Cheryl Schatz

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.