John 6 the context

The question of whether Jesus is the prophet is repeated throughout John, beginning in chapter 1, but at the end of John 5, Jesus tells them their accuser is Moses, who spoke of Him.

It was never in question with the righteous. Only with sinners. John the Baptist recognized Him immediately.

This leads to two "Moses-like" miracles, the feeding of 5000 and the water miracle (a crossing of the Sea of Galilee.) This leads the crowd to follow him and they begin to question him using Moses as an example. There is a bit of irony here since the example they give is the manna in the wilderness and Jesus has just fed them!.

They rejected Moses and that entire generation died in the wilderness after wondering there for 40 years......

Heb 3:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
Heb 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
Heb 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Similarly, they all forsook Christ they did always did.

Mat 23:31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

Act 7:52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered,
Act 7:53 you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

Stephen lived it as well.

There are two other elements that come into play in this narrative, but they will need to wait a bit until I find some time. One that you might want to experiment with is how we should sentence-outline the section in question.

Please share.
 
I read it. You then dismissed it with what you wrote awards.

I quote "Rather this shifts the emphasis of the discourse to a new group."
Audiences are often multitiered with a primary audience, secondary, and even tertiary audiences. It is clear in the text that this shift is taking place.
There is no reason to discount the fact that the crowd was logically much larger than just the local participates. Jesus was extraordinary popular at the time even to the point of his "followers" giving up everything for him. It wasn't until Jesus demanded his followers accept Him for who He was that these "crowds" diminished.
The crowd is composed of those who came over from the other side of sea (6:22ff).

The text explicitly states that the discussion of took place in the synagogue of Capernaum (John 6:59), so space is limited and he is addressing the authorities. Most exegetes understand John to be referring to the authorities of synagogue with the term "Jews." The term cannot be used generically because the disciples were also Jews.

At 6:60 the audience shifts to disciples in generally. This is not the whole of the crowd. The term "disciple" (μαθητής) is "one who engages in learning through instruction from another, pupil, apprentice." (BDAG) The fact that the terminology changes is significant.

At 6:67 he directly addresses the Twelve.

Paying attention to these shifts is important in exegesis.
It was never in question with the righteous. Only with sinners. John the Baptist recognized Him immediately.



They rejected Moses and that entire generation died in the wilderness after wondering there for 40 years......

Heb 3:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
Heb 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
Heb 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Similarly, they all forsook Christ they did always did.

Mat 23:31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

Act 7:52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered,
Act 7:53 you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

Stephen lived it as well.



Please share.

John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Just like John the Baptist, they tolerated Christ for a while.

John 5:35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.



The context of the public ministry of Christ is clearly stated......

Joh 5:35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.



Back at you...... I think you might be reading into the text a bit here..... You dismissed the context and read your narrative into the text.
I started to respond to this (see post above) and got a phone call. I will add more later.
 
Last edited:
Audiences are often multitiered with a primary audience, secondary, and even tertiary audiences. It is clear in the text that this shift is taking place.

The crowd is composed of those who came over from the other side of sea (6:22ff).

The text explicitly states that the discussion of took place in the synagogue of Capernaum (John 6:59), so space is limited and he is addressing the authorities. Most exegetes understand John to be referring to the authorities of synagogue with the term "Jews." The term cannot be used generically because the disciples were also Jews.

At



I started to respond to this (see post above) and got a phone call. I will add more later.
I'm looking forward to this dialogue. Good conversation @praise_yeshua and @Swordman. I love these types of discussions with the text. And John is my favorite. I pretty much own every recognized commentary on the gospel of John worth its weight.
 
Here are my actual books and I have several other electronic in logos and kindle
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2743.jpeg
    IMG_2743.jpeg
    145.4 KB · Views: 2
  • IMG_2742.jpeg
    IMG_2742.jpeg
    143.6 KB · Views: 2
  • IMG_2741.jpeg
    IMG_2741.jpeg
    123.6 KB · Views: 2
Audiences are often multitiered with a primary audience, secondary, and even tertiary audiences. It is clear in the text that this shift is taking place.

The crowd is composed of those who came over from the other side of sea (6:22ff).

The text explicitly states that the discussion of took place in the synagogue of Capernaum (John 6:59), so space is limited and he is addressing the authorities. Most exegetes understand John to be referring to the authorities of synagogue with the term "Jews." The term cannot be used generically because the disciples were also Jews.

At 6:60 the audience shifts to disciples in generally. This is not the whole of the crowd. The term "disciple" (μαθητής) is "one who engages in learning through instruction from another, pupil, apprentice." (BDAG) The fact that the terminology changes is significant.

At 6:67 he directly addresses the Twelve.

Paying attention to these shifts is important in exegesis.



I started to respond to this (see post above) and got a phone call. I will add more later.

Thanks. I took the day off today. I think I'm going to go see Dune 2 today if nothing changes. I'll follow up.
 
It was never in question with the righteous. Only with sinners. John the Baptist recognized Him immediately.



They rejected Moses and that entire generation died in the wilderness after wondering there for 40 years......

Heb 3:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
Heb 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
Heb 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Similarly, they all forsook Christ they did always did.

Mat 23:31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

Act 7:52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered,
Act 7:53 you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

Stephen lived it as well.
I am not sure where you are headed with this. How does it apply to the text in question?
 
So - I mentioned two other aspects which I will deal with briefly here.

Before I begin, let me state that in spite of your claim, I have not ignored the context. I have expanded it. The broader the context, the less likely we will fall into error in our analysis. The question of whether Jesus is "the prophet who is to come" is raised repeatedly, but John 5:39-47 acts as the introduction to John 6. One specific statement stands out:

"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." (5:46)

John 6 then progresses through two miracles similar to Moses - a feeding miracle and the miracle on the Sea of Galilee. These lead the crowd to pose the question - "

“What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” (John 6:30–31)

The importance of this issue cannot be understated. Moses had promised a new prophet who would restore Israel. What follows must be understood in this light. We have already seen this issue (the relationship of Jesus as Messiah to Moses) in John 1, 3, 4, and 5.

So let me get to my two points:

Pont 1 -

Most scholars understand that John has a realized eschatology. That is, John is not looking into the distant future for the realization of the kingdom, but he looks to the present incarnation of the Messiah and the work that he is doing in his life, death and resurrection. The "last day" is the time of Christ (and that point forward) in this first coming.

This may seem difficult to grasp but put aside John 6 momentarily to see how this plays out in other texts.
  • In John 3 salvation is seen as the receiving of eternal life - here and now - through new birth.
  • In John 11, with the death of Lazarus, Martha states, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." (11:24). Jesus' immediately responds, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” He resurrects Lazarus that day.
  • The last day was considered a time of judgment for the world. Just prior to the cross, Jesus states, "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (12:31–32) The judgment of the world is seen by John as the cross and resurrection.
  • While not in the gospel of John, Peter makes the following statement in Acts 3:22–26.

    Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. 23 And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people.’ 24 And all the prophets, as many as have spoken, from Samuel and those after him, also predicted these days. 25 You are the descendants of the prophets and of the covenant that God gave to your ancestors, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your descendants all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

    The word and terminology used here for raising up is the same as in John 6. While the context is different, it shows a consistent approach among the apostles to the terminology used.
My point here is simple. If we have a consistent picture elsewhere in John of a realized eschatology in the coming of Christ, why would we not see it in John 6 with the terminology of raising up and the last day? That is, does the raising up in John 6 equate to the provision of new life in Christ? This would make the eucharistic statements of John 6:52-58 consistent with the rest of the chapter. This is particularly true of 6:58 - "This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

That is point 1. I will put my second point in another post since it is a bit more complex. I need to take a break here.
 
Last edited:
So - I mentioned two other aspects which I will deal with briefly here.

Before I begin, let me state that in spite of your claim, I have not ignored the context. I have expanded it. The broader the context, the less likely we will fall into error in our analysis. The question of whether Jesus is "the prophet who is to come" is raised repeatedly, but John 5:39-47 acts as the introduction to John 6. One specific statement stands out:

"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." (5:46)

John 6 then progresses through two miracles similar to Moses - a feeding miracle and the miracle on the Sea of Galilee. These lead the crowd to pose the question - "

“What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” (John 6:30–31)

The importance of this issue cannot be understated. Moses had promised a new prophet who would restore Israel. What follows must be understood in this light. We have already seen this issue (the relationship of Jesus as Messiah to Moses) in John 1, 3, 4, and 5.

So let me get to my two points:

Pont 1 -

Most scholars understand that John has a realized eschatology. That is, John is not looking into the distant future for the realization of the kingdom, but he looks to the present incarnation of the Messiah and the work that he is doing in his life, death and resurrection. The "last day" is the time of Christ (and that point forward) in this first coming.

This may seem difficult to grasp but put aside John 6 momentarily to see how this plays out in other texts.
  • In John 3 salvation is seen as the receiving of eternal life - here and now - through new birth.
  • In John 11, with the death of Lazarus, Martha states, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." (11:24). Jesus' immediately responds, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” He resurrects Lazarus that day.
  • The last day was considered a time of judgment for the world. Just prior to the cross, Jesus states, "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (12:31–32) The judgment of the world is seen by John as the cross and resurrection.
  • While not in the gospel of John, Peter makes the following statement in Acts 3:22–26.

    Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. 23 And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people.’ 24 And all the prophets, as many as have spoken, from Samuel and those after him, also predicted these days. 25 You are the descendants of the prophets and of the covenant that God gave to your ancestors, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your descendants all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

    The word and terminology used here for raising up is the same as in John 6. While the context is different, it shows a consistent approach among the apostles to the terminology used.
My point here is simple. If we have a consistent picture elsewhere in John of a realized eschatology in the coming of Christ, why would we not see it in John 6 with the terminology of raising up and the last day? That is, does the raising up in John 6 equate to the provision of new life in Christ? This would make the eucharistic statements of John 6:52-58 consistent with the rest of the chapter. This is particularly true of 6:58 - "This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

That is point 1. I will put my second point in another post since it is a bit more complex. I need to take a break here.
Jesus differentiates between the spiritual resurrection of his time and the physical resurrection on the last day

John 5:24–29 (KJV 1900) — 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
 
I am not sure where you are headed with this. How does it apply to the text in question?

I believe it is a mistake is see Messiah solely as a "prophet" that lived and died similarly to many prophets before Him. It is a matter of perspective. Though submissive in His work, He was the REASON for all things. "For His pleasure" began before the foundation of this world.

There was never anyone just like Jesus. Which is were I try to begin all things relative to my theology. I hope that helps.
 
What part of no previously stated did you not understand?

now please address the verses

faith precedes life

John 20:31 (KJV 1900) — 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 5:40 (KJV 1900) — 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

John 6:53 (KJV 1900) — 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Does good come from the flesh?
 
Audiences are often multitiered with a primary audience, secondary, and even tertiary audiences. It is clear in the text that this shift is taking place.

The crowd is composed of those who came over from the other side of sea (6:22ff).

The Jewish "landscape" (people) was/are historically full of competing agendas. They had abandoned God when they decided to establish a hierarchy in their public lives beginning with insisting upon a "king" to rule them. Unlike our Benevolent King (Jesus Christ) all kings seek their own. Kings must maintain order and absolute obedience. As such there are many levels of "authority" among the Jews. Regional hierarchies and even spies. Religious sects including Pharisees, Sadducees, and even Essenes. "Lawyers".

Jesus had a common problem with them all. Unbelief. It didn't matter if they claimed to be accepting of Messiah or not. They only wanted Him for that they thought they could get from Him.

When they finally realized that He wouldn't do what they wanted Him to do, that is where the "meaningful" shift took place in the life of Christ relative to His message and actions.

The text explicitly states that the discussion of took place in the synagogue of Capernaum (John 6:59), so space is limited and he is addressing the authorities. Most exegetes understand John to be referring to the authorities of synagogue with the term "Jews." The term cannot be used generically because the disciples were also Jews.

Before Christ was even born, Jew had long been a common term of reference. "Jew" is a derivative of the "Northern Kingdom" Judah. No matter the "audience", these were people trying to coerce Christ and share in his popularity and power. As such, none of them really knew Him.

John 2:25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

At 6:60 the audience shifts to disciples in generally. This is not the whole of the crowd. The term "disciple" (μαθητής) is "one who engages in learning through instruction from another, pupil, apprentice." (BDAG) The fact that the terminology changes is significant.

Even disciples are naive and childish. They often don't understand what they see or hear. Yes. Some stood with Him longer than others. Everyone of them got offended in Him and abandoned Him. All but John, His mother and a loving companion truer than even John.

At 6:67 he directly addresses the Twelve.

Paying attention to these shifts is important in exegesis.

At times. Yes. In these contexts all of those referenced had issues with not believing Him to an extensive degree. Some heard things that others did not but the context was almost always relating to someone not believing what He said. ALL of them had their own agendas... Including the disciples.

Imagine God among us lowly mortals...... and having the nerve to ask God to let us sit at the "right hand and left hand" of Christ in His kingdom......

That was me many years ago. I was a fool..... I don't see things that way anymore. It is a matter of perspective.
 
Last edited:
So - I want to progress to point 2, but it occurred to me that I had a text outline with color-coded comparisons and indentations for highlighting parallels and differences. (That is how my mind works.) I had this in a presentation format and want to review it before I show it here.

However, it seems to be eluding me on my computer. (I cannot remember where I put it.)

Give me a few days and I will post one way or another.
 
Still depends on how you define in the flesh
As to we humans it is anything opposed to the Spirit. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Hence, nothing in the flesh is pleasing to God. Does He mean your physical body? That can't be right. Coming to faith is certainly pleasing to God.
 
As to we humans it is anything opposed to the Spirit. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Hence, nothing in the flesh is pleasing to God. Does He mean your physical body? That can't be right. Coming to faith is certainly pleasing to God.

Believing in Christ would not be opposed to the spirit
 
Point 2 –

This point is based on some research I did a few years back and a presentation I did at SBL in 2021 on John 6:35–40, the first part of the bread of life discourse. I want to present a summary of this before I approach John 6:41–51 because the same approach can be used there.

I want to start by saying this summary may not do the whole study justice, but I do offer it as a starting point for further investigation.

When examining 6:35–40, I noticed a difference in pronouns that most had ignored or explained away. In verses 37 and 39, John (speaking for Jesus) used the neuter PAN (“everything”) to describe what was given to Jesus. He then switches to the masculine PAS (“everyone”) when speaking of people who come to him.

The common interpretation of this was that the neuter was simply being used as a masculine and this referred to “everyone” who the Father gives to Jesus. Indeed, even the NIV translated this as “All whom the Father gives me . . .” Rudolf Schnackenburg goes so far as to say the use of the neuter for the masculine is common. Others, like Ray Brown, F. F. Bruce and Max Zerwick, suggest that the use of the neuter denotes a corporate giving to Christ. That is, the Father gives all who believe in Jesus.

While the idea of a corporate giving was compelling (particularly for Arminians), I did not find it satisfying. It really did not explain why John would use the masculine “all” (PAS) a few verses later (6:40, 45) to refer to people, nor did it appear consistent with the use of the masculine participle in the same context. Upon investigating how the neuter PAN was used elsewhere, I could find none that matched Schnackenburg’s claim. Instead, they all followed the general rule for relative pronouns (which PAN is modifying), which states it agrees in gender and number with the noun or pronoun to which it refers. A secondary rule that fits best with this is that it refers back to a whole clause before the pronoun.

The antecedent to this statement is defined in the question posed by the crowd:

30 So they said to him, “What sign (neuter) are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work (neuter) are you performing? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” (John 6:30–31 NRSV)

This is the question that Jesus is answering.

I know this is very technical, but let us look at the text of John 6:35–40. I have outlined it below to see the parallels to the response to the crowd. I am going to label the parts “C” (for Claim) and “R” (for Response) so you can see the format of the parallels in what Jesus is saying. Verse 36 is an interposed comment about the crowd’s actual response. Hence I am showing it in parentheses.

C—35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life.
R—Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.​

(36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. )​

C—37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me,
R—and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away;​

C—38 for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
R—40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.”[1]

So what does this tell us?

Jesus is making a series of claims about himself and his work and then showing the proper response to that work. The proper response is to "believe" or “come to me.” The terms are used as equivalent acts. Those who come or believe are raised up on the last day. That is, they are given eternal life. Whether you agree with my prior analysis or not about the definition of the “last day” in John, the condition for being raised up is belief. That is the proper response to the work, repeated three times in the text. Those who do not believe will not participate in the eschatological reign of God on the last day.

Coming to Jesus, and seeing and believing all equate to the same thing—we must believe in Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah to receive eternal life. (See also, John 3:13–18 for an equivalent passage.)

So does this same type of flow apply to John 6:41–47? Absolutely.

John 6:41–42 raised a complaint by the Jews (not the crowd, but the Jewish authorities of the synagogue) about Jesus’ claim that he is the bread that came down from heaven. We have that same format in Jesus’s reply.

41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Establishes the fundamental concern—Jesus as the bread that came down from heaven.

C—43 Jesus answered them, “Do not complain among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me;
R—and I will raise that person up on the last day.​

C—45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’
R—Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.​

C—46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
R—47 Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life.​

C—48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
R—50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.​

C—51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
R—Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”​

Here again we see a series of equivalent phrases in the response section. The one who comes, the one has heard and learned, the one who believes, the one who eats the bread all have the same meaning. It is the believer that receives eternal life.

In 6:44 the question is whether John is saying that that all who are drawn are raised up, or whether the one who comes is raised up. We know from the prior response to the crowd that it is the one who comes. The drawing enables one to come. While expressed in the negative, that is precisely what the text says. “No one is able (δύναται) to come unless drawn by the Father.” No one disputes that God must empower by the Spirit (6:63) and the words of Christ (6:68). (Note that it is the words of Christ that embody the Spirit.)

These parallels continue throughout the chapter, including eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ (a Eucharistic message) that provides life.

What then is the drawing of the Father? If Christ is the agent, the shaliach or emissary, of the Father, then what Christ does is what the Father is doing to draw all persons. That is why we cannot dismiss John 12:31–32 in understanding how the drawing occurs. It is the cross of Christ that actually draws people. This is an act of the Father and is the judgment of the world. (See also 5:25–29.)

I think that is enough for now. Maybe too much. It is pretty hard to summarize the whole analysis in such a short space.

I will invite any comments or questions at this point.
 
Point 2 –

This point is based on some research I did a few years back and a presentation I did at SBL in 2021 on John 6:35–40, the first part of the bread of life discourse. I want to present a summary of this before I approach John 6:41–51 because the same approach can be used there.

I want to start by saying this summary may not do the whole study justice, but I do offer it as a starting point for further investigation.

When examining 6:35–40, I noticed a difference in pronouns that most had ignored or explained away. In verses 37 and 39, John (speaking for Jesus) used the neuter PAN (“everything”) to describe what was given to Jesus. He then switches to the masculine PAS (“everyone”) when speaking of people who come to him.

The common interpretation of this was that the neuter was simply being used as a masculine and this referred to “everyone” who the Father gives to Jesus. Indeed, even the NIV translated this as “All whom the Father gives me . . .” Rudolf Schnackenburg goes so far as to say the use of the neuter for the masculine is common. Others, like Ray Brown, F. F. Bruce and Max Zerwick, suggest that the use of the neuter denotes a corporate giving to Christ. That is, the Father gives all who believe in Jesus.

While the idea of a corporate giving was compelling (particularly for Arminians), I did not find it satisfying. It really did not explain why John would use the masculine “all” (PAS) a few verses later (6:40, 45) to refer to people, nor did it appear consistent with the use of the masculine participle in the same context. Upon investigating how the neuter PAN was used elsewhere, I could find none that matched Schnackenburg’s claim. Instead, they all followed the general rule for relative pronouns (which PAN is modifying), which states it agrees in gender and number with the noun or pronoun to which it refers. A secondary rule that fits best with this is that it refers back to a whole clause before the pronoun.

The antecedent to this statement is defined in the question posed by the crowd:

30 So they said to him, “What sign (neuter) are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work (neuter) are you performing? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” (John 6:30–31 NRSV)

This is the question that Jesus is answering.

I know this is very technical, but let us look at the text of John 6:35–40. I have outlined it below to see the parallels to the response to the crowd. I am going to label the parts “C” (for Claim) and “R” (for Response) so you can see the format of the parallels in what Jesus is saying. Verse 36 is an interposed comment about the crowd’s actual response. Hence I am showing it in parentheses.

C—35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life.
R—Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.​

(36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. )​

C—37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me,
R—and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away;​

C—38 for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
R—40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.”[1]

So what does this tell us?

Jesus is making a series of claims about himself and his work and then showing the proper response to that work. The proper response is to "believe" or “come to me.” The terms are used as equivalent acts. Those who come or believe are raised up on the last day. That is, they are given eternal life. Whether you agree with my prior analysis or not about the definition of the “last day” in John, the condition for being raised up is belief. That is the proper response to the work, repeated three times in the text. Those who do not believe will not participate in the eschatological reign of God on the last day.

Coming to Jesus, and seeing and believing all equate to the same thing—we must believe in Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah to receive eternal life. (See also, John 3:13–18 for an equivalent passage.)

So does this same type of flow apply to John 6:41–47? Absolutely.

John 6:41–42 raised a complaint by the Jews (not the crowd, but the Jewish authorities of the synagogue) about Jesus’ claim that he is the bread that came down from heaven. We have that same format in Jesus’s reply.

41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Establishes the fundamental concern—Jesus as the bread that came down from heaven.

C—43 Jesus answered them, “Do not complain among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me;
R—and I will raise that person up on the last day.​

C—45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’
R—Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.​

C—46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
R—47 Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life.​

C—48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
R—50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.​

C—51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
R—Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”​

Here again we see a series of equivalent phrases in the response section. The one who comes, the one has heard and learned, the one who believes, the one who eats the bread all have the same meaning. It is the believer that receives eternal life.

In 6:44 the question is whether John is saying that that all who are drawn are raised up, or whether the one who comes is raised up. We know from the prior response to the crowd that it is the one who comes. The drawing enables one to come. While expressed in the negative, that is precisely what the text says. “No one is able (δύναται) to come unless drawn by the Father.” No one disputes that God must empower by the Spirit (6:63) and the words of Christ (6:68). (Note that it is the words of Christ that embody the Spirit.)

These parallels continue throughout the chapter, including eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ (a Eucharistic message) that provides life.

What then is the drawing of the Father? If Christ is the agent, the shaliach or emissary, of the Father, then what Christ does is what the Father is doing to draw all persons. That is why we cannot dismiss John 12:31–32 in understanding how the drawing occurs. It is the cross of Christ that actually draws people. This is an act of the Father and is the judgment of the world. (See also 5:25–29.)

I think that is enough for now. Maybe too much. It is pretty hard to summarize the whole analysis in such a short space.

I will invite any comments or questions at this point.

Fascinating. I didn't notice the change from PAN to PAS until you brought it up.
 
Back
Top Bottom