Peter McKenzie

Hi Cheryl. Thanks you so much for your comments. It seems like the crux of our where we disagree distills down to verse 39. In the context of the entire passage, my reading doesn’t cause any strain on the narrative. (I am not saying yours does either at the outset). But, as you know, we need to establish first what the setting was – and how the original hearers would have heard the words of Jesus. It can’t mean something to us that it didn’t meant to them. In that regard, a brief synopsis reveals that: – Jesus was speaking primarily to Jews – mostly those who don’t believe him – those Jews were following him around the country side with the wrong motivation – a desire for physical food – He was trying to get them to go away as He only wanted followers who believed Him. In that sense his offensive language served its purpose – the Father’s drawing was an act that applied specifically to regenerate Jew’s s who believed prior to the arrival of Jesus. These people were not just the 12 disciples. The “drawing” is defined in verse 45 – it is essentially described as being “taught” by God. – the “giving” is something that took place when the care of these ones was transferred from the Father to these specific people. From the setting that is in view, there is no need to consider (as a first notion) that Jesus is engaging in general theological teaching. He is instructing a specific people with specific information for a specific situation. It is no different than any one of Paul’s occasional letters. So, in doing the first step of observation, we notice that Jesus does use the present tense of the word “giving” in verse 37. However, if we imagine the setting and consider what it would be like if we were present at that time, there is no need to consider a present continuous action that Jesus is describing here. Given that more and more people will come to Him with right motivation (due to the teaching of John the Baptist for example) in other locations – and given that those ones will “come” to Him in order to follow Him (in a physical desire), there is no valid reason to say that the use of the present continuous action needs to continue after He ascends from the earth. Let’s assume for the moment that the use of His mention of “driving away” is purely an eschatological occasion. Even then there is no reason to eliminate a notion of people being given to Jesus by the Father (in a then-specific-caretaking sense) – who are then not “cast out” at the last day. This same scenario can be seen in verse 40. In fact, I think it is the proper way to read that verse. IE. “those who physically see Jesus and believe Him will have eternal life and Jesus will rise them up on the first day. In the context of the passage – and as those ones present would have heard the words, they would have understood these straight forward words. What I am suggesting here is the first order observation of the text. Does that mean if we move on to interpretation and application, that people reading the Bible today can’t take away truth from this verse? Of course not. Even though I can’t “see” Jesus in a physical sense, I can realize that if I believe in Jesus I can have eternal life. So, I don’t think the “driving away” as seen as you do, is a stumbling block to our argument. Having said that, I think a good case can be made for a setting-based “driving away” scenario. You mentioned that they stopped following Jesus because of unbelief. That is true – but that actually proves my point. His offensive language was not the thing that caused their unbelief though. It simply was the thing that exposed their pre-existing unbelief. It sussed out the fact that they were improperly motivated. Given that He did not want a huge entourage of unbelievers following him around the country side, it is not implausible to consider that His rationale was to “drive away” believers. At that time. A few things to note at this point: – we know that God is not a respecter of persons – we know that Jesus said that blessed are those who don’t turn away because of Him. (Matt 11:6) In your article, you said //And those who believe the Father’s revelation about Jesus, will be allowed to come to Jesus. It is all about faith in the amount of revelation that one has been given// As I mentioned, the subjects of this passage was Jews. So the first sentence here is correct. In that setting, the ones who believed the Father’s revelation would be those who it could be said to be “drawn by the Father”. That aligns with the context of the passage. But I disagree with the second sentence in that it seems to portray unconditional election. People today may respond to the gospel having had differing amounts of available revelation – but to infer that some have been “given” more and some have been “given” less implies that God is a respecter of persons. My personal view is that there is a great amount of revelation that is available to all – and the accessibility of that revelation only really varies to the extent that some seek for it more than others. You asked a few specific questions which I did not have time to address here – but I will get to them later. As I said though, I think that one aspect of our disagreement comes from moving on to interpretation and application too quickly. I am sure that your questions will arise once more after you read this bit that I have just written. I will leave you with this: if the Father is still giving Gentiles to Jesus today, in what manner do you see this “giving” coming about? If it is about giving them special revelation wouldn’t that be akin to an unconditional election – and be a case of the Father actually being a respecter of persons? For the record, many people are saved today who don’t previously believe that God exists – but come to believe in Jesus through the gospel and then accept the truth of God’s existence by way of that process. IOW they didn’t have to have a Jewish-based knowledge of the Father before they could proceed to exercising faith in Jesus. These ones do an end run of sorts.