Expository note on John 6:37-45

[Van]

Lets review:

1) Draw when used metaphorically means to attract by lovingkindness.
2) John 6:37 says all given by the Father arrive in Christ and Christ will not cast them out.
3) Matthew 23:13 teaches that some fallen men were actually entering heaven, thus were seeking God and His righteousness. Thus the Calvinist doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability is simply another bogus and unbiblical view.
Draw means attract and give results in a changed location and come means to arrive in a new location, and cast out requires that a person has been transferred into Christ, otherwise they could not be cast out.

 

[Yeshua1]

Lets review:

1) Draw when used metaphorically means to attract by lovingkindness.
2) John 6:37 says all given by the Father arrive in Christ and Christ will not cast them out.
3) Matthew 23:13 teaches that some fallen men were actually entering heaven, thus were seeking God and His righteousness. Thus the Calvinist doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability is simply another bogus and unbiblical view.
Draw means attract and give results in a changed location and come means to arrive in a new location, and cast out requires that a person has been transferred into Christ, otherwise they could not be cast out.

Would not ANY sinner seeking the Lord jesus though be due to the election of God towards them, that it is due to the father drawing them to jesus, and that not of themselves?

 

[Van]

Would not ANY sinner seeking the Lord jesus though be due to the election of God towards them, that it is due to the father drawing them to jesus, and that not of themselves?

No, not all sinners seeking God to some degree are elected. Recall the second and third soils of Matthew 13, not to mention Matthew 23:13.

 

[OldRegular]

Hi OR, here is how the online Strong's reads:

The idea is to impel by attraction, i.e. the lovingkindness of God as presented by Jesus dying for us on the cross.
From Thayer's: ...2. metaph. to draw by inward power, lead, impel: John 6:44.

However you want to understand draw the teaching of John 6:37, 44, and 65 is that God chose certain persons to Salvation, gave them to Jesus Christ who died for them, will ensure that they come to Jesus Christ for Salvation, and that He {Jesus Christ} will raise them up {resurrect} them on the last day.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

 

[Van]

Hi OR, repeating the same refuted argument over and over does not advance the ball.

You asked me how I justified saying draw meant to attract by lovingkindness. I answered it was based on what the lexicon's say is the usage in John 6:44. You then partially quoted from lexiconal information, leaving out the metaphorical usage included in my on line lexicons.

I am waiting for you, OR, to post, yes Van, I see that your view is shared in some lexicons. But I will not hold my breath.

All that the Father gives to me, out of those drawn by the Father, will arrive in Me, and I will not cast out. Although the second and third soils of Matthew 13 were drawn by the Father, He did not credit their faith as righteousness, and therefore did not give them to Me.

 

[OldRegular]

Hi OR, repeating the same refuted argument over and over does not advance the ball.

You asked me how I justified saying draw meant to attract by lovingkindness. I answered it was based on what the lexicon's say is the usage in John 6:44. You then partially quoted from lexiconal information, leaving out the metaphorical usage included in my on line lexicons.

You need new spectacles Van!

Strong for draw

1670. elkuw helkuo hel-koo'-o; or elkw helko hel'-ko; probably akin to 138; to drag (literally or figuratively):-- draw. Compare 1667.

********************************

Thayer for draw

probably akin to 138; TDNT - 2:503,227; v

KJV - draw 8; 8

1) to draw, drag off
2) metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

********************

My bold!

Whether you assume "draw" is used metaphorically does not make any difference. God still brings those he has chosen to Salvation and given to Jesus Christ to Him. I believe God the Holy Spirit does this through the New Birth or regeneration. Others simply call this the "EffectualCall"! Whichever, God is the active Person in drawing one to jesus Christ.

 

[jonathan.borland]

I'm sorry, but I still don't know of any on this board who would deny that the Father has given (= draws) all of the elect to Jesus, and that all of the elect will come to Jesus. This in itself has no bearing on the popular theological debate. As far as the passage in question goes, the elect are everyone who hears and learns from the Father, whoever looks on the Son and believes, and truly whoever believes. As Augustine said something to the effect of, "Are you not drawn? Pray that you will be drawn!" it behooves us to obey Jesus' command to "work" for the food that endures to eternal life (6:27) which is none other than "believing" in Jesus (6:29). Have any trouble in believing? Then let him cry out, "Lord, help thou mine unbelief!"

 

[Van]

You are right, no one disputes that everyone of the elect were drawn before they were given to Jesus, which refers to being spiritually placed in Christ.

The issue is that Calvinism mistakenly asserts that drawn means to be compelled by irresistible grace. So yet another rewrite of scripture to pour Calvinism into the text.

My view is that all who hear and understand the gospel, which includes Jesus dying for their sins, are drawn by God's lovingkindness. But not all who are drawn are given to Jesus, some like the second soil of Matthew 13 fall away and therefore were never placed in Christ.

 

[Rippon]

I'm sorry, but I still don't know of any on this board who would deny that the Father has given (= draws) all of the elect to Jesus, and that all of the elect will come to Jesus.

But then we have the case of Vanology :"But not all who are drawn are given to Jesus."

Van inverts plain Scripture on a daily basis.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm sorry, but I still don't know of any on this board who would deny that the Father has given (= draws) all of the elect to Jesus, and that all of the elect will come to Jesus. This in itself has no bearing on the popular theological debate.

The text (Jn. 6:37-38) in its context (Jn. 6:36-40) demands that giving precedes and is the cause for coming to Christ rather than coming to Christ is the cause of being given. So the issue is cause versus effect.

For example, Jesus uses the present tense "given" in relationship to the future tense "shall come" demonstrating that giving occurs prior to coming and is therefore the only contextual cause given for coming to Christ. If one one attempts to deny a time distinction, verse 38-39 demands that the coming of Christ to earth was in response to the same act of the Father giving them to the Son, thus this places giving as an act prior to both the incarnation and anyone coming to Christ by faith.

Verses 37-39 deny any basis to claim that coming to Christ by faith is the cause for having been given to the Son. They are no more given to the Son because they come to him faith than they are drawn to the Son because they come to him by faith. In both cases the work of God (being "given" and "draw") are the contextual causes for coming to Christ. Thus believing in Christ is "the work of God" and not due to any inherent ability found in man because "no man CAN come...."

Now, there are two options in regard to election. The option that conditions election upon foreseen faith, and the option that conditions faith upon foreordained election. John 6:37-39 denies that faith is the precondition for either the act of giving by the Father or the coming of Christ to earth. In other words the text does not read as follows:

"And all that come to the Son, the Father SHALL GIVE to the Son"

However, that is precisely how Van and some others, and perhaps you are interpreting this whole passage as though it meant that? Is that true?

 

[jonathan.borland]

The text (Jn. 6:37-38) in its context (Jn. 6:36-40) demands that giving precedes and is the cause for coming to Christ rather than coming to Christ is the cause of being given. So the issue is cause versus effect.

So? This is still not an unconditional election or irresistible grace verse or even a perseverance verse, but rather a simple statement that I don't think anyone here would deny, i.e., that all the elect are given (=drawn) to Jesus and in fact will come to (=believe in) Jesus.

For example, Jesus uses the present tense "given"

Actually, it's "gives." "Given" is the past participle form.

thus this places giving as an act prior to both the incarnation and anyone coming to Christ by faith.

No, the time of the giving is not specifically stated in 6:38-39. He could have said, ". . . that I should lose nothing of all that he gave me from the foundation of the world" here, but he doesn't. Grammatically, the perfect tense "has given" may indicate time from before the foundation of the world up until the time Jesus spoke the words. Indeed, it is linguistically difficult for God to be said to have given them to Jesus from "out of the world" (17:6) if he did so before they existed or before they were even in the world, but for God who is not bound by time the actual time of the giving and the emphasis you read into the tenses in 6:38-39 are not as significant as you make them out to be.

Verses 37-39 deny any basis to claim that coming to Christ by faith is the cause for having been given to the Son. They are no more given to the Son because they come to him faith than they are drawn to the Son because they come to him by faith. In both cases the work of God (being "given" and "draw") are the contextual causes for coming to Christ.

Cf. my first paragraph above. This is not a passage about election. The passage is analogous to 10:26. In fact I prefer 10:26, because the cause and effect, so far as they go in demonstrating the fact that only the elect come to Christ, are plainer.

Thus believing in Christ is "the work of God" and not due to any inherent ability found in man because "no man CAN come...."

Again, nothing to do with election or even any point in TULIP. I'm still wondering what's the point. No one here, so far as I know, says that anyone has any inherent ability to come to Christ on his own apart from the Father.

What do you mean by your statement that "believing in Christ is 'the work of God'"? That the act of believing itself is caused by God? You use quotes. Does that mean you're quoting 6:29 to substantiate your claim? If so, that's certainly not what 6:29 means.

Now, there are two options in regard to election.

Funny that you should now talk about something that the passage is not about.

The option that conditions election upon foreseen faith, and the option that conditions faith upon foreordained election. John 6:37-39 denies that faith is the precondition for either the act of giving by the Father or the coming of Christ to earth.

The problem, in case you haven't gotten my point, is that the passage in question speaks nothing about the conditions or lack of conditions behind election, nothing about foreknowledge prior to or in consequence of election, but only the actual fact that the elect will in fact come/believe.

However, that is precisely how Van and some others, and perhaps you are interpreting this whole passage as though it meant that? Is that true?

I'm not sure that Van reads the passage that way, although if he sees God's foreknowledge of his future acts of grace toward individuals and their positive response to his suasion/persuasion as prior in time and intricately related to his act of foreordination of the elect, then I can see how he might read that into the passage, although that is obviously not what the passage itself is saying.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, the time of the giving is not specifically stated in 6:38-39.

Although the specific time is not given it is necessarily implied to have been prior to the incarnation or else Jesus could not have said that his very coming was consequential to the Father's giving. That necessarily infers the time of giving preceded the incarnation. If it preceded the incarnation it certainly preceded anyone at the point of this conversation actually coming to Christ.

Again, He did NOT say, "all that come to me SHALL be given to me by the Father." However, if he had said that then it would be hailed as evidence that coming precedes giving.

So there is a cause versus effect clearly implied and the time of giving is clearly implied to be prior to the incarnation.

but for God who is not bound by time the actual time of the giving and the emphasis you read into the tenses in 6:38-39 are not as significant as you make them out to be.

I am not reading into the tenses anything that is not there. The future tense "shall come" implies that coming follows rather than precedes the present tense giveth. That implication is then reinforced by the fact that Jesus claims his very coming was purposely consequential to this act of giving by the Father in verse 38. These two contextual factors implies the act of giving by the Father preceded the incarnation and was causual factor in the eternal purpose ("will of God") of the incarnation. "i came down...to do" is a stated cause.

 

[The Biblicist]

No one here, so far as I know, says that anyone has any inherent ability to come to Christ on his own apart from the Father.

The point is one of cause and effect. Their ultimate interpretation of John 6:37 is that coming is the cause and being given is the effect. So, that coming is the cause for being given by the Father to the Son. Therefore, they ultimately interpret it to mean "All who are coming to the Son shall be given by the Father." However, it says and means the very reverse. Giving precedes coming in regard to cause and effect and the context bears this out as the incarnation is stated by Christ to be a purposeful effect of the Father giving such to the Son. He came into this world BECAUSE the Father had purposed him to secure the salvation of those given to him by the Father. That demands the giving by the Father preceded not merely his actual incarnation but in regard to the "will" of God the incarnation was consequential to having first given them to Christ. Whether you agree or not, that necessarily implies God had chosen who would be given to Christ before the world began. The overall context of Scripture demands this conclusion for John 6:37-39 or do you know any other people given to the Son for the purpose of salvation prior to the incarnation other than the elect??

Their ultimate interpretation of John 6:44-45; 64-65 is that all mankind without exception are drawn by the Father and therefore, the lack of drawing by the Father is not the cause of "unbelief" in those in verses 64-65, even though John 6:64-65 denies all mankind without exception is drawn by the Father. Hence, if John 6:63-66 denies that all mankind without exception are drawn by the Father, and it does deny that, then the lack of drawing by the Father results in sinners remaining in "unbelief" and in this specific example even "from the beginning" of their profession as his disciples. That being the case, and it is the case, then the use of the Greek term translated "draw" in all other cases outside these debated cases (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) is proven to be the case as well in these debated cases and that is, drawing and coming are simultaneous actions and thus drawing is effectual in coming. For example, Peter draws his sword out, thus drawing and the sword coming out are simeltaneous. The only case where coming is not simultaneous is where the one drawing is too weak (case of fisherman and net) but God is the one drawing here and he is not weak.

 

[The Biblicist]

What do you mean by your statement that "believing in Christ is 'the work of God'"?

Coming to Christ equals believing in Christ in this context (v. 35). Coming is attributed as consequential to first being given by the Father which is a work of God (Jn. 6:29-39). Coming is attributed as consequential to being drawn by the Father which is a work of God. The lack of being drawn is attributed to remaining in the state of unbelief (Jn. 6:64-65). At minimum, the work of God in giving and drawing is explicitly provided as prerequisites for coming to Christ by faith and both are the work of God. Therefore, the following context from John 6:29 does in fact teach that coming to faith in Christ is the work of God = "This is the work of God that ye believe."

That the act of believing itself is caused by God?

As far as ultimate cause? Yes! That is the good work he has begun in us (Philip 1:6) as to believe in Christ is given to us (Philip. 1:29) working in us "both to will and to do" of His good pleasure (Philip. 2:13). Not that we are forced to believe, but that drawing by God is the internal work of God (v. 45) that transforms the inward natural disposition from hating to loving light, from a mental state of unbelief to belief and therefore both mechanisms that control the will are changed so that the state of the will which is at war against God is changed to willing submission to God or the complete internal transformation of the heart through the new birth.

You use quotes. Does that mean you're quoting 6:29 to substantiate your claim? If so, that's certainly not what 6:29 means.

In verse 27 the labor Jesus refers to was their following him across the sea in order to obtain more physical food. He tells them that their motivation and energy in seeking him out was misdirected. They ought to have expended that energy in seeking him for food that wrought eternal life, that Christ would GIVE to them. He is not implying they have the inherent ability to achieve that task but only that would be the right motive and expenditure of energy. Indeed, Jesus says that eternal life is something he will "GIVE" rather than something achieved by their works. However, in response to something that Jesus said was to be GIVEN to them, they claim they can "do" whatever is necessary to obtain eternal life if they are but told what to "do" and they will "work the works of God. This is the precise point where expositors of this passage mess up. They fail to see to see that the audience is responding by claiming inherent ability to "do" the "works of God" to obtain eternal life when Jesus had just said it was something that was GIVEN. Hence, they fail to see the clash between Christ's assertion that eternal life is a gift versus the assertion by his audience that they are able to obtain it by works. Verse 29 is Christ's response to this clash over gift versus works. Coming to Christ by faith to obtain eternal life is not by working the works (plural) of God but "this is the work (singular) of God that ye believe." The work of God (vv. 37-45) was not performed in regard to them and so they do not believe (v. 36).

They wrongly interpret the words of Christ in verse 27 to mean that he is telling them they can obtain eternal life by "labor". He is no more telling them they are able to do that to obtain eternal life than he was telling the Rich Young Ruler or the Pharisee that they are able to keep the Law to obtain eternal life. Keeping the law would obtain eternal life IF they were able but they are not. However, directing them to keep the law for eternal life is the right thing to do in regard to their question "what must I DO" to obtain eternal life. Likewise, telling them to labor for eternal life is the right thing to do based upon the heart attitude which is later expressed in explicit language of works. That would be the right direction of their labors if their labors could obtain eternal life but they lack the ability (Jn. 6:44). Eternal life cannot be obtained by works but is a GIFT that the Son GIVES to all coming to him by faith which is consequential of God's work in giving and drawing. He is merely rebuking them for expenditure of motive and labor toward the wrong thing. However, by directing their expenditure of motive toward the right thing, he is not claiming they are ABLE to obtain it by their labor but only that is the proper direction of motive and labor. Later, he will deny their ABILITY to obtain it (v. 44) as that ability is the product of the "work of God" in drawing.

Most interpreters fail to see that Christ is actually denying they have inherent ability to "do" the "works of God" for eternal life. Instead, he is asserting that what must be done to obtain eternal life is only something God can do - "This is the work of God that ye believe." Notice they ask what "works" plural they can "do" but Christ responds with "work" singular. In verse 30 they continue to make their claim that they have inherent ability to believe "that we MAY believe" (although Christ will later say "no man can come" apart from the work of God, which is the assertion of universal inability to believe).

In verses 31-33 Christ makes it clear that he is the manna sent by the Father from heaven to give eternal life. In verse 34 they ask him to give them this manna to live forever. Jesus tells them how to receive it in verse 35 but then, before they can reply, tells them they are in a state of unbelief in verse 36 even though they had seen him perform the very kind of miracle they asked for in verse 30 in the feeding of the 5000. Thus the problem of unbelief is not in seeing the miraculous as they claimed in verse 30 but in the fact that "the work of God" had not been performed in regard to them (vv. 37-39) so that they could come to Christ. Now, look at the contrast between verse 36 and verse 40. The former have seen (horao) or perceived him from an external point of view whereas the latter see him (theoreo) from an inward experiential point of view because they were "given" by the Father to come to Christ. This experiential point of view is later defined in the meaning of drawing in verse 45 or the internal instruction by God so that the person experiences hearing and learning from God.

You may choose to reject my interpretation of John 6:29 but you cannot possibly deny that coming to Christ by faith is the work of God described in John 6:37-45 where giving and drawing are necessary antecedents for coming to Christ by faith and thus "this is the work of God that ye believe." The reason for the unbelief of his audience in verse 36 is the lack of the Father's work in giving them (vv. 37-40) and drawing them (vv. 44-45) as that is the explicit reason stated for the unbelief of those in verses 63-66.

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem, in case you haven't gotten my point, is that the passage in question speaks nothing about the conditions or lack of conditions behind election, nothing about foreknowledge prior to or in consequence of election, but only the actual fact that the elect will in fact come/believe.

First, the word "elect" is not found in this context any more than "election" is found in this context and so if you can assume the "elect" are the subjects then I can also assume election is in view as well. As before shown, there is contextual warrant to establish that this giving by the Father is the prerequisite to God's will of purpose for the incarnation and that can only refer to election. Jesus does say he came down from heaven = incarnation - to obey the will of the Father in this matter - meaning that the incarnation = coming down from heaven - was in fact consequential to this giving by the Father. May I ask you who other than the elect were given to the Son to secure their salvation PRIOR TO THE INCARNATION other than the elect????? Hence, "given" before the incarnation does in fact = ELECTION (2 Thes. 2:13; Eph. 1:4) if John 6:37-39 is interpreted in keeping with the overall context of the Scriptures.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Although the specific time is not given it is necessarily implied to have been prior to the incarnation or else Jesus could not have said that his very coming was consequential to the Father's giving.

The verse indicates that the purpose, not the cause, of Jesus' coming was to do God's will. It still doesn't state when the giving to Jesus occurs. If God gave them "out of the world", then didn't they have to be in the world before they could be given out of it? Still the verse doesn't say that giving/drawing of people occurs before they were or even Jesus himself was born. That's eisegesis, pure and simple.

 

[jonathan.borland]

The point is one of cause and effect. Their ultimate interpretation of John 6:37 is that coming is the cause and being given is the effect. So, that coming is the cause for being given by the Father to the Son. Therefore, they ultimately interpret it to mean "All who are coming to the Son shall be given by the Father." However, it says and means the very reverse.

We agree on this point.

 

[jonathan.borland]

You may choose to reject my interpretation of John 6:29

I do reject it. In 6:28 "works of God" it is an objective genitive, i.e., the works are to/for God. Of course many thought that by doing the "works of God" they might be saved. In 6:29 Jesus reminds them that there is only one such "work of God" to do, and that is believing. All works for God are subsumed under the "work" of belief. If one has faith, one has also the works of God, and if one doesn't, he has hasn't. This is no different than the example of Abraham. Believing is obviously dependent on the work of God, but that is not found in 6:29. There it's not a subjective genitive (i.e., "God works in order that you believe") any more than it is in 6:28.

The reason for the unbelief of his audience in verse 36 is the lack of the Father's work in giving them (vv. 37-40) and drawing them (vv. 44-45) as that is the explicit reason stated for the unbelief of those in verses 63-66.

You can talk about all these causes and effects all you want, but put simply, it means nothing more than that those given (i.e. the elect) will come. It speaks nothing about the prior and only important event of election that eventually brings the elect to the point of being given. Basically you're talking a bunch of noise, the causes and effects in between calling and justification in Rom 8:30, whereas everyone already agrees that everyone who is called will be justified. So you're arguing and trying to convince nobody on this board who believes otherwise, which is why I asked, "What's the point?"

 

[jonathan.borland]

Hence, "given" before the incarnation does in fact = ELECTION (2 Thes. 2:13; Eph. 1:4) if John 6:37-39 is interpreted in keeping with the overall context of the Scriptures.

Now you say it. Or maybe I missed it before? Obviously I disagree.

 

[The Biblicist]

The verse indicates that the purpose, not the cause, of Jesus' coming was to do God's will.

The CAUSE for Christ coming is the stated will of Purpose by the Father. Thus the PURPOSE of Christ coming has its CAUSE in the Will of the Father. Therefore, his coming is a CONSEQUENCE of the STATED will of the Father. Thus the Stated will existed BEFORE His coming or it is not the cause of His coming. That stated will is spelled out using the perfect tense "given" thus he came in response to God's will that had already "given" all of these to come to Christ. No eisegesis here at all, just plain clear exegesis.