Cheryl Schatz

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.