Peter McKenzie

From the beginning of our discussion, we both agreed that we enjoy irenic discussion the best. If you look back to the original comments, you will see that you were the first one to “take the gloves” off. Since then you have accused me of being a dispensationalist, of having a poor regard for the authority of Scripture, having a poor understanding of the Trinity as well as other personal attacks. I have done none of that with you. I have been direct with you since you amped up the heat – in keeping with the same style that you exhibit. Near the beginning, I suggested that I may leave the conversation if you continue to make it a personal thing. More recently, I called you out again and you ignored that comment. Now you are accusing me of accusing you – and are trying to paint me as a dysfunctional, wounded person. I have not questioned your motives at all – just your premise. I stand by the same case I have held since the beginning – that being that you are simply wrong at the core or the basic reading level of the argument. No matter how well put together your argument is surrounding the periphery, if you are mistaken at the core level you can never be correct after that. I have tried as well as I can to show you how the passage should be read and you have rejected that. Here is one last attempt to explain my case: THE COMING – Let’s do some careful, investigative reading to see if the COMING is a literal one – or carries a symbolic, spiritual meaning WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORDS OF THE PASSAGE. All mentions of the word “come” in John 6 leading up to verse 37 were in relation to actual people AT THAT TIME, actually, literally “coming”. We can see this in: – verse 2 – “a large crowd kept FOLLOWING him” – verse 5 – “..he looked up and saw a large crowd COMING toward him…” – verse 15 – “When Jesus saw that they were about to COME and take him by force…” – verse 24 – 25 – “…they themselves got into the boats and WENT to Capernaum LOOKING for Jesus. When they FOUND him…they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you COME here?” – verse 26 – “Jesus answered them, Very truly, I tell you, you are not LOOKING for me (for the purpose of being true disciples)..” (italics mine) Also, in verses 65-67, it is interesting to notice that COMING is juxtaposed against GOING AWAY: – verse 65 – “And he said, For this reason (some didn’t believe) I have told you that no one can COME to me unless it is granted by the Father” – verse 66 – “Because of this many of his disciples turned back and NO LONGER WENT ABOUT WITH HIM”. – Verse 67 – “So Jesus asked the 12, ‘Do you also wish to GO AWAY”? So, we can see that, contextually, COMING can be (in the passage) interpreted as physically following – or GOING ABOUT WITH HIM. It can also be understood as: NOT TURNING BACK and NOT GOING AWAY FROM HIM. There should be no objection to this as it is not controversial. It is merely drawing a conclusion from doing the basic reading of the text. To ignore these findings FROM the text is to potentially rip the words from their context. Given that all other mention of the word COME carry a literal meaning, do you think that John would: – arbitrarily plunk a spiritual meaning of the word in verse 37? – arbitrarily switch the nuance of the narrative from a literal understanding (that flows with the narrative) to a theological principle that carries a symbolic meaning, wherein the hearers may have questioned (huh?) and perhaps not understood? PROBLEMS WITH A “SPIRITUAL COMING”: (I almost didn’t include this piece – as I fear you will focus on it and not on my MAIN point above). – it ignores the context. – it ignores the components of the setting: 1. pre-existing people LOOKING FORWARD to the earthly incarnation of Christ. 2. by extension the obvious fact that LOOKING FORWARD is a moot point given the ascension of Jesus. The ones that are said to be the “GIVEN” ones in ch 17 were those who believed in a coming Messiah – not ones that were to believe in a Messiah who had already come. – the example of Paul coming to faith without being “given by the Father” defeats the notion of a “spiritual coming” in John 6:44. “No one comes to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me”. Paul’s conversion was post-cross and it CANNOT be said that the Father drew him. Paul’s conversion was all Jesus. – your example of Lydia does not hold up as there is no mention of “giving” in the passage – you read that into the text. I am not suggesting that the Father does not involve himself in the lives of people who are seeking truth. This is a descriptive scenario and not a prescriptive one. It is clear to me that you are trying to build a doctrinal construct without paying attention FIRSTLY to what the context and the setting are saying. This is not a good method of hermeneutics. To insist, that COMING and SEEING and GIVING are words that have spiritual meanings PRIMARILY is to get there by way of assertion. Doing so ignores the context and the setting and situation/occasion of the text. It is a straw man when you object by saying that my premise here denies further application for us today. I AM NOT saying that. What I AM saying is that any application is not useful for us today if we don’t start by CORRECTLY reading the passage as a first exercise. Failing to do that is putting the cart before the horse. After we determine what the passage meant to the original hearers – then we can go on to application for today’s readers.