Peter McKenzie

You wrote: the only “context” that you seem to provide is what you think the people are thinking. You don’t actually prove your point with the actual context or the actual words. When we do exegesis, we are trying to understand the words as the original hearers would have heard them. This is NOT a mystical exercise involving imagination – as you seem to suggest. It is actually the proven and readily accepted methodology of exegesis. It should be the first thing we do when we read any text. Otherwise, we risk getting stuck in wooden views which take words out of context. So contrary to what you say here, I am MOST interested in the context – but it is the context of what the words meant in their ORIGINAL SETTING. In that regard, we should be focusing our conversation on just that. Here is what I suggest Jesus is saying to these Jews (AS THE RECIPIENTS OF THE WORDS – OR AS THE FIRST HEARERS) and how they would have heard it. I have done some bracketing to help explain myself. As a disclaimer, this is NOT me changing the word of God. It is simply a tool to help you understand my point: 35 Jesus said to them (the unbelieving Jews), “I am the bread of life. Whoever (particularly YOU since you are the ones I am talking to here and it is YOU who this directly applies to at this time) will never be hungry, and whoever (of YOU in particular) believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But I say to you (Jews) that you (Jews) have (actually, physically) seen me (and have seen the miracles that I have done) and yet you (Jews) do not believe. 37 Everything (including, and in particular you people) that the Father gives me (as I go about preaching and displaying the truth of the kingdom) will come (with the purpose of following me coupled with believing in me), and anyone (who believes in me) I will never drive away (because I will accept them); 38 FOR (explaining previous section) I have come down from heaven (for a short time), not to do my own will, but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose nothing of all that He has given me (pre-existing believers in the Messiah prior to the arrival of Jesus), but raise it up on the last day. This is not an example of me practicing my imagination. It is simply using common sense to discern how these people would have heard the words he said. I may be wrong here – but your correction of me should be in the realm of what I have said HERE – as the starting point to our disagreement. I am simply alleging that IN THE CONTEXT of the passage and the setting of that day, the “coming” and the “giving” have a different nuance than what you are claiming they have. In John 20:29 Jesus said, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” So there is even scriptural reference to the distinction between physically seeing and not physically seeing (yet still believing). This verse reveals the fact that when Jesus says that these Jews DID see and DIDN”T believe, He is referring to them ACTUALLY seeing with their physical eyes – and not a revelatory, metaphorical “seeing” IN THE PASSAGE. The bottom line: this is all a matter of reading the passage carefully so that from there, we can derive a proper interpretation and then a proper application for our own lives. Remember the word spoken were first said to them and not to us. I am merely claiming, that in supplying the comments in brackets, that this is how the original hearers would have heard it. It was a message to THEM – so it had to make sense to them. I am confident that it would have – presented in the way that I have suggested. What I am saying is not controversial. The context reveals that this is a time specific mission dealing with setting-specific people. Since it is an earthly mission done during the life time of Jesus that has a built in expiry date (the crucifixion day) – common sense should tell us that the specifics of the mission will become moot once the parameters of the mission no longer exist. The question remains – Does this setting-specific “giving” act as a template or model of a universal type of giving that carries on beyond the setting here? I am not saying that that is not possibly the case. But to argue that it is a universal principle, there needs to be some evidence that goes beyond mere assertion IMO. Nowhere else in scripture is there anything said about the Father giving people to Jesus. Given that lack of evidence and the specific nature of the term in John 6, it would seem reasonable to question why there is a need to press that point – let alone the implications of what doing so brings about.