Peter McKenzie

ou 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. I suggest that, while Jesus does define HIs own words, it is our task to interpret those words. That is what we are doing now. I am trying to be consistent with the context in determining a definition. 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. What i meant was that, today people don’t look forward to the coming of Jesus – they look back. This is one thing that distinguishes now and then – and sheds doubt on the universal giving that you are positing. 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. Actually, I am not discounting anything. I am just saying that you are front-loading your premise into this situation. 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. Although I don’t agree that the Father gives people today – I am not dying on that hill. All I am saying is that you can’t get that from this passage. Doing so goes beyond the context. You have gone from “given” people who were alive at the time – and applied that to future people. The text says nothing about future giving. John 17 specifically portrays a group of existing people. 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. Actually, I am doing proper exegesis – which is asking questions of the text. You have gone on about Jesus defining His own words. But that requires investigation – otherwise we just assert what we think his words mean. I am not sure what you are referring to when you say I am letting the action for unbelievers define his words. What I am is letting their actions and words, help me as I read the passage – in order to figure out what His words might mean in the CONTEXT. Are you suggesting that we not do that? Just read his words in isolation? You again are assuming your own conclusions. Jesus Himself stated that His death brings about His drawing. Re your comment about Paul here, I am unsure what you mean. My point was that the Father did not draw Paul – thus there was no “giving”. My point was that Jesus did the drawing – not the Father. That fact in itself defeats your premise of a universal, continuous giving. Paul was resisting the truth of Jesus being God in the flesh – but Jesus intervened.