A passage in which many struggle

[Van]

Thanks Winman, we agree on a lot, and one thing for sure, Calvinism twists scripture so far, they claim it says the opposite of what it actually says. John 6:29 is certainly a glaring case in point.

 

[Van]

A person has the capacity to understand with ears and eyes and still not have "ears to hear and eyes to see."

The reason this assertion is false is it leaves out, that God hardens hearts so that folks will not hear, understand accept and be forgiven. And Jesus had to encode the message in a parable to prevent folks from hearing and understanding and accepting and being healed.

The whole edifice of Calvinism crumbles when actually studied critically.

 

[Winman]

Thanks Winman, we agree on a lot, and one thing for sure, Calvinism twists scripture so far, they claim it says the opposite of what it actually says. John 6:29 is certainly a glaring case in point.

They really do. It is amazing, they can take scripture that is plain and simple and twist it all around until they claim it says the exact opposite of what it is really saying. I have never seen anything like it. And it is not just now and then, here and there, they get practically all scripture completely backwards.

You don't see non-Cals arguing that "all" means "some", or that "world" means "the elect only", etc....

I would be embarrassed to be a Calvinist. No, I could not even do that.

 

[Van]

Yes, one of the reasons is they trusted their teachers, taking the lessons as taught, rather than learning how to independently study scripture. That is why so often, an argument is made by copying something someone else said. An IG report would say they made an unwarranted deferral of responsibility to those that went before.

I can't tell you the number of times a perfectly sincere Calvinist has said Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches faith rather than salvation is the gift in view. Even a Calvinist who knows the grammar precludes that possibility will remain silent and not post a gentle assertion of the truth. So there appears to be no internal tolerance for questioning the party line, even if divergent. So Calvinism would flourish in a top down leadership modeled church, but not so much in a "priesthood of believers" modeled church.

 

[HisWitness]

The reason this assertion is false is it leaves out, that God hardens hearts so that folks will not hear, understand accept and be forgiven. And Jesus had to encode the message in a parable to prevent folks from hearing and understanding and accepting and being healed.

The whole edifice of Calvinism crumbles when actually studied critically.

the argument on Calvinism and Arm. will NEVER be solved---because both sides have errors in them.

Arm. doesn't carry it far enough and Calv. has the same problem it doesn't carry it as far as it should according to the Truth.

Calv. is more Truth than Arm.---but Calv has errors and need to carry it even further according to scripture and truth.

So keep on debating with the errors on both sides that there is NO answer for

:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:

 

[agedman]

First, there is no disconnect. Being spiritually transferred from the realm of darkness into the Kingdom of His Son is the Father giving to the Son those the Son will not cast out.

God does not "guarantee the giving" He does the giving. He puts us spiritually in Christ. The act of transfer is by grace, the person transferred does not merit salvation. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses through the sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. He sets individuals apart in Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit, based on crediting their faith as righteousness. It is all God and grace, and no merited favor.

The transfer by God refers to God unilaterally moving a believer from being "in Adam" to being "in Christ. Calvinism has God compelling faith, rather than transferring those whose faith He has credited as righteousness.

Next, the phrase you have been saved by grace is claimed to say you have not been saved by grace through faith, Ephesians 2:8. This argument is without merit. You have to look at all the verses and arrive at a view that is consistent with all, rather than picking one and nullifying the others.

It is certainly true that without God's revelatory grace, revealing Himself through His inspired word and ambassadors, no one would be drawn by the lovingkindness of God. It is also certainly true, without God's saving grace, no person's faith would be righteous such that it could be credited as righteousness, only God can turn a pig's ear into a silk purse. And it is certainly true that it is by God's grace He transfers us from the realm of darkness into the Kingdom of Him Son. Thus salvation does not depend upon the man that wills, but on Him who has mercy.

Van, You and I spent many days on 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
​

You desire to read into the passage some movement, but the original does not support that reading.

I do not intend to re-hash all that again with you.

For the readers, God does not transport you from one state to another.

"through" does not mean some travel from one position to another has taken place. The Greek word is "en" and is a fixed position.

Two short illustrations:

Those of you familiar with electrical conduit know that the conduit doesn't travel, but the energy of the wires travels through the conduit.

Sanctification is as the conduit. Not the energy, not the wiring, the conduit. A fixed installation placed into the believer (new creature) that God's Word and light might be properly channeled into every area of living.

Sanctification can also be pictured as one who purchases a car from a car lot. What distinguishes the car from all others is not the looks or some modification, it is the title of ownership. That document is the "through" of this verse. Anyone question ownership merely needs to see that the ownership is shown "through" the title of the car.

When the tabernacle, priests, and temple were "sanctified" they did not change places. They changed title. They became holy to be used in God's service. Holy is another word that can be used for sanctification.

There is "no progressive sanctification" taught in the Scriptures. You are to be Holy. One is either holy or unclean.

Do not be confused and think that I speak against the growth and maturity that must be a part of every believer. That (growth and maturity) is extremely important and probably the most neglected part of us all. That growth is progressive.


I do not intend to drag the discussion out, but to state that Van and I view this matter differently.

You are welcome to look up the word(s) yourself, using your tools, and make your own decision. For ultimately you are responsible with all the available tools to be as accurate as possible when rendering the Scriptures.

 

[agedman]

Thanks Winman, we agree on a lot, and one thing for sure, Calvinism twists scripture so far, they claim it says the opposite of what it actually says. John 6:29 is certainly a glaring case in point.

Don't be so impatient, and draw conclusions that are unfounded as you did in this post.

John 6:29 is not some grand swat by the fly swatter of your view that ends the argument.

The verse is taking Jews who have spent their whole time from Abraham thinking that the way to God is through them doing something, like sacrifices and offerings.

Even John the Baptist had them doing something (being baptized), and it is the same with this verse.

Jesus is stating the obvious. "Believe and thou shalt be saved."

He expressed the same thinking with Nicodemus and the rich young ruler.

Each had kept the law and honored the prophets to the best that they could, yet knew there had to be more.

Jesus told them what was expected.

You and Winman (as well as others) want to construct the argument that some human work is obviously shown from John, and therefore salvation must involve some "belief" that can come from the unregenerate heathen heart.

That just isn't consistent with John 6 at all.

Below are verses and questions for further reading:

28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
​

Folks,
What is the work of God in this verse?

Does this work involve anything of human engineered belief?

If the work is of God, is it not God's right to decree who will believe?

Is that unfair? Not in the least. We are ALL condemned already. It is purely the unmerited favor of God that He decrees some to salvation.

Is He obligated to save all? NO - as the Scriptures state when people were questioning if God's ways were unfair - does the clay get to tell the potter what vessel the clay wants to be made? Not at all, some are made vessels of honor some to be dishonor. It is not the clay that makes that determination.

To question God in such a way is an affront to Him.

Look at the latter part of the chapter.

But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

​

Perhaps there are those who so desire to read into this passage a human element that has to take place.

But there just isn't any.

The original language just is too plain.

BTW, the word "come" (Heko) is to be present, as if to say "here" when called from a roll, to arrive, come.

And another word "giveth" (didomi) can also be rendered: bestowed, commits, delivers. Sometimes this word is used as one who exerts force, such as when the soldiers beat the Lord Jesus it could be said that they "gave" him a beating.

Now, This response is far too long, but it is important that the readers look to there own resources to validate this post. You ultimately are responsible to take from the tools available and make your own decision.

 

[Van]

Van, You and I spent many days on 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
​

You desire to read into the passage some movement, but the original does not support that reading.

For the readers, God does not transport you from one state to another.

For those readers, check out Colossians 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,

"through" does not mean some travel from one position to another has taken place. The Greek word is "en" and is a fixed position.

When "en" is translated as "through" it means "by" and "by the agency of" In 2 Thessalonians 2:13 we are chosen "en" (by the agency of) the sanctification by the Spirit, He sets us apart in Christ, and on the basis of faith in the truth, i.e. if God credits our faith as righteousness, He sets us apart in Christ.

Sanctification has two meanings (1) positional, i.e. to be set apart, and (2) to become more holy. Saints are those who have been set apart.

There is "no progressive sanctification" taught in the Scriptures. You are to be Holy. One is either holy or unclean.

A person who has been set apart in Christ and washed by His blood is holy. However, while on this earth, still wrapped in this mortal flesh, we must work at becoming conformed to the image of Christ. This process of becoming more Christ like is called progressive sanctification. Paul uses the word sanctification in this manner, See 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8

You are welcome to look up the word(s) yourself, using your tools, and make your own decision. For ultimately you are responsible with all the available tools to be as accurate as possible when rendering the Scriptures.

I certainly share that call to independent verification of everything I say.

 

[Van]

Hi Agedman, repeating an argument does not validate it.

What is the work of God in this verse?
Does this work involve anything of human engineered belief?
If the work is of God, is it not God's right to decree who will believe?

I addressed John 6:28-30, showing the question was what do we need to do, and the answer was believe in God, and then they asked for a sign so they could believe. The premise that the work of God refers to Irresistible Grace is simply without support in scripture. The work God requires is the correct understanding of the phrase. Even Dr. Wallace agrees. Most translation stick with the ambiguous "work of God" but several go with the NET viewpoint, including Mounce Reverse Interlinear, CEV, GNT, and the Knox translation. No translation translates it as "this is the work God does" None, zip.

 

[agedman]

Thanks Winman, we agree on a lot, and one thing for sure, Calvinism twists scripture so far, they claim it says the opposite of what it actually says. John 6:29 is certainly a glaring case in point.

The reason this assertion is false is it leaves out, that God hardens hearts so that folks will not hear, understand accept and be forgiven. And Jesus had to encode the message in a parable to prevent folks from hearing and understanding and accepting and being healed.

The whole edifice of Calvinism crumbles when actually studied critically.

They really do. It is amazing, they can take scripture that is plain and simple and twist it all around until they claim it says the exact opposite of what it is really saying. I have never seen anything like it. And it is not just now and then, here and there, they get practically all scripture completely backwards.

You don't see non-Cals arguing that "all" means "some", or that "world" means "the elect only", etc....

I would be embarrassed to be a Calvinist. No, I could not even do that.

Yes, one of the reasons is they trusted their teachers, taking the lessons as taught, rather than learning how to independently study scripture. That is why so often, an argument is made by copying something someone else said. An IG report would say they made an unwarranted deferral of responsibility to those that went before.

I can't tell you the number of times a perfectly sincere Calvinist has said Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches faith rather than salvation is the gift in view. Even a Calvinist who knows the grammar precludes that possibility will remain silent and not post a gentle assertion of the truth. So there appears to be no internal tolerance for questioning the party line, even if divergent. So Calvinism would flourish in a top down leadership modeled church, but not so much in a "priesthood of believers" modeled church.

Amazing how many assumptions two can make when in agreement.

To bad that the assumptions are misplaced and have really no foundational point other than complimenting each other.

Is this what is to be expected from a view that presents God as benign and unable to save without human help and intervention?

The OP presents the truth. It is not twisted. It is not taken out of context. It is not "encoded in a parable" but plainly spoken and illustrated by Christ. It is not backwards. It is not taken from some teachers who dictated the learning, but from Christ. It is not in conflict with any other Scriptures.

But the opposite is what you think, as the posts above evidence.

I merely ask the folks who read the BB to look to their own study from the great number of tools available. Determine from your own work the truth of the Scriptures.

 

[agedman]

Hi Agedman, repeating an argument does not validate it.



I addressed John 6:28-30, showing the question was what do we need to do, and the answer was believe in God, and then they asked for a sign so they could believe. The premise that the work of God refers to Irresistible Grace is simply without support in scripture. The work God requires is the correct understanding of the phrase. Even Dr. Wallace agrees. Most translation stick with the ambiguous "work of God" but several go with the NET viewpoint, including Mounce Reverse Interlinear, CEV, GNT, and the Knox translation. No translation translates it as "this is the work God does" None, zip.

I posted from the NASV in the OP.

That you decide that somehow the work of God is not “This is the work of God," is not my problem.

Perhaps you can manipulate (using your and Winman's terms here) twist, put things backwards or whatever to make it work to your scheme. That doesn't make the OP invalid.

The NASV is by all authoritative scholars the most accurate translation currently available. It isn't the most easily read, because it follows the Greek text as literally as possible.

Perhaps if you go to HERE you will find what you are missing.

 

[agedman]

For those readers, check out Colossians 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,

Transferred: methistemi - translated, exchanged...

Who is doing the transferring, exchanging, translating of Colossians 1? Christ.

John 6 is discussing the work of the Father.

So, this fits your argument, how?

When "en" is translated as "through" it means "by" and "by the agency of" In 2 Thessalonians 2:13 we are chosen "en" (by the agency of) the sanctification by the Spirit, He sets us apart in Christ, and on the basis of faith in the truth, i.e. if God credits our faith as righteousness, He sets us apart in Christ.

Sanctification has two meanings (1) positional, i.e. to be set apart, and (2) to become more holy. Saints are those who have been set apart.

A person who has been set apart in Christ and washed by His blood is holy. However, while on this earth, still wrapped in this mortal flesh, we must work at becoming conformed to the image of Christ. This process of becoming more Christ like is called progressive sanctification. Paul uses the word sanctification in this manner, See 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8

Van, this is from the Strong's concordance:

[Grk. 1722] en (en)

a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between 1519 and 1537); "in," at, (up-)on, by, etc.:--about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-)by (+ all means), for (... sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-)in(-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-)on, (open-)ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, (speedi-)ly, X that, X there(-in, -on), through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), under, when, where(-with), while, with(-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) preposition.


​

I grabbed that resource because I am too weary to chase down this line of thinking from you any farther.

Application of sanctification THROUGHOUT Scriptures is static. It is not movable.

WE conform by US bringing our body, mind, soul and strength under submission to Christ by the authority and power granted to the believer by God. This authority and power travels THROUGH sanctification. Sanctification doesn't jump around the human making adjustments.

Sanctification has ONE meaning. Holy.

 

[The Archangel]

When "en" is translated as "through" it means "by" and "by the agency of" In 2 Thessalonians 2:13 we are chosen "en" (by the agency of) the sanctification by the Spirit, He sets us apart in Christ, and on the basis of faith in the truth, i.e. if God credits our faith as righteousness, He sets us apart in Christ.

Sanctification has two meanings (1) positional, i.e. to be set apart, and (2) to become more holy. Saints are those who have been set apart.

Hmmmm...

Then, translate this for us: ὅτι εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἀπαρχὴν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας

And, be sure to tell us why each word--especially the prepositions--is translated the way it is.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

Hi Agedman, I provided how "en" is being translated as through, and your evidence, including the "by implication instrumentality" supports the translation of en as through, i.e. by agency of.

I provided the passage, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 as the classic reference for progressive sanctification.

Finally Colossians 1:13 does not say Christ transfers us, it says God transfers us into His Son's Kingdom. Thus, 3 for 3, arguments that are underwhelming.

Not sure how else I can help. I think no matter what I say, you will see it as twisting scripture, because to accept it means Calvinism is bogus.

 

[percho]

Very good Herald!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

To me, one of the remarkable moments of the BB came when some poster(s) actually considered that God was exalted as more sovereign when He was reactive to and dependent upon man. In response, I posted that either God is sovereign or He is not God. (Folks, I have used the liberty of not using identifiers of who said what out of respect).

Perhaps that was the push that caused me to post this thread.

Any scheme that makes the Creator dependent upon the creation doesn't align with Scripture. Is it not so with the nature of our own creations?

Someone might state, "We are dependent upon technology" or the age old question, "Did God create a rock that He cannot move?"

Anyone knows that the technology is dependent upon the creator for upkeep and upgrades. Without that intervention, the technology would fail. Just as humankind without the direct and purposeful upkeep and upgrade(s) when left to them self are doomed and fail.

God never created what He cannot move or replace. That is why He makes the believers "NEW creatures" and discards all of the old, every bit of it. God didn't create a heart that was so stony He couldn't move it, rather He gives a new heart with the new nature.

Your translation work is in agreement with my own.

The emphasis is upon the work that God does and not upon humankind ability. If that were not true, the verse would have stated something like, "The is the work that God desires, that you believe in Him who He sent." But that is not the intent nor the emphasis of the passage and especially this particular verse. The two inserted words (that and desire) are not even hinted as consistent with an appropriate translation.

I will take that thought to this. God created man "Adam," in a state lower than the angels in order that his foreknown before the foundation of the world Son could come in that image and by death, destroy him who had the power of death that is the devil. thus destroying death, then, man in the image of Adam could be re-born in the image of the, resurrected from the dead, Son of God, equal to and or higher than the angels. These by the choice of God.

 

[percho]

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. Acts 17:1-3 KJV

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 1 Cor 15:1-4 KJV


That in bold is the truth. And if Christ was not raised from the dead there would be no faith.

1 Cor 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith vain; ye are yet in your sins.

There would be no faith and there would not have been any Spirit of truth given if Jesus the Christ had not died and if God the Father had not raised Jesus from the dead.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7

And before the coming of the faith Gal.3:23 YLT And the faith having come Gal. 3:25 YLT

It was the faith of truth that brought the Spirit of truth by which you are set apart. Sanctified.

that to the nations the blessing of Abraham may come in Christ Jesus, that the promise of the Spirit we may receive through the faith. Gal. 3:14 YLT

The promises were made to Abraham and his one seed Christ Gal 3:16
Jesus first received the promise of the Holy Spirit and then it was shed on us through him.
at the right hand then of God having been exalted -- also the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father -- he was shedding forth this, which now ye see and hear; Acts 2:33 YLT
and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, John 14:26 YLT

this only do I wish to learn from you -- by works of law the Spirit did ye receive, or by the hearing of faith? Gal 3:2 YLT



All of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

I posted from the NASV in the OP.

That you decide that somehow the work of God is not “This is the work of God," is not my problem.

Perhaps you can manipulate (using your and Winman's terms here) twist, put things backwards or whatever to make it work to your scheme. That doesn't make the OP invalid.

The NASV is by all authoritative scholars the most accurate translation currently available. It isn't the most easily read, because it follows the Greek text as literally as possible.

Perhaps if you go to HERE you will find what you are missing.

Agedman,
you are posting solidly as usual,Van and Winman resist all such posts as they keep truth far from their posts. Archangel just stepped in to once again correct Van....but Van will either head for the hills or in some other way resist the truth being posted.They cannot seem to help themselves for some reason.
It would not be such an issue except everyday in every thread they teach falsehoods.You and others post truth, then they claim you are picking on them personally. it is the same pattern Look on virtually every thread they post in.....the same pattern emerges...they offer novelties and flat out error.

Jn 6 is wonderful speaking of the great work of our Lord and Saviour...do not let these detractors discourage you from your solid posts.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Aged: I must submit to you that you are reading verse 29 completely devoid of the immediate context. The immediate context has absolutely nothing to do with what you think it does. These people are asking Jesus to give them the power to make FOOD for themselves. Please read the obvious context without Calvinist pre-supposition:
Jhn 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Notice here how clearly they are asking Jesus to teach them HOW TO MAKE BREAD FOR THEMSELVES! They aren't asking about anything salvific....they aren't asking about faith or election or salvation or the new birth...they are trying to get Jesus to teach THEM how to make physical food for themselves. That's all they want.
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
The purpose of verse 29 is for Jesus to change what they are seeking for:.....The "WORK" has already been defined by the people...and Jesus is responding back to what they said in verse 28. I'll cite it again it italics:
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
In other words....Jesus isn't defining faith, he isn't offering any details about faith; he is introducing faith to them. He is simply telling them that they are searching for the wrong thing.
Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Notice how the people brush off Jesus' attempt to convince them that they are looking for the wrong thing and go straight back to wanting to fill their gut: This is similar, in a way to the woman at the well, who is wanting Jesus to find her physical "water", and not understanding that Jesus is talking about himself as the "water of life". The point of the passage and the references to "works" is Jesus attempting to change their thinking from physical bread to himself as the "bread of Life"...That context is clearly alluded BACK TO later on in the passage you cite:
Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Jhn 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

I am afraid you have been viewing that passage from Calvinist pre-supposition which insists on two things:
1.) That "faith" is in any way properly defined as a "work". (and it's not, and no amount of further study of Scripture will imply that.)
2.) That man cannot exercise faith, or be empowered to exercise faith...except God essentially CAUSE him to believe.

Even if those are BOTH true....your rendering of what is being taught in verse has been skewed, because it has been used as a Calvinist "proof-text" to demonstrate that faith is a "work"....and that God himself is, and must be the one who gives that "work" of faith to people.

Please attempt to re-read the passage and what verse 29 is teaching simply from it's own obvious and immediate context and I believe you will see it quite diffferently.

 

[Iconoclast]

I .J.

Welcome back....in the NT...the people always errored thinking in physical terms rather than spiritual. Even Nicodemus did this...
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That is the focus....no matter what the hungry people wanted.
Jesus stayed on message and revealed some of the eternal purpose of the Godhead in this chapter,He himself being the New Exodus.....greater than Moses...greater than the physical manna.......

 

[Herald]

Aged: I must submit to you that you are reading verse 29 completely devoid of the immediate context. The immediate context has absolutely nothing to do with what you think it does. These people are asking Jesus to give them the power to make FOOD for themselves. Please read the obvious context without Calvinist pre-supposition:
Jhn 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Notice here how clearly they are asking Jesus to teach them HOW TO MAKE BREAD FOR THEMSELVES!

Sir, I believe you have missed the "immediate context". Jesus said, "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." Jesus recognized in verse 26 that the crowd was there for the loaves and the fishes, but He countered that with "the food which endures to eternal life". He changed the dynamic. He told them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent". The crowd challenged Him on this claim by asking for a sign. Eventually this lead to the Jews grumbling among themselves (v. 41) because of Jesus' claim that He was the bread that came down out of heaven (v. 33). This is not a Calvinistic interpretation of the text. This interpretation is shared by Charles Ryrie, J. Vernon McGee, and even Charles Wesley; and no one is going to accuse these men of being Calvinists.