John 10:26

[Huiou_Theou]

Due to time constraints and my dislike of going around in circles arguing, I’ll reduce the argument to these two:

circular argument, I’m surprised you admit that – or are you rationalizing?

“sheep” is simply meant to denote their chosen state?

You have already admitted that being a sheep does not necessarily mean belief.
So, being a sheep doesn’t denote chosen state – it denotes potentially chosen state.

“You do not believe because you are not my sheep because you do not listen”?

Yes, that is logical.

eisegesis – my interpretation is the one that is taken out of the text.

Mine is pulled from the text as well – you haven’t demonstrated a single logical point to the contrary. There is no definition of how one becomes a sheep in the parable; God is the owner of everything including the devil – so any sheep is necessarily his in an ultimate sense. So, the problem is, delineating what “not my sheep” really means when God-Man says it. It isn’t a legal contract where Jesus gives money to someone for a slave – so in what way can Jesus possibly “own” any of the sheep?

To take the point a step further, look at what Jesus says in this other passage:

Mark 6:33 And the people saw them going or came to know about it, ; gathering from all the cities, they hurried to the place by land and were there before them.
Mark 6:34 So, when he disembarked, Jesus saw a great multitude there, and took pity on them, since they were like sheep without a shepherd
Mark 6:35 and began to give them long instruction.

The context makes it clear that these people are likened to sheep because they followed him physically to the other side. His instruction shows that they were not instructed disciples, and his statement is a blanket remark about all of them. So, here we have an example of physical following generating the idea of sheep in Jesus’ mind. The immediate next step is that he begins teaching for many are listening.

Many of them did begin to believe at this point; but I can show something more:

The other gospel writers show clearly that Jesus also healed the sick on this occasion. In John 6:22-25;
So, then when this same crowd follows him back – they are not there for more healing – and look what Jesus says to them:
John 6:26 Jesus answered them, believe me, if you are looking for me now it is not because of the miracles you have seen; it is because you were fed with the loaves.

There is no mention of faith even yet; We have listening and following lead to being called sheep. The utilitarian reason for following Jesus (free food) is shown again in John 6:34 Then, Lord, they said, give us this bread always.

It is in this context, where unbelief is rampant – but some are beginning to believe because they have heard the teaching – that Jesus first says:

John 6:37 All that the Father has entrusted me will come to me.

He did NOT say anything of the sort before the people followed him to the other side of the lake.

…cont…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Now: at this critical junction – where the people try to force Jesus to make more bread – John 6:27 - 37 that Jesus tells them the work they must do is to believe.

The sequence went:
Following Jesus physically upon listening to friends → sheep → listening to Jesus teach → father gave me (at this point) → do the work of belief.

It is after all this that he says: John 6:62 Does this try your faith?
And to his elect?? he says;
John 6:67 After this many of his old disciples walked with him no more in his company. Whereupon Jesus said to the twelve, Would you too go away?

At every step this drips with the idea of “will”. There is no point in asking his elect – would you too go away – nor is there any point in calling belief a work that the whole crowd must do, if they could not do it.

Again, it would NOT have been their fault if he had not preached to them.
He gave the invitation – they refused.

It would be foolish to discuss the interpretation of a text if anyone was allowed to carry preconceived notions to the text and merely explain how the text is consistent with these notions – no, rather, we must extract the teaching from the text. Such is the only honest way to read.

We must also look at the mind of the one speaking, as he reveals it in other places.

Certainly the text speaks of the sheep as listening to Christ the shepherd, but nothing in the text indicates that listening is a cause of becoming a sheep – and if it were, the analogy would be destroyed as either people would be transfiguring all over the place or sheep would be chaotically choosing their own flocks to attend.

Little fluffy white animals is NOT what Jesus is there saving. And yes, they were transfiguring. This does not destroy the analogy – they are all God’s, do you deny that? So, how is it that he can say they are not his sheep at all? It has to be qualified in some manner. You are doing the same thing you accuse me of when you pick and choose the meaning of “not my sheep”.

And therefore it is not the case that listening is cause of sheepness is unsupported by the text and an example of eisegesis.

Thank you, I accept your concession by double negative.

It says that Judas was doomed “so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” This is certainly not only a retrospective event.

John says those words; not Jesus – they are in the third person, talking ABOUT Jesus and those he lost in the past. With respect to Judas – it is only a retrospective event.

Also:
The original prophecy (scripture) did NOT name the person or tribe who would betray him. It could be fulfilled by anyone who betrayed him; Consider — I can make a round bowl with one dimple exactly the size of a marble on the bottom; I can then drop twelve marbles into the bowl; assuredly I know that one of them is going to go in the dimple. (Have I lost my marble?)

But, that doesn’t mean I chose which marble will go into the dimple.
If I can do this, as a prophecy, why is it that you exclude God from doing something similar?

With respect to not ONLY a historical event in general – I will agree --it can speak of the unity of all who are destructive – for that is another way to look at one “son of destruction”.

But, the thing is, Jesus still speaks of them as a “loss”; eg: explicitly as something which was given to him, that he no longer has.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

My apology, again, OCD distracted me…

That last sentence should read:
Jesus speaks of those entrusted to him, and John speaks of the loss of the Son of destruction.