Cheryl Schatz

Peter, I have walked through your case and find no evidence that the actions of the crowd define the meaning of the words of Jesus to be a physical looking at, a physical following. You wrote: 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? The basic reading of the text is the words of Jesus. You did not include most of what He said about believing and coming and eating and drinking in your “context”. Is it not fair to allow Jesus to define His meaning? You also suggested that I am reading in John 6 that the apostle John added a spiritual meaning in verse 37. However, John does not define Jesus’ words. Jesus defines His own words. John merely reported the amazing words that Jesus said. You also wrote that John would not: – 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? John’s words about the crowd are indeed the narrative of their following Jesus, but shortly after that John quotes the words of Jesus that their following Him was not for spiritual reasons but was for physical food. John understood that Jesus’ words were spirit and they were life, because he was there when Jesus said it. But John gives no interpretation himself. Jesus does. The fact is that the crowd understood that Jesus was telling them that they needed to believe, they needed to listen to Him with intention. They walked away because they were unwilling to do that. You wrote: 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. I have included screen prints of the BDAG lexicon showing the spiritual meaning. If you won’t accept their expertise, who will you listen to? The fact is that most of the words that you appealed to were not in John 6:37. They are the actions of the unbelieving crowd. They cannot be used to determine the meaning of the words of Jesus. You wrote: – 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 context is unbelievers. There is no words that say “looking forward” in the passage. Jesus said that unbelief is the reason why He said what He said in John 6:65. John 6:64–65 64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” Notice that Jesus didn’t say that people looking forward to the earthly incarnation of Christ is the reason why He said these words. It is the unbelief that is the direct context of Jesus’ words in John 6:37. If you can find faithful waiting for the Christ from the crowd in this passage, perhaps you can show that to me. You haven’t proven your point at all from the context so far. You wrote: 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. John 17 does not disprove the present tense in John 6:37. You are assuming that your conclusion is true without proving that the present tense of the giving ends without a single verse saying so. This is a logical fallacy. It is called circular reasoning. You wrote: – 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. You again are assuming your own conclusions. Jesus Himself stated that His death brings about His drawing. John 12:32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” You wrote: – your example of Lydia does not hold up as there is no mention of “giving” in the passage – you read that into the text. If this had happened before the cross you would have used this to prove that the people at that time who were believers were given to Jesus. You discount the faith of Lydia and discount the words that the Lord opened her heart as you have already closed the door to believers brought to Jesus through the gospel. You wrote: 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. I am ABSOLUTELY paying attention to the inspired words of Jesus. I am willing to let Jesus define His own words. How on earth would we let the actions of an unbelieving crowd define the words of our Lord and Master? The context is Jesus, Peter, not the actions of unbelievers that put Him into a box. You wrote: To insist, that COMING and SEEING and GIVING are words that have spiritual meanings PRIMARILY is to get there by way of assertion. I said NOTHING of the sort! That is clearly a misrepresentation. The context defines the meaning. When the words are used of the crowd they have a natural physical meaning. Natural meaning is primary in a natural setting. When Jesus uses the words they have a spirit and life meaning, because that us what He said. You wrote: 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. I do not believe I ever said this. What I would have said is that your premise denies that people can be given to Jesus today. Your premise sets up a boundary requiring only people alive on the earth when Jesus was here can be given to Jesus according to the words of Jesus in John 6:37. I say that no Scripture limits the giving to those people and no ending date or event is ever listed as fulfilling the outside date of that prophecy. You wrote: 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. It is completely improper too read the passage by taking the action of unbelievers to define the words of Jesus. John didn’t define the words of Jesus. The crowd didn’t define the words of Jesus. Jesus defined the words of Jesus. Anything less then this is not proper exegesis. You have not taken the time to look up the Greek words and the Greek grammar, but I have. I have tested your theory and it has been found wanting. This is not an attack against you. I have just done as I am instructed to do by the Scripture. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; Amen! The words of our Lord Jesus will stand firm. If you are offended by my testing your theory, I feel for you. But perhaps I have shown you how a theory is tested by the Scripture and with a really good Bible software program. It is amazing in this day and age what we now have available to us at our fingertips with a computer and a good software package. What used to be only available to scholars is now available to the ordinary man or woman. I encourage you to purchase a good software package and use that to test all theories and to prove the integrity of the inspired text. I recommend Logos Bible software. https://www.logos.com . They are having a very good sale right now. I think that it will be worth your while to invest some money into a good software package. 2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.