📖 Series: Responding to Ferris on John 6

Analysis of Ferris’s Eucharistic Interpretation: Challenges and Inconsistencies
A final critique addressing logical, doctrinal, and scriptural inconsistencies in Ferris’s view.

Metaphorical Musings: Analyzing Ferris’ Approach to John 6 in “How to Be Christian”
An introduction to Ferris’s Eucharistic interpretation and its foundational errors.

The Logic of Life: Faith, Not Flesh, in John 6
Exploring how faith is the central motif in Jesus’ discourse, not sacramental consumption.

Why Eating Jesus Means Believing: A Biblical Answer to Ferris
Clarifying Johannine metaphor and the meaning of spiritual feeding in John 6.

Spirit Gives Life, Flesh Counts for Nothing: Ferris Misreads John 6
A theological and lexical analysis of John 6:63 and its implications for Eucharistic literalism.

Unraveling Ferris: The Structure of John 6 in the Greater Narrative of the Gospel of John
Examining how the literary structure of the Gospel undermines Ferris’s sacramental reading.

Spirit Gives Life, Flesh Counts for Nothing (Part 2): Ferris Misreads John 6 Again
A continuation focused on exegetical breakdowns Ferris overlooks or distorts.

📜 Part 2 – Romans and the Doctrine of Justification

8. Responding to How2BeChristian on Romans 4
   A defense of sola fide and imputed righteousness against Ferris’s anti-Protestant reading.
9. How Not to Read Romans: A Response to Ferris (“How to Be Christian”)
   A systematic rebuttal to Ferris’s handling of Pauline theology and justification.

Old Testament Parallels

1. Passover and Manna as Prefigurations

Ferris links the Passover and the provision of manna in the wilderness with the Eucharistic teachings in John 6. He suggests that these Old Testament events prefigure the Last Supper and the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. However, there are critical differences:

• Passover: The lamb’s blood was used for protection and not consumed, which diverges from the concept of consuming Christ’s blood in the Eucharist.
• Manna: While it was indeed supernatural sustenance from God, it remained bread and did not undergo any substance transformation, unlike the claims of transubstantiation.

These distinctions indicate that while the events may serve as spiritual foreshadowing, they do not directly support the specific mechanics of transubstantiation as Ferris suggests.

Therefore, Ferris (from YouTube’s “How to be Christian”) may mislead the audience by presenting these as if they are direct parallels, which they are not.

2. Lack of Direct Scriptural Support

Ferris’s assertion that these events directly correlate with transubstantiation lacks direct scriptural backing. No biblical texts explicitly link the consumption of manna and Passover rituals to the transformation of substances, which is central to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Ferris’s Obfuscation

Ferris stated, “Again: Our video was not about Transubstantiation, yet you continue to talk about Transubstantiation,” exemplifying his deliberate ambiguity. By avoiding a direct discussion on Transubstantiation, Ferris misleads his audience into thinking he might be supporting a traditional Eucharistic view without explicitly committing to it. This tactic is deceptive, as it creates confusion rather than clarity.

When challenged, “Why couldn’t Gavin Ortlund, traditional reformers, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc., affirm your case? Are you just arguing against memorialism?” Ferris refused to clarify his position. This refusal highlights his deceptive strategy. By not clearly defining his stance, he creates ambiguity, misleading his audience into thinking he might be supporting a traditional view like Transubstantiation without explicitly committing to it.

Contextual Understanding of Jesus’ Teachings

Ferris’s Interpretation: “Jesus told them to work for this food… Jesus didn’t specify what this food was yet, he just said it’s food that endures to eternal life which the Son of Man will give. Then the people ask what must we do to be doing the works of God and Jesus responds this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Counterpoint: Ferris’s interpretation suggests a literal consumption of Jesus’ body and blood, which he claims aligns with sacramental theology. However, this interpretation ignores Jesus’s clear redirection from physical sustenance to spiritual faith. John 6 emphasizes belief over physical acts. The broader context, where Jesus uses physical metaphors to illustrate spiritual truths, supports a metaphorical rather than a literal understanding.

Ferris’s Expanded Interpretation Based on His Quotes

Summary: Ferris argues that Jesus’ instruction about “the food that endures to eternal life” points to a literal consumption of Jesus’ body and blood. However, this perspective fails to recognize that Jesus often uses metaphorical language to convey deeper spiritual truths, especially in John’s Gospel. Furthermore, Ferris hasn’t informed us on what that actually entails.

Highlighting the Contradiction

Contradictory Elements: Ferris maintains that the work God requires is faith, as indicated by Jesus’s statement: “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Yet, Ferris also insists on a literal interpretation of eating Jesus’s flesh and drinking His blood. This is contradictory because it conflates two separate actions: faith (belief) and a physical act. In John’s Gospel, belief (faith) is repeatedly emphasized as the key to eternal life, not physical actions.

Supporting Verses:

• John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
• John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”
• John 5:24: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.”
• John 6:40: “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
• John 6:47: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.”
• John 11:25-26: “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?’”

In Isaiah 49:10, God promises that His people “shall neither hunger nor thirst.” This promise, echoed in John 6, where Jesus declares Himself the bread of life (John 6:35), underscores the deeper, spiritual sustenance offered by Christ, contrasting the temporary provision of manna in the wilderness (John 6:49-51). Similarly, in Revelation 7:14-17, believers are depicted as never hungering or thirsting, emphasizing the eternal sustenance provided by Christ.

Isaiah 55:3 further supports this notion. God invites His people to “come” and “hear” so that their souls may live, a clear precursor to the call to faith in John 6:37-44, where Jesus calls people to come to Him. This connects faith and hearing, aligning with Romans 10:16-17: “faith comes by hearing.” Jesus reinforces this point in John 6:45, making the act of hearing synonymous with understanding and believing, illustrating the deep connection between faith, hearing, and eternal life.

John 5 further parallels John 6, where Jesus emphasizes that those who hear His words and believe are granted eternal life (John 5:24-40). The unbelief of the Jews in John 6, despite witnessing His miracles, mirrors the ongoing theme of their spiritual blindness.

In John 6:63, Jesus says, “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life,” reaffirming that it is His words, the Word of God, that bring life. Faith comes by hearing these words and choosing to believe. As Peter later declares, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). This affirms that faith in Christ, by receiving and believing His words, is the means to eternal life, and not physical consumption as some interpretations suggest.

Furthermore, when Jesus states, “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father” (John 6:65), He emphasizes that belief itself is granted by God. Faith is not merely an intellectual assent but a work of God within the believer. Those who do not believe cannot receive the life Christ offers, which is reiterated by Jesus knowing from the beginning who would believe and who would betray Him (John 6:64).

This consistent focus on faith throughout the Gospel of John supports the view that Christ’s teaching here is spiritual. The act of “eating” and “drinking” in John 6 refers metaphorically to faith—hearing His word and believing in Him leads to eternal life. Jesus’ words, as Peter confesses, are the true sustenance for the soul.

Finally, the bronze serpent analogy (John 3:14-15, Numbers 21) reinforces the necessity of faith. Just as the Israelites were healed by looking at the bronze serpent, so are believers saved by looking to Christ in faith.

Reevaluating the Dichotomy Between Physical and Spiritual Nourishment

Ferris’s Commentary: “Together all those different words—physical, literal, and fleshly—in the physical literal fleshly sense those are three different categories, two of which aren’t mentioned in the passage. The passage talks about the flesh, it doesn’t…”

Counterpoint: The absence of explicit terms like “physical” and “literal” next to “flesh” in the passage suggests a more nuanced understanding. Jesus emphasizes spiritual belief over physical action, subverting traditional expectations of messianic deliverance. This emphasis on faith supports a transformative spiritual relationship rather than a literal consumption.

Addressing Ferris’s Appeal to Leviticus

Ferris’s Argument: Ferris appeals to Leviticus to argue that if Jesus meant He was going to give His life, then it would be more likely He would say He is going to give His blood. Ferris contends that Jesus giving His flesh would result in giving His blood, referring to the crucifixion.

Counterpoint: Ferris’s appeal to Leviticus to argue that Jesus should have said He was giving His blood instead of His flesh misses the broader theological context. In John 6, Jesus is speaking metaphorically about offering His entire being—His life, teachings, and sacrifice—as spiritual nourishment. The reference to giving His flesh symbolizes the totality of His sacrifice, which includes the shedding of His blood. Therefore, “flesh” in this context is not limited to physical flesh but encompasses His entire sacrificial offering on the cross.

Reinterpreting the ‘Bread of Life’

Ferris’s Suggestion: He questions whether Jesus was offering a kind of ‘super bread’.

Counterpoint: Jesus uses the metaphor of ‘bread’ to challenge and deepen the understanding of His disciples and followers, inviting them into a profound spiritual communion. This aligns with Jesus’ teaching style, which often employs physical concepts to explain spiritual truths, indicating a need to move beyond literal interpretations.

Theological Implications of a Non-Transactional Faith

Ferris’s Logical Conclusion: Implies a transactional understanding of faith and works.

Counterpoint: Ferris’s literal interpretation risks endorsing a transactional faith, which contradicts the essence of Christian doctrine. Jesus’s call to ‘eat His flesh’ and ‘drink His blood’ should be understood as a spiritual metaphor, emphasizing transformative faith that aligns with the principle of grace through faith, as highlighted in Ephesians 2:8-9.

Ferris’s Interpretation and the Expectation of ‘Super Bread’

Ferris’s Insight: “Jesus told them to work for this food… Jesus didn’t specify what this food was yet, he just said it’s food that endures to eternal life which the Son of Man will give. Then the people ask what must we do to be doing the works of God and Jesus responds this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Analysis: Ferris suggests that the Jews anticipated a miraculous physical provision, akin to a ‘super bread’. However, Jesus redirects this expectation, identifying Himself as the “bread of life,” thus redefining true sustenance as spiritual belief rather than physical consumption.

Questioning the Literal Consumption

Ferris’s Argument: “Now does ‘I will give my flesh’ mean I will give my life? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, the Bible never tells us. But just for fun let’s pretend this is true. Both sides in this debate will be fine with that because if ‘I will give my flesh’ means I will give my life, if like Joshua said this flesh is referring to the flesh that was whipped off of Jesus, the flesh that was on his body on the cross, if that’s the flesh that Jesus is going to give, then that is his literal flesh. And in this same sentence Jesus is saying that the bread is his flesh. If SBE is correct here and this is Jesus’s flesh that was on the cross, then that is Jesus’s literal physical flesh and Jesus is saying that the bread is his literal physical flesh.”

My Perspective: Ferris’s argument mistakenly argues that “give my flesh” must refer to Jesus’s literal, physical flesh on the cross, then by extending to the bread in the Eucharist, proves his view. This interpretation ignores the broader spiritual themes in John’s Gospel, where eating and drinking are metaphors for internalizing and fully embracing Jesus’s teachings and sacrifice. Ferris has not provided a compelling reason to favor his literal interpretation over a more nuanced, metaphorical understanding.

Examining Jesus’s Allusions to His Death in John’s Gospel

Ferris’s Quote: “Now you might be thinking to yourself well John doesn’t have to use that phrase here just because Jesus used it in Capernaum that doesn’t mean John has to use it when he’s writing about Jesus’s death and that’s true John does not have to do that but John tends to do that…”

Critique: Ferris’s argument fails on its own standards. If John is referring to the future giving of the Eucharist, then why doesn’t John have a Passover account? Furthermore, just because Jesus alludes to his death and John narrates a connection does not establish a hard-and-fast Johannine rule. Ferris has not provided any serious reason to prefer his interpretation over others.

Instances of Jesus Alluding to His Death in John’s Gospel

• John 2:19-22: Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John provides commentary: “But he was speaking about the temple of his body.”
• John 12:24-25: Jesus states, “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” John does not add explicit commentary here about His death.
• John 3:14-15: Jesus says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” John adds no commentary.

Analysis of Instances

Sample Size and Consistency: The fact that there are only a few instances where John adds commentary when Jesus alludes to His death, and other instances where he does not, undermines the argument that John consistently clarifies these allusions. With such a small sample size, it is problematic to assert a hard-and-fast rule about John’s narrative style.

Instances of Jesus Alluding to His Death in John’s Gospel

John 19:36-37: John references Old Testament scriptures being fulfilled by Jesus’ crucifixion but does not provide additional commentary beyond quoting the scriptures.

John 2:19-22: Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John provides commentary: “But he was speaking about the temple of his body.”

John 3:14-15: Jesus says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” John adds no commentary.

John 6:51-58: Jesus speaks extensively about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. John does not add commentary clarifying this as a metaphor for faith or Eucharist.

John 7:37-39: Jesus speaks about living water, which John interprets: “Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

John 12:24-25: Jesus states, “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” John does not add explicit commentary here about His death.

John 12:32-33: Jesus says, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” John provides commentary: “He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.”

Broader Implications: Simply because John provides commentary in some instances does not necessitate that he must do so in all instances. This inconsistency in John’s approach suggests that the absence of commentary in John 6 does not definitively support a literal interpretation.

Integrating Ferris’s Commentary with the Notion of Subversion

Ferris’s Commentary: “Together all those different words—physical, literal, and fleshly—in the physical literal fleshly sense those are three different categories, two of which aren’t mentioned in the passage. The passage talks about the flesh, it doesn’t…”

Elaboration: This interpretation could suggest that while Jesus uses the language familiar to His audience—eating and drinking—He subverts these actions to mean something far more significant spiritually. The real consumption Jesus speaks of might be the internalization of His teachings and the embodiment of His divine life through faith, beyond just physical eating and drinking.

Theological Implications of Understanding Jesus’s Words in Context of Subversion

Ferris’s Logical Conclusion Revisited: Might seem to support a transactional understanding if taken purely literally.

Counter Interpretation: Recognizing the subversive element in Jesus’s teachings helps prevent a transactional interpretation of faith. It underscores that spiritual transformation—believing in Jesus as the Son sent by God—is the true ‘work’ God desires, which goes beyond physical actions and enters into the realm of transformative faith. Furthermore, contradicting places where Ferris has already been corrected, Responding to How2BeChristian on Romans 4.

Ferris’s Critique of Govitz

Ferris’s Interpretation: Ferris challenges Govitz’s interpretation that Jesus’ statement “the flesh profits nothing” is a corrective to prevent a cannibalistic misunderstanding of his earlier command to eat his flesh. Ferris seems to argue that “flesh” in this context should not be seen as cannibalistic or literal but rather symbolic of Christ’s sacrifice which indeed has profound value.

Critique: Ferris’s insistence on Gotviz reading entailing he must or in principle has no reason to reject arbitrarily reading “flesh” uniformly as referring to Christ’s flesh oversimplify the diverse meanings the term can hold in different scriptural contexts. His approach might narrow the interpretative scope, possibly missing the broader spiritual teachings Jesus intended. But this is most likely a misunderstanding of what Govitz is arguing. Govitz seems to argue that the idea Jesus is conveying is that “the Flesh Profits Nothing” refers to Jesus changing the focus from physical sustenance to ultimate life procured in Christ death for believers.

Theological Context of “the Flesh Profits Nothing”

Broadening Understanding: When Jesus says “the flesh profits nothing,” it can be understood in a broader theological context where “flesh” represents human efforts or earthly understanding, which are insufficient for spiritual enlightenment or salvation without divine intervention. This statement could be emphasizing the necessity of spiritual insight (granted by the Spirit) over mere physical understanding.

Ferris’s Omission of the Full Scope of the Argument

Critique of Selectivity: By removing the aspects of eating flesh but maintaining the reference to drinking blood, Ferris is selectively granting parts of his opponent’s interpretation of the text to fit a particular theological agenda. This selective focus can be seen as not fully engaging with the opponent’s point about the figurative meaning of consuming Jesus’ body and blood, not for physical sustenance but for spiritual nourishment. The argument is like one from the greater to the lesser. If Jesus’ body isn’t literal, then there is no reason to suppose the drinking of blood is literal.

Addressing the Argument About Cannibalism

Understanding Figurative Language: If Govitz’s argument is that Jesus corrected potential misunderstandings of cannibalism through His statement “the flesh profits nothing,” Ferris should consider this not as a denial of the significance of Christ’s flesh but as a clarification that the act of consuming His flesh and blood is not a literal eating and drinking but a profound spiritual communion.

Interpreting ‘True’ in John’s Gospel: A Critique of Literalism and Exploration of Metaphorical Significance

Ferris underscores that Jesus identifies Himself as the “true Bread” or true food in passages like John 6:32 and 55. He interprets these descriptions literally, which might miss the nuanced usage of the term “true” within the Gospel of John. Craig Keener provides insight into this usage:

The bread Jesus announces is more essential than the manna given in Moses’ day, for it is the “true bread” (6:32). The position of “true” or “genuine” in this sentence is emphatic.193 Calling this bread the “genuine” bread is characteristic of metaphors in this Gospel: Jesus, rather than John, is the “true light” (1:9); those who worship in the Spirit rather than merely in the temple are “true worshipers” (4:23); Jesus (perhaps in contrast to Israel) is the “true vine” (15:1).

The Gospel of John: A Commentary (pg 682)

“Real,” or “true,”59 does not mean “literal,” as if Jesus were proposing cannibalism. He has already told his disciples of “food to eat that you do not know about” (4:32), defined as doing “the will of the One who sent me” (4:34). In the present discourse he has distinguished “the food that remains to eternal life” from the literal “food that is being lost” (v. 27), and promised “the true bread from heaven” in contrast to literal manna in the desert (v. 32). Yet neither does “real” quite mean “metaphorical” or “spiritual” as opposed to literal—as if literal food and drink were somehow unreal.60 Rather, Jesus’ flesh qualifies as “real” food and his blood as “real” drink because they do what food and drink are supposed to do, and do it better.61 They nourish and give life, not for a day or even a lifetime, but forever (see vv. 50–51, 54). In declaring them “real,” Jesus is bearing testimony (although the word is not used), just as he “testified” earlier that God was “real” or “true” (3:33), and claimed that his own “testimony” about himself and John’s testimony about him were also “true” (5:31, 32; see also 7:18; 8:14, 17, 26; 10:41; 19:35; 21:24).

Michaels, J. Ramsey;. The Gospel of John (Kindle Locations 7775-7785). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.

This explanation by Keener suggests that the adjective “true” serves to emphasize the spiritual and metaphorical significance of Jesus’s teachings rather than indicating a literal interpretation. The use of “true” across the Gospel of John often marks a deeper, spiritual truth, aligning more with metaphorical rather than literal meanings. For instance, when Jesus is referred to as the “true light” or when he mentions “true worshipers,” these instances clearly point towards metaphorical, spiritual interpretations. Hence, Jesus being the “true bread” fits this pattern, suggesting a deeper spiritual sustenance rather than physical food, further aligning with the metaphorical themes prevalent throughout the Gospel.

John 1:9 – “The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.”

• Here, “true light” refers to Jesus, metaphorically depicting Him as the ultimate source of spiritual enlightenment and guidance.

John 4:23 – “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.”

• “True worshipers” metaphorically represents those who genuinely worship God in spirit and truth, beyond the physical and ritualistic practices.

John 15:1 – “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.”

“True vine” metaphorically signifies Jesus as the genuine source of life and sustenance for His followers, unlike the literal vine.

The Effectual Nature of Divine Drawing in John 6:35-45

Ferris critiques James White’s interpretation of John 6:35-45, particularly focusing on White’s handling of John 6:44. Ferris argues that White misinterprets the text by asserting that everyone drawn by the Father is necessarily raised up by the Son, without leaving open the possibility for a distinction between those who are drawn and those who come to Jesus.

Ferris states, “John 6:44 by itself does not teach that all drawn by the Father are raised up by the Son.” He believes White is misrepresenting the text by reading into it something it does not explicitly state. Ferris emphasizes that the verse only indicates that “people are able to come to Christ if they were drawn by God,” but it does not necessarily mean that all who are drawn will come to Christ. This leaves open the possibility, according to Ferris, that some could be drawn but not come to Christ.

Ferris highlights White’s error by using an analogy: “No one can come to my party unless my dad gave an invitation to him, and I will raise the roof with him on my birthday.” He points out that just as this analogy doesn’t imply everyone invited to the party will come, neither does John 6:44 imply that all drawn by the Father will come to Jesus. “The verse leaves open the possibility that my dad could have invited people to the party, and then they didn’t come to the party.”

Ferris also criticizes White for changing the meaning of the text by conflating different actions: “John 6:44 gives us an equation of X plus Y equals Z. Mr. White is teaching X equals Y equals Z, which is not found in the text.” By this, Ferris means that White treats being drawn by the Father and coming to Jesus as identical, rather than as two distinct steps.

In conclusion, Ferris asserts that White’s interpretation is flawed because it closes off possibilities left open by the text, stating, “Mr. White is showing that he’s not thinking logically… because he’s saying that John 6:44 says this, when it actually doesn’t.” According to Ferris, a fuller understanding of the relationship between being drawn by the Father and coming to Christ requires looking beyond John 6:44 and considering other parts of Scripture.

The critique by Jimmy Stephens of Leighton Flowers’s interpretation, which Ferris seems to affirm, brings into question the theological coherence and biblical fidelity of their view on the drawing of the Father as depicted in John 6. Here’s a structured breakdown of Stephens’s critique:

Critique of Flowers’s Interpretation

1. Fundamental Misunderstanding of “Drawing”:
   • Flowers’s Argument: The drawing of the Father is contingent upon the individual’s choice, implying that the drawing to eternal life depends on the creature’s decision to believe.
   • Stephens’s Counterargument: This interpretation is problematic because it raises a critical question: If a person already believes, what purpose does the drawing serve? Stephens suggests that Flowers overlooks the intrinsic purpose of the drawing, leading to a logical inconsistency. He metaphorically accuses Flowers of having a “mild case of amnesia” in his reading of the passage, indicating a significant oversight in understanding the text.
2. The Purpose of Divine Drawing:
   • Biblical Intent: The drawing by the Father is meant to explain the distinction between those who believe and those who do not.
   • Implications of Flowers’s View: If belief is a prerequisite for being drawn, then the drawing itself becomes redundant. It fails to serve its explanatory role in differentiating between believers and non-believers.
3. Undermining the Theme of Unity:
   • Flowers’s Intended Theme: Flowers aims to highlight a theme of unity between the Father’s drawing and the Son’s granting of eternal life.
   • Stephens’s Critique: He argues that if the Father’s role is merely to draw those who already believe, and belief alone is sufficient for receiving eternal life from the Son, then the Father’s drawing lacks substantive connection with the Son’s action. This interpretation disrupts the unity between the Father and the Son, as it makes the Father’s drawing seem unnecessary and disconnected from the life-giving act of the Son.
4. Theological Coherence and Unity:
   • Stephens’s Theological Position: He asserts that the drawing by the Father and the granting of eternal life by the Son are distinct yet collaborative actions within the salvation process. Each plays a crucial role, and together they form a cohesive plan of salvation.
   • Problem with Flowers’s Interpretation: According to Stephens, Flowers’s interpretation collapses these two distinct divine actions into one, effectively rendering the drawing meaningless and failing to maintain the scriptural portrayal of a unified divine operation in salvation.

1. Logical Inconsistency in Ferris’s View

Ferris’s interpretation of John 6:35-45 introduces a major inconsistency by making the Father’s drawing contingent upon an individual’s prior belief. Stephens’s argument exposes the redundancy this introduces: if a person already believes, the drawing serves no meaningful purpose. The drawing, as presented in Scripture, is designed to lead individuals to faith, distinguishing between those who believe and those who do not.

John 6:44 makes it clear that belief does not precede the Father’s drawing but is its result. By making belief a precondition, Ferris contradicts the logical flow of the passage, where the drawing serves as the necessary cause of belief, not a mere confirmation of it. This undermines the transformative power of God’s grace, which initiates belief rather than merely responding to it.

Stephens highlights that the drawing is meant to be the divine cause for coming to Christ, not something that follows human decision. If belief were already present, there would be no need for divine drawing. In this view, Ferris’s interpretation renders the drawing redundant, stripping it of its biblical role as the initiator of faith.

---

2. Disruption of Divine Unity

Stephens also points out that Ferris, like Flowers, disrupts the harmonious relationship between the Father’s drawing and the Son’s granting of eternal life. In John 6, the Father’s drawing leads directly to the Son’s work of salvation. By suggesting that only those who have already chosen to believe are drawn by the Father, Ferris severs the seamless interaction between the Father and the Son in the work of salvation.

John 6:37-39 clearly presents a unified divine operation: “All that the Father gives me will come to me.” This statement affirms that the Father’s drawing ensures the Son’s work of securing eternal life. Ferris’s interpretation, which makes the Father’s drawing reactive to belief, breaks this unity by suggesting that God’s work is dependent on human choice. The drawing is not merely an invitation; it is an effectual action that ensures those drawn will come to Christ and be kept by Him.

By reducing the Father’s role to merely confirming human belief, Ferris disrupts the collaborative nature of salvation. In contrast, Stephens emphasizes the biblical portrayal of salvation as entirely God-initiated: the Father draws, and the Son saves. These actions cannot be separated or reversed without distorting the biblical narrative.

---

3. Theological Implications: Undermining Sovereignty

Ferris’s view undermines God’s sovereignty in salvation by placing the initiative on human choice. Stephens argues that this diminishes the biblical teaching that salvation is an act of divine grace from start to finish, where God, not man, initiates the work of salvation. Romans 9:16 explicitly teaches that “it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”

In the broader theological context, Ferris’s view makes human will decisive in the matter of salvation, relegating God’s drawing to a mere response to human initiative. This is inconsistent with the Reformed understanding of sovereign grace, where God’s drawing is an unmerited, effectual work that causes belief.

Stephens critiques Flowers—and by extension, Ferris—by demonstrating that the drawing is a sovereign act of grace, not contingent on human will. The Father draws because of His will, not the individual’s decision. This upholds the scriptural teaching of God’s absolute sovereignty in salvation, which Ferris’s view contradicts.

---

4. Biblical Evidence Supporting Stephens’s View

The biblical texts of John 6:37, 6:39, 6:44, and 6:45 all provide evidence for Stephens’s critique. These verses show that the Father’s drawing is effectual, sovereign, and leads to belief and salvation.

• John 6:37: “All that the Father gives me will come to me.” This reinforces that those whom the Father draws are guaranteed to come to Christ. The Father’s drawing is not contingent on belief but causes it.
• John 6:39: “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.” This affirms the secure outcome of the Father’s drawing—it leads to eternal life.
• John 6:44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” This shows that the Father’s drawing is both the precondition for coming to Christ and the guarantee of salvation. The use of “and” links the drawing and the raising in an unbreakable sequence.
• John 6:45: “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.” This demonstrates that hearing, learning, and drawing are not separate actions but part of the unified process of salvation initiated by God.

Stephens’s analysis strengthens the case for seeing the Father’s drawing as an initiating, sovereign act of grace that ensures belief and salvation.

---

5. Hearing and Learning as Part of the Drawing Process

Ferris, like Flowers, attempts to distinguish between those who are drawn and those who hear and are taught by the Father. Stephens argues that this distinction is artificial and not supported by the biblical text.

John 6:45 clearly ties together hearing, learning, and being drawn by the Father. Jesus says, “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.” This shows that hearing and learning are integral to the Father’s drawing, and these actions lead directly to belief. There is no biblical support for Ferris’s view that some are drawn without being taught or that being drawn is a separate category from being taught.

Stephens points out that the drawing is not a vague, non-specific act; it is through the teaching and learning from the Father that people are drawn to Christ. The Father’s drawing is effectual and comprehensive, involving the totality of divine teaching, hearing, and learning. Any attempt to separate these actions diminishes the cohesive nature of God’s grace in salvation.

---

Conclusion: The Unified and Effectual Nature of the Father’s Drawing

Jimmy Stephens’s critique of Ferris’s interpretation highlights the serious theological and logical problems with making the Father’s drawing contingent upon human belief. The biblical portrayal of the Father’s drawing in John 6 is one of sovereign, effectual grace that leads to faith and results in eternal life. Ferris’s interpretation introduces inconsistencies, disrupts the divine unity between the Father and the Son, and undermines God’s sovereignty in salvation.

Stephens’s detailed analysis shows that the Father’s drawing and the Son’s granting of eternal life are distinct yet unified actions that together bring about salvation. Any attempt to separate or reorder these actions, as Ferris does, fails to align with the biblical text and distorts the scriptural teaching on salvation.

In analyzing Ferris’s interpretation of John 6:44-45, it’s crucial to delve into the literary devices and interpretative methods applied, particularly focusing on the concept of parallelism in Midrashic teachings, as you’ve outlined. Here’s an expanded critique of this section, identifying and examining the type of parallelism and its implications for interpreting these verses:

Understanding Midrashic Parallelism in John 6:44-45

1. Context and Background

Ferris approaches the text of John 6:44-45 with a focus on the distinction between being drawn by God and being taught by Him, suggesting that these are distinct processes. However, understanding the midrashic form of the discourse, as indicated by scholars like Blomberg, helps clarify that these concepts might be interconnected rather than separate.

2. Types of Parallelism

Midrashic teachings often employ various forms of parallelism to elucidate and deepen the understanding of scriptural truths. Here’s how the types of parallelism you’ve listed apply to John 6:44-45:

• Synonymous Parallelism: This type would suggest that the ideas of being drawn by the Father and being taught by Him in John 6:44-45 are essentially the same, repeated for emphasis but without additional information.
• Antithetic Parallelism: This would set these ideas in opposition, but such a reading does not seem applicable here as the verses are not contrasting but rather complementary.
• Emblematic Parallelism: This form would symbolically illustrate one concept with another, which might suggest that the ‘drawing’ could be metaphorically represented by ‘teaching,’ but the text does not explicitly use figurative language like “like” or “as.”
• Synthetic Parallelism: This is most relevant here. The idea that “No man can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him” is expanded by the subsequent verse, “And they shall all be taught of God.” The teaching by the Father clarifies and develops the concept of drawing, suggesting that being drawn to Jesus is synonymous with being taught by God.

3. Application of Synthetic Parallelism

In John 6:44-45, synthetic parallelism seems to be at play, where the teaching and learning from the Father are not merely adjunct to the drawing but are integral to it. The passage implies that the drawing by the Father inherently involves teaching:

• Verse 44: “No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” introduces the necessity of divine action in coming to Jesus.
• Verse 45: “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God’” connects this drawing to being taught by God, suggesting that those drawn are those who learn from God, thereby expanding and explaining the process of drawing.

Ferris’s approach to interpreting the passages in John 6 can be likened to reading the contrasting instructions in Proverbs 26 as complementary rather than contradictory. Such a reading underscores the importance of understanding the literary devices and rhetorical strategies employed by biblical authors. This concept of recognizing literary nuances is essential for accurate biblical interpretation and is not limited to just the Gospel of John.

For example, the use of contrastive parallelism in Proverbs 26 (“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him” followed by “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes”) highlights the necessity of discerning when seemingly contradictory statements serve a greater rhetorical purpose, perhaps emphasizing different aspects of wisdom in dealing with fools.

The point here is that Ferris’s approach overlooks the sophisticated use of literary techniques in biblical writing, leading to potential misunderstandings or oversimplifications of the intended meaning. By engaging with these literary devices, interpreters can uncover deeper layers of meaning and avoid misconstruing the text’s original message.

There are also challenges for Catholics who assert that they are merely reading the passage literally. Steve Hays noted:

On the one hand you interpret Jn 6:51 Eucharistically. On the other hand, when a Eucharistic interpretation of the wording would entail the salvation of every single communicant, you disregard the actual wording of Jn 6:51 and arbitrarily restrict its scope by an extraneous appeal to 1 Cor 11:27.

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/07/bread-of-life.html

Ferris’s interpretation not only permits individual volition in departing from Christ but also gravely misinterprets biblical texts by treating them as mere straightforward propositions. This method glaringly overlooks the sophisticated literary devices and cultural contexts that deeply enrich these texts. A notable example is the frequent use of litotes in the chapter, where negation is employed to affirm a stronger positive. D.A. Carson elucidates this in his analysis of John’s Gospel, noting the misunderstanding of such figures of speech: ‘When Jesus says whoever comes to me I will never drive away, it is commonly interpreted as ‘I will certainly welcome’. However, the true affirmation expressed by this litotes is ‘I will certainly keep in, preserve’. This nuanced understanding shifts the meaning significantly from a mere welcoming to a promise of preservation, which is strongly supported by the context and the usage of the verb ekballō.’

When discussing Ferris’s claim of using a “literal” interpretation, it’s critical to scrutinize what “literal” actually means and how it influences his approach to biblical texts. Vern Poythress’s classifications of “literal” interpretation provide a robust framework to challenge and assess Ferris’s methodology:

1. First-Thought Meaning

This interpretation takes words in their most immediate and common sense, which tends to emphasize more physical or concrete meanings. If Ferris uses this approach, he is undoubtedly stripping the text of its deeper, metaphorical layers, leading to a superficial understanding that fails to capture the text’s fuller biblical and theological dimensions.

2. Flat Interpretation

This method reads texts in the most straightforward manner possible, recognizing only very obvious figures of speech. It systematically ignores richer literary elements such as irony, wordplay, or poetic nuances unless they are glaringly evident. If Ferris adheres to this approach, he is certainly missing out on the text’s depth, resulting in interpretations that are not only incomplete but potentially misleading.

3. Grammatical-Historical Interpretation

This more sophisticated method aims to understand the intentions of the original authors by considering their historical and cultural contexts. It respects the text’s complexities and seeks to uncover subtleties and ambiguities. If Ferris’s literal interpretation disregards this method, then he is unequivocally failing to respect the integrity of the scripture, potentially distorting its message and implications.

4. Plain Interpretation

This approach misguidedly reads texts as if they were directly addressing modern readers, largely ignoring the historical and cultural settings of the biblical narratives. Such an approach is inherently flawed. If Ferris employs this method, he is not only misinterpreting the texts but also imposing modern biases and contexts that were completely foreign to the original narratives.

5. Literal in the Technical Sense

In this narrow definition, “literal” means non-figurative. If Ferris is applying “literal” in this limited sense, he is overlooking the rich figurative language that often carries the most significant theological and spiritual insights in Scripture.

Conclusion

Ferris’s use of “literal interpretation” requires a critical evaluation to determine its suitability for biblical exegesis. Based on Poythress’s framework, if Ferris is leaning towards the first-thought, flat, or plain interpretations, his approach is not just inadequate but fundamentally flawed. Such methods do not do justice to the complex, layered nature of biblical texts. Only a grammatical-historical approach, which he seems to neglect, would provide a more accurate and faithful interpretation of Scripture. Thus, Ferris’s methodology, as it stands, likely leads to a considerable misunderstanding of the biblical texts he aims to explain.

Ferris’s interpretative approach appears to diverge significantly from more nuanced methods of biblical interpretation, particularly when considering the complex discourse of John 6. His reading suggests that the Jews at the time understood Jesus’ references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood in a strictly literal sense. However, this interpretation fails to recognize the deeper theological implications and the historical context in which these statements were made.

Mismatch with Historical Context

1. Understanding of Transubstantiation: The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation—that the substance of bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Christ while retaining their accidents (appearance, taste, etc.)—is not something the Jews in Jesus’ time could have conceptualized. This doctrine was developed much later in Christian theological history. Ferris’s interpretation seems to impose a later theological development onto an earlier context, which likely had no framework for such a concept.
2. Literal Interpretation and Cannibalism: By suggesting that the Jews understood Jesus literally, Ferris overlooks the cultural and religious sensibilities of the time. Jewish laws and customs were explicitly against the consumption of blood (as outlined in Leviticus 17:10-14), which makes a literal interpretation of Jesus’ words about drinking his blood highly implausible from the perspective of his audience. Their shock and questioning likely stemmed from a misunderstanding or an initial shock at the figurative language, not from a literal belief in cannibalistic practices.
3. The Reaction of the Audience: The Jews’ questioning of how Jesus could give them his flesh to eat underscores their confusion and potential horror at the idea, which they would have considered forbidden and abhorrent. This reaction points more to a struggle with metaphorical language and hyperbolic expression used by Jesus rather than an acceptance of literal cannibalism.

The question then arises: How does Ferris address or avoid the charge of promoting cannibalism in his interpretation of John 6?