try. This kind of back and forth is iron sharpening iron because we are looking at the actual words and the grammar and paying close attention.

allennelson4, Thanks for your input! Again your comment is a great one and worthy of a response. May I share my understanding? You are incorrect about the passage and about my exegesis. i have not said that EVERYONE “gets” the food, but that the crowd is PROMISED to be GIVEN the food. This is a promise that cannot be overlooked, even if one does not understand what Jesus means. It still is a promise. I have made it clear that not everyone receives the food (eternal life), so not everyone gets food (eternal life). This is the foundation for what is to come with Jesus’ own words. When you say that Jesus doesn’t say “IF you work, I’ll give”, but that His giving is contingent on those working for the food, this would amount to the same thing. Jesus does not make His giving into a payment for a work done. We both have to agree on that point. It would be highly problematic for your own view if Jesus was saying that one needs to earn eternal life, since that would annul the Calvinistic view of the Sovereignty of God. It would also take you outside orthodoxy. What we do see from the verse is: 1. Working for the food that perishes is not about getting paid . It is an effort that results in a harvest. Jesus has said it before: Luke 13:24 (NASB) 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. It is not good enough just to “seek”. Jesus said you must “strive” to enter. To “strive” in order to enter, means to struggle, to “take pains, exert oneself” (BDAG lexicon) just as the term “work”. However, the striving is not to be paid as a obligation, but a “strain every nerve to enter” (BDAG lexicon) to show eternal life is worth the effort to receive. 2. Jesus gave a promise that would not result from a payment made to Him. Not only is the promise unconditional, but to consider the promise as conditional (which the grammar does not support) would make one outside the evangelical faith. That is a problem for both sides, and we should all agree. 3. The seal that is set on Jesus from the Father is attached to The Giving, thus it is not just the promise of Jesus, but the promise of the Father, that to this unbelieving crowd, the Son of Man (Jesus) WILL give eternal life. The points that I have to share will develop over the upcoming posts on the next verses. I appreciate a challenge, because I do believe that one’s view must stand up to examination. As fas as the “seeking” being either “man’s will” or “the Father’s will”, I will leave that to my upcoming posts to discuss, if it is okay with you. I also want to say that I appreciate that you have seen my effort to break down the passage to the inspired words. Thanks! I would also like to encourage you to reflect on the promise that Jesus gave to the crowd. There is no payment requested from the unbelieving crowd, but we cannot ignore the promise. Jesus said “the Son of Man WILL give to you…” I would love to have you around to critique the remaining verses as I take the promise of Jesus and use it as the stepping off point for what comes next. We cannot afford to dismiss the inspired words of Jesus. They will fit in like a glove with His remaining words to the crowd. I would also like to express my appreciation for your graciousness. You have expressed your view without attacking and with consideration for our common Lord. Thank you!