Romans – God’s Timeline XXIX: Eonian Life, Part 3

 

Returning to John 6

Oh, John 6. How I love thee so. In light of the doctrinal consideration of the eons, this passage takes on an inherent clarity which seems to be absent from every major church building. As we studied in article 12 in this series, Jesus’ revelations in John 6 do not make sense if the term aion is translated as “eternal” or “everlasting” or “for ever,” as opposed to “eon.”

Since the technical aspect is out of the way, we may now rest in what the passage does say. John 6:24-71 involves a deeply depressing revelation to the reader. It is not solely that the Pharisees of the day misunderstood Jesus, but rather the vast majority of His children do not recognize His origin, or His worth. They saw Him as He was – a rather ugly-looking Guy Who carried no possessions and kept socially dubious pals, yet performed rather impressive miracles. This “wowed” the crowd, sure, but since the crowd had not poured over their Father’s words, they did not recognize the import of these miracles. This is demonstrated in Jesus’ initial statement which launches the teaching. Observe John 6:25-27–

And [the throng,] finding Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when camest Thou to be here?”

Jesus answered them and said, “Verily, verily, I am saying to you, You are seeking Me, not that you perceived signs, but that you ate of the bread and are satisfied. Do not work for the food which is perishing, but for the food which is remaining for life eonian, which the Son of Mankind will be giving to you, for this One God, the Father, seals.”

Note here that the future tense is once again front and center. Life eonian is a future blessing which the Son of Mankind will be giving to them. That this is in line with the future “eon,” as Jesus discusses in the following verses, gives credibility to the literal nature of the fulfillment of life eonian in the future.

Alas, like Nicodemus, the vast majority of the nation did not understand this, nor did they understand Who the Son of Mankind is. Check out the following verse, for their replies are just as important:

[The throng] said, then, to Him, “What may we be doing that we may be working the works of God?”

We see, of course, that Jesus’ words went right over their heads. They were far more concerned with what they could do for God, as opposed to what God is giving to them through His Son (cf. Rom. 10:1-4.) Like Jacob, they sought to barter with God – “I help You, You help me, right?”

As such, Jesus does not tell them that there is anything that they could do for God, since God Himself is giving life and breath and all (Acts 17:25.)

Jesus answered and said to [the throng,] “This is the work of God, that you may be believing in that One Whom He commissions.”

Jesus is steadfast on this point; belief is what is being requested from God; not acts. God has prepared the food which is remaining into life eonian for the believer, not for the denier. Isreal had failed to recognize the primary lesson of their forefather, Abraham – that it is not Abraham who is working, but God Who is seeing to it (Gen. 22:14.) The life eonian is imparted to those who are believing in their King, not for insubordinate servants.

They said, then, to Him, “What sign, then, are you doing, that we may be perceiving and should be believing you? What are you working? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, according as it is written, ‘Bread out of heaven He gives them to eat.’”

Hearing such an objection from the standpoint of Paul’s evangel, and with a functioning knowledge of logical argumentation, I am extremely depressed by this statement from the throng, here. Borderline disgusted, if I may show my more “improper” reaction.

You could say “Hindsight is 20/20,” and I guess that’s fair, but come on. These guys are asking for signs from Jesus?? Seriously?? The throng that was just fed from little more than five loaves of bread and two fish, and then received an intimation of the meaning behind that parable from Jesus at the very beginning of this discussion?? You’ve got to be joking.

*sigh*

Alas, no, it’s not a joke. They seem to ask this question as if it were rhetorical and proved their point, for they used it as a platform to press on to their next claim. The argument is something like, “Hey! You say ‘it’s not about our works,’ Jesus, but didn’t You read the text?? Our fathers did the work of eating, and that was proof of them doing what God asked, even if they didn’t love it. Isn’t our act of eating bread and their act of eating bread one in the same? So, please – answer the question. What may we be doing that we may be working the works of God?”

Yet Jesus does not waver–

Jesus, then, said to them, “Verily, verily, I am saying to you, not Moses has given you the bread out of heaven, but My Father is giving you Bread out of heaven, the true, for the Bread of God is He Who is descending out of heaven and giving life to the world.”

He begins by stressing to them the context – “Recall, children Mine, that the act of Moses was not the stress in the passage you are quoting, nor was the disposition of the Israelites in the wilderness anything to be impressed by. It was God Who continually manifested the same animal over and over again, so that the Israelites could not possibly mistake their consumption for coincidence or achievement – but as a gift of God.”

In both the case of the Israelites consuming bread from Yahweh in the wilderness, and from Yahweh humiliated – Jesus Christ – the bread is simply obtained, not achieved. Christ then ties this back to the initial statement which launched the debate, concerning the food which is remaining for life eonian. The metaphor is explained: He compares the Bread of God – the manna – to the lasting food, being He Himself, having descended from heaven. The consumption of the bread in the wilderness is comparable to Christ’s “giving life to the world.”

They said, then, to Him, “Lord! Always be giving us this Bread!”

Even in their misunderstanding, the zeal of the Israelites for their Lord is clearly apparent. However, it is not the zeal which Jesus wishes to focus on, but their lack of apprehension of His prior place at the Head of the universe (which, recall, is one of the critical plot points which Satan has doubted from the very start,) His character, and His agenda. Anyone could train a parrot to say, “Jesus is my Lord!” But apart from a heart understanding, one will always come to doubt that “Jesus is Lord” when presented with facts which verify such a statement.

This doubt is shown when Jesus presses the point further:

Jesus, then, said to them, “I am the Bread of life. He who is coming to Me should under no circumstances be hungering, and he who is believing in Me will under no circumstances ever be thirsting. But I said to you that you have also seen Me and you are not believing Me.

All that which the Father is giving to Me shall be arriving to Me, and he who is coming to Me I should under no circumstances be casting out, for I have descended from heaven – not that I should be doing My will, but the will of Him Who sends Me.

While this is a mouthful, it should come as no difficulty to the astute reader of each prior verse we have considered so far. Jesus builds off of the figure, here, that He is the lasting spiritual sustenance of which the “bread” is only a type. He knows exactly what will frustrate the stiff-necked among the throng – an apparent discrepancy concerning His origin, being out of heaven while clearly wandering earth in a meat suit. Yet He doubles down in the next few verses, clarifying further the goal of His descent:

Now this is the will of Him Who sends Me: that all which He has given to Me, of it I should be losing nothing, but I shall be raising it in the last day. For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who is beholding the Son and believing in Him may have life eonian, and I shall be raising him in the last day.”

This revelation, of God’s will, is further in line with Jesus’ position. He is steadfast on the fact that God is the One Who is working. He even goes so far as to proclaim that those whom Jesus has been given by the Father are not lost by the Son. In relation to the sixth administration, this revelation that it is not solely that an individual “comes to Jesus,” per verse 35, but that it is God that gives an individual to Jesus, is profoundly lost on the unbelieving nation. Oh, sure, they recognized that their belief was proof of God’s will, as opposed to their justness (see Nicodemus’ comments in 3:1-2, and his subsequent forced ignorance later, in 7:50-52, as a good example.) They intentionally remained ignorant on the matter, however, for it would have forced them to set aside their attempts at establishing their own righteousness, and acknowledge Him instead.

In relation to our present administration, having studied the first five chapters of Romans observing God’s plan to justify all mankind, thus drawing all to Jesus through the faith that pre-supposes justification, we find a strong, recontextualized life in these words. Indeed, Christ was not “only” given Israel, but all (John 3:35, 13:2.) That John even notes this in this very account very much enables the recognition of the eventual salvation of all, here. Christ will be raising all by the last day, as Paul has clarified – whether the individual must go through judgment, or by being a part of the former resurrection through the very belief Jesus is speaking about here, and thus taking part in life eonian.

This is yet another demonstration of that “parallelism.” Jesus does not repeat the “same thought here in different ways,” as expositors assume. The statement here is, in truth, an elaboration on the great faithful saying briefly summarized by Paul in 1 Tim. 4:10 – that “we rely on the living God, Who is the Savior of all mankind” (which lines up with Jesus’ saying that “that all which [God] has given to [Him,] of it [He] should be losing nothing,”) yet “especially of believers” (which lines up with Jesus’ saying that “those who bare beholding the Son and believing in Him may have life eonian, and [He] shall be raising him in the last day.”)

This clarifies the distinction between the “last days” in view. In Jesus’ former point, He cannot be referring to the end of this eon, as we well know by now that only those of the former resurrection are being roused in the last day of this eon. He must be referring to the “consummation” which Paul is referring to in 1 Cor. 15:24, in which all who are subject to the second death are raised, thus given life beyond the reach of death. When this occurs, all will have been raised in the last day.

In Jesus’ latter point, belief is explicitly in view, of which only a special select are able to enjoy. In that, they will be raised in the last day of this eon, in order to have life eonian. It must be stressed that these believers will have to have been dead in order to be raised – meaning that “life eonian,” once again, cannot mean “life eonian” or “life everlasting.” If He had said “everlasting,” then His promise rings hollow.

Anyway, let’s watch the Jews cope:

The Jews, then, murmured concerning Him, that He said, “I am the Bread which descends out of heaven.” And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, with whose father and mother we are acquainted? How, then, is he saying that ‘Out of heaven have I descended?’”

The Jews were clearly still focused on the flesh than the spiritual matters at hand. They could not immediately refute Jesus’ declarations concerning the will of God, but they could point at Mary and Joseph and go, “Wait a minute… isn’t He only a Man?” The idea that He was, prior to this, in heaven, was a difficult thought, and even heralded as blasphemous by His greatest adversaries (John 5:18.)

This theme, concerning Christ’s existence before His physical birth, is repeatedly discussed throughout the book of John. He is presented as the Word of God at the beginning of the epistle, Who became flesh (John 1:14,) as the only-begotten God Who unfolds the Father (John 1:18,) and Who descended out of heaven (John 6:38.) So much is made of “eating” and “drinking” in these passages because of His place as the Expression of God, which we most often give through words. When Jesus is crucified, it is not merely that God “loses a Son,” but that He loses His voice.

This is Christ’s true identity – One Who reflects His Father, and has been doing so from the beginning. That the throng here willingly refuses to learn Who He is, and instead murmur about it, show that they do not recognize the personality of their Savior. It is this that makes the passage such a heartbreaking one – that Christ does not give up on them, even after soft entreaties such as this. He knew that the source of their murmuring was that they could not possibly replicate such divinity. This intimates that envy that the nation held; instead of appreciating their Lord, they sought to become Him. Jesus saw this underlying conflict, and stood firm.

Jesus, then, answered and said to them, “Do not murmur with one another. No one can come to Me if ever the Father Who sends Me should not be drawing Him. And I shall be raising him in the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Everyone, then, who hears from the Father and is learning the truth, is coming to Me. Not that the Father has been seen by anyone, except by the One Who is from God. This One has seen the Father.

These are the final, preparatory statements for Jesus’ return to the main point concerning the food which is remaining into “life eonian.” They should not be surprised, at the end of the day, by Jesus’ place at the Head of the universe. He affirms God’s sovereignty on the matter, and then demonstrates that the Old Testament prophets affirm that God would indeed educate all of Israel’s sons of Himself. The conclusion concerning both Christ’s existence prior to His physical birth and the writings of the prophets is that everyone who hears from the Father and learns the truth, comes to Christ. This can only be, because the only One Who has seen the Father is Christ.

Verily, verily, I am saying to you that He who is believing in Me has life eonian. I am the Bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the Bread which is descending out of heaven that anyone maybe eating of it and may not be dying. I am the living Bread which descends out of heaven. If anyone should be eating of this Bread, he shall be living for the eon. Now the Bread also, which I shall be giving for the sake of the life of the world, is My flesh.”

I quoted the entirety of this section so that we may appreciate the progression of thought. One who believes, again, has “life eonian.” Here the same affirmation is given, but it is given with the following elaboration: that anyone eating of the “Bread of life” shall be living for the eon. Through this, it is once again evident that Jesus gave no statement of a life which lasted “for ever.” If He did, then there would be no need for Jesus to be “raising” the believer in the last day.

I repeat myself once again here because the cognitive dissonance is strong with religion on this point. The religious crowd wishes so badly to skip over death with their invention of life in death that they make it sound as though Jesus contradicted Himself. To make Jesus sound a fool is, arguably, the most condescending thing you could do to the Guy! You are not believing in Jesus, as He intimates, by changing His words for your own personal agenda. This agenda is the same as the Jews: to work the works of God, as they supposed they were doing by “eating” the bread Jesus produced, and relying on their manna-eating fathers to give a smokescreen that they “knew their Bible.”

The Jews, then, fought with one another, saying, “How then can this one give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus, then, said to them, “Verily, verily, I am saying to you, if you should not be eating the flesh of the Son of Mankind and drinking His blood, you have no eonian life in yourselves. He who is masticating My flesh and drinking My blood has life eonian, and I shall be raising him in the last day, for My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.”

Here again is another instructive example of “eonian life,” and how it cannot mean “everlasting” or “eternal.” If we are to take Paul at his word in 1 Cor. 15:22-28 (which… if you’re a “believer,” you definitely should,) then all will eventually have a permanent, “everlasting” life.

Which is great! Let’s rejoice in this, for the impartation of life is the natural effect of being justified (Rom. 5:18-19.) But it follows: what would make “everlasting life” so special to a believer? If they’re receiving something that “everyone else will receive,” then why on earth does this matter?

For the Jews, the difference is between actually partaking of the kingdom of promise, and not partaking of the kingdom of promise. While all will be saved, not all will be enjoying the final two eons – this is a gift reserved specially for believers, and its base blessings are brought about through faith, not trying to “work.”

For us, the difference is between actually being roused, vivified, and seated together with Christ among the celestials, with a view to assist Him in completing the all in all (Eph. 1:23.)

As such, “everlasting life” is not the special privilege for the believer in either evangel, but a special life for these two eons which is satisfied by the “Bread” – Jesus Christ.

Alas, for all of His arguing, the Jewish crowd simply did not understand Him. Jesus affirms His declaration, and what is their reply?

He said, “Therefore have I declared to you that no one can be coming to Me if it should not be given him of the Father.” At this, then, many of His disciples came away, dropping behind, and walked no longer with Him.

Indeed, they took His “eating flesh” statement literally, instead of treating it as the figure it was. This should not be demarcated as a “low IQ” moment on the part of the Jewish community. Jesus was clear, multiple times in this discussion, that no one could be coming to Him if it should not be given him of the Father. Whether they fully understood this logic or not is, I would argue, beside the point, considering they were actually witnessing many of the signs He produced. They figured that if they remained ignorant, or predicated their personal reasoning, that they could elude this point.

This was, of course, improper, considering the circumstances. The Jews simply did not wish to acknowledge that belief came from God, and that this Man, Whom they deemed physically inferior, was their Ruler.

There is a light in the dark tunnel, however. This could be treated as a “type” of the grain/darnel separation. The darnel walked no longer with Him because they preferred their attempts at establishing their own righteousness. The few who remained, including the twelve, stood by Him, even upon finding His words hard to hear.

Jesus, then, said to the twelve, “Not you also are wanting to go away!”

Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we come away? Declarations of life eonian have You! And we believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.”

If I may briefly set aside the acknowledgement that this passage is bound to the discussion of “life eonian,” the writing here is, yet again, powerful prose on God’s end. First, on an emotional level, hearing Jesus cry, “Not you also are wanting to go away” is heartbreaking. This is only my impression, of course, but even for one who knew all that would occur in the coming days, the literal feeling of loss is poignantly written. Jesus wasn’t speaking in secret code; He implemented one metaphor, which had one “point of contact,” as it were, and then explained that metaphor in relation to the sign He had previously enacted. To lose so many anyway may have been foreordained, but it doesn’t make the actual experience of rejection any less painful or tragic (in a similar sense, knowing a beloved one is sick and dying does not make it easier to handle the actual loss of said beloved one.)

What may hurt even more here (just speculation on my end) is that this point went right over the disciples’ heads. Instead of replying, “We are humbled” or something with a little more acknowledgement, they do the human thing: “What? Oh no, we’re not leaving You, Jesus! We know You’re the good Guy! We picked You!” It was, in essence, the same statement that the throng had been making throughout the entire scene, and remained ignorant to Jesus’ entire declaration, and considering these guys specifically had been following Him around for a longer amount of time than the rest, this was likely even more heartbreaking.

So, let’s wrap up this segment with the final part of the passage – not because it explicitly relates to “life eonian,” but because it’s thematically satisfying to the topic of this article:

Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not I choose you, the twelve, and one of you is an adversary?” Now He said it of Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, for this man was about to give Him up, being one of the twelve.

Indeed, this is the point. Jesus is the One Who chose them – not vice versa. For Him to reverse their internal narrative was likely very shocking for them – and even more shocking that He could verify this statement after the fact with Judas’ betrayal. The Jews (and, indeed, most of humanity today) believe it to be some great satisfaction and relief to “choose Jesus.” Yet what a greater, precious privilege it is to know that, if we are believing, it is because of His choice.

- GerudoKing