Peter McKenzie

Hi Cheryl, thanks for responding. Here are answers to your specific questions: //He is not praying for just “these alone” (the disciples) but also for those who believe (present tense) because of their word. Jesus has not had physical care of these ones who believed because of the preaching of the disciples.// I agree that in John 17, Jesus may not have care over those second generation believers – but that isn’t ruled out by the text. If He is still alive when they also begin to follow Him, it seems that He would be caring for them as well. I would just say that they are not the primary subjects in view in the prayer. They are included in the prayer – but in verse 20 Jesus is again talking about the “ones the Father gave him” as a specific, identifiable group of existing people. In verse 26, he says that “I made your name know to them” so that is a past tense action – which identifies the ones verse 24 as again being existing believers. //In John 6:37 Jesus speaks of a future giving of people who do not yet know Him. Can we agree that the giving of people to Jesus spoken of in John 6 is not a “giving” that is from eternity past? // That is a good question. I would not be that quick to say that this “future giving of people” extends beyond the lifetime of Jesus. That is my main point – and one where I may have confused you. I absolutely agree that no one was given to Jesus from eternity past. So, in maintaining that the giving is an action limited to the time period of Jesus’ ministry, it rules out any notion of a metaphysical/spiritual giving. My premise is that if we read the text in this way (and I think it is the right way) it completely disallows the Calvinist way of reading it – which has determined how most non-Calvinists read it as well. The giving was a specific, earthly act that took place for 3 years. So in verse 37, it is not implausible to read it as (paraphrasing): “Everything that the Father gives me (in the next 3 years) will come to me, and anyone who comes to me (in the next 3 years) I will never drive away”. As I mentioned in a previous comment this “driving away” helps to locate the “giving” in the first part of the phrase as a then-specific occasion. There is no reason to consider that the Father is giving anyone to Jesus today. To concede that to the Calvinists opens the door to acknowledging that the Father does give ones to Jesus – and gives way to the notion of irresistible grace and unconditional election. If we isolate the giving to a then only event, it upsets their apple cart. Which is not to say that is what should motivate our hermeneutics – just that the careful reading grants clarity of truth and the by-product is that it defeats their view. One thing that points toward a limited setting, is seen in verse 38. The will of the Father is seen as an event which had a set time frame. It was done while Jesus was on earth. IOW that will was done after being “sent down from heaven” and “done by the one who sent Him”. In verse 39, we see what the “will” is. It is losing none of the pre-existing, believing Jews – those who are said to to be “the ones that were given to Him”. //Jesus’ words reflect Matthew 7:23 where in the end times Jesus will command the unbeliever to depart from Him. However in John 6:37, Jesus used the aorist tense which in this instance does not indicate time…Jesus is not referring to the ones who will be cast out but the ones who will never be cast out. There is no view of Jesus casting people out in our time that I can see from John 6.// That is an interesting observation – and one I hadn’t considered. I haven’t looked at the original language to see if “casting out” is the same thing as “driving away”. If it is, your point is certainly weighty. My only observation is that, in the context of John 6, Jesus is driving away people at that time (and this notion is substantiated by the fact that many left him). So, if “driving away” can be said to a physical, earthly rejection of anyone who would try to follow him – with wrong motivation, it takes on a different nuance than does the judgement day scene in Matthew 7. I am not a Greek scholar, so perhaps you can answer (and help me understand) whether or not the use of the aorist tense allows for a reading of a time-based understanding of a judgement day future “driving away” – which comports with the present day action of people coming to him…” I see this passage as primarily being about discipleship – and not a salvific passage. That is not to say that salvation doesn’t factor in – just that He is mainly dealing with people who want to follow Him for the wrong reason. Not sure if that helps…