Peter McKenzie

Jesus did not say “there are some of you who do not believe and I want you unbelievers to be driven away from Me”. That is foreign to the passage. He did not say that, but the words He spoke served that very purpose. I still maintain that this is about discipleship. Earlier in the passage he told those present to work for food that endures. If this was a salvific passage, that would be akin to teaching works salvation. So, in that regard, it makes complete sense that He was trying to separate out the true disciples from the wannabes. Re Judas, I would simply say that He diid believe – except his flesh go the better of him at some point, which puts him in a different class than the others. I don’t think it is necessary to place a demand on the text and try to make it say precisely what we need it to say or we will not except it. Many commentators have made this same point. As well, it is entirely within the range of sound reasoning to consider that Jesus is teaching truth with a desire that some would come to believe knowing full well that any imposters would go away. We may have to disagree on this point. I see that it is in the text even though it is not spelled out in exact words. I am not sure I can say much more to convince you otherwise. Next point: “For I have come down from heaven :not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” Here it is very clear that Jesus has come down to do the Father’s will – which is to lose none of those who the Father sent him. That is the specific will that is germane to this passage. You then said: The grammar shows that the one who comes (present tense) is the one who believes (present tense) as the one who continues to come (continues to believe). The believer who continues to put his faith in Jesus will never (double negative) be cast out. This does nothing to refute my premise. The grammar is present tense and I am not disputing that. Where I see it differently, is that by considering the setting (of Jesus’ earthly ministry which is in view here) the FIRST thing to notice is that he is saying what he is saying to the Jews present and he is telling THEM how this relates to them. They are the initial recipients. That is the observation stage reading that should not be overlooked. What you are arguing for is a part of the interpretation stage.So, as we make observation of what the grammar is conveying, we should not fail to consider the setting that the grammar is being tempered by. Where we differ here is that I am simply looking at the grammar and tying it to the context of the previous verses. Given that what He says applies to these ones within the setting and context, it doesn’t do any violence to the text to suggest that He is telling them a universal truth that is applicable to them at that time. By saying that, I am not saying that there isn’t an interpretation that leads to an application for future generations of believers. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t jump there first – and if we do jump there first, it shouldn’t overrule what the original conversation was pointing at. So, to clarify, I am simply saying that there is a present tense in the words of Jesus – as He spoke AT THAT TIME. That is not to imply that the truth of what He said won’t carry forward universally. Just that it also doesn’t disqualify my premise – as it fits this context perfectly well. Where you and I disagree is at the first sentence of your comment here. I am saying that the one “who comes” was one who was coming at the time of his ministry – present tense at that time but a past setting (from our perspective).