John 6:29

Status
Not open for further replies.

alexanderjames

Puritan Board Sophomore
In responding to someone regarding the interpretation of Jesus’ words “this is the work of God” in John 6:29, I noticed that Matthew Henry and John Calvin differed in their commentaries.

Following the miracle of feeding the five thousand, a multitude of people are seeking to find Jesus. Jesus’ words to them in verses 26-27 are,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labour for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on Him God the Father has set His seal.”

The people then ask “what must we do, to be doing the works of God”?
Jesus’ response is “this is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent”.


I had understood Jesus’ response to be saying in effect - ‘do not think that works will justify you before God. There is only one “work” that God requires of you.. simply believe in Me.’


Someone had used this verse in an attempt to prove that faith is a work of God.
It appears that Matthew Henry held to this view. Per his commentary,

“This is the work of God that ye believe. Note, (1.) The work of faith is the work of God. They enquire after the works of God (in the plural number), being careful about many things; but Christ directs them to one work, which includes all, the one thing needful: that you believe, which supersedes all the works of the ceremonial law; the work which is necessary to the acceptance of all the other works, and which produces them, for without faith you cannot please God. It is God's work, for it is of his working in us, it subjects the soul to his working on us, and quickens the soul in working for him, (2.) That faith is the work of God which closes with Christ, and relies upon him. It is to believe on him as one whom God hath sent, as God's commissioner in the great affair of peace between God and man, and as such to rest upon him, and resign ourselves to him. See ch. 14:1.”


But John Calvin disagrees on this point of interpretation (see especially the last sentence here),

“29. The work of God is this. They had spoken of works Christ reminds them of one work, that is, faith; by which he means that all that men undertake without faith is vain and useless, but that faith alone is sufficient, because this alone does God require from us, that we believe For there is here an implied contrast between faith and the works and efforts of men; as if he had said, Men toil to no purpose, when they endeavor to please God without faith, because, by running, as it were, out of the course, they do not advance towards the goal. This is a remarkable passage, showing that, though men torment themselves wretchedly throughout their whole life, still they lose their pains, if they have not faith in Christ as the rule of their life. Those who infer from this passage that faith is the gift of God are mistaken; for Christ does not now show what God produces in us, but what he wishes and requires from us…”


(Please note that both commentaries have more to say than the excerpts here).


What say ye regarding this matter? I am on the side of Calvin myself.
 
Last edited:
I take Calvin's position, or he takes mine.

It seems clear to me that Jesus rebuts the implied premise in the question from the crowd as he answers. He first rebuked them for their seeking him, as the seeking was not predicated on devotion to his Person or on account of faith in him (and in his work including the miracles/signs which summoned them to faith). Their response to being rebuked is not self-reflection, but an offer to "measure up." As if Jesus was most unsatisfied with them because they appeared greedy to him; and what he wanted from them in return for relieving them of want of food was some form of payment--in money, in morals, in enlistment of his cause (which they equated with purely earthly kingdom glory).

The crowd attracted to Jesus was no more grown-up in spiritual understanding than was the infant nation of Israel in the wilderness. Filling the bellies of the people in the wilderness, who lacked most any other nourishment, was a sign to them for the purpose of raising their eyes to the LORD God their Savior and Provider. Jesus is the ultimate Sign, the living Bread of heaven; look to him, but not simply to be satisfied of belly/body so that now you are free to fulfill your own aims (besides a token or grudging admission of divine right).

The people of the wilderness in both cases were needy. Their need defined who they were, and without the need met (by the power of another) their suffering was assured. But in neither case did the satisfaction of their need produce the kind of regard for the Provider that should have resulted. Bluntly told as much by the Lord Jesus, the people who resorted to him again (now back in "civilization") offered to hear whatever might be required of them in order to keep the "windows of heaven" open, pouring out non-spiritual goodies. Jesus' counters by denying them the right to payment, instead ordaining faith alone. This radical demand implies an open-ended devotion that no legal requirement can fulfill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top