Expository note on John 6:37-45

[jonathan.borland]

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.

Your interpretation is baffling. First you say that giving = drawing = electing, and that this happens before the foundation of the world (based on a future tense), and then throw away the future tense when drawing (still?) = electing happens after Jesus is obviously on earth and lifted up?

 

[The Biblicist]

"works of God" it is an objective genitive,

According to who? I say it is a subjective genitive instead - the work produced by God and the context prove it is in verse 44 (and I believe verses 37-39 also prove it is).

In 6:29 Jesus reminds them that there is only one such "work of God" to do, and that is believing.

Your interpretation contradicts Jn. 6:44 which denies man has the ability to do such a work. Your interpretation ignores the whole interplay between their claim to "do" and Christ's claim that eternal life is something GIVEN. The whole Biblical teaching concerning Faith as "of grace" therefore not of works (Rom. 4:16; Eph. 2:8) contradicts your interpretation.

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.

It is a subjective genitive and you are ignoring that there are two different speakers in verses 28-29 and the latter has "works" plural in view and their own ability to perform it in view (v. 30) while the former has a singular "work" and their inability to perform that work in view (vv. 36-65).

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?"

I reject your nonsense. If that is what you choose to believe then you are welcome to it but it pure eisegesis not exegesis.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your interpretation is baffling. First you say that giving = drawing = electing, and that this happens before the foundation of the world (based on a future tense), and then throw away the future tense when drawing (still?) = electing happens after Jesus is obviously on earth and lifted up?

No, I never said that "giving=drawing=electing"! Nowhere have I said that and I do not believe that and never have believed that. That is your twisting of my words. The elect are given to the Son and then drawn. That has been my position, that is my position and I have NEVER said anything different.

I have NEVER said anywhere at anytime that drawing occurs before the world began. That is your imagination at work.

I said the future tense "shall come" simply demonstrates the act of coming occurs AFTER being given not BEFORE or DURING being given. I have shown that the PURPOSE for Christ coming into the world was to fulfill the stated CAUSE revealed in the Father's will, which uses the perfect tense "given" demonstrating that the act of giving by the Father preceded the act of coming into the world by the Son as well as preceding the act of coming to Christ by faith by "all" who had been given to him.

Read more carefully!

 

[The Biblicist]

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

The act of election is the act of giving some to Christ to redeem as they are "chosen TO salvation" (2 Thes. 2:13). The terms elect and give are not equal in meaning but inseparable actions as the term "given" expresses the destination of election.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

What I have stated above is exegetically sound. It proves that the CAUSE which is the stated will of the Father is inclusive of a perfect tense giving PRIOR to the incarnation and for which the incarnation was PURPOSED to fulfill. The ONLY possible giving as a completed action prior to the incarnation in regard to salvation is the act of election before the foundation of the world (2 Thes. 2:13). No other such completed action can be found in scripture but election. That is not an eisegetical conclusion but a very solid and sound exegetical conclusion as immediate context must also fit with overall Biblical context. Hence, my "point" is that "given" is not referring to the choice of persons to be called apostles, as in the case of Judas in John 17, but John 6 is referring to salvation by election whereby some have been perfect tense "given" occurred in eternity past in response to which the incarnation occurred to secure their salvation.

 

[jonathan.borland]

The ONLY possible giving as a completed action prior to the incarnation in regard to salvation is the act of election before the foundation of the world (2 Thes. 2:13).

And the present action of "all the Father GIVES me" (6:37)? "Oh, that's something else, the present tense really doesn't mean that God is actually electing people as Jesus is speaking the words."

 

[jonathan.borland]

Jesus emphasized believing. I think my main problem with your "exposition" is that it emphasizes something else, 10+ pages of something else. Giving, drawing, being given, not being given, not being drawn, etc. I think the thread could be closed now with profit.

BTW, belief is not "works," but it is a work/act/thing commanded to DO. Please don't misrepresent my position by claiming that I believe in "works" in opposition to being saved by grace through faith. That's irresponsible on your part, since that's not what I believe.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

You are confusing the twelve being given by the Father to be apostles, including Judas (Jn. 17), with being given to COME TO CHRIST BY FAITH (Jn. 6). Apples versus oranges.

In John 6:38 the perfect tense "given" reveals a completed action in regard to the "will of God" before the foundation of the world. In John 6:37 the present tense "give" deals with time and space in its causual relationship with actual coming to Christ by faith and actually being drawn by the Father to come to Christ by faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

And the present action of "all the Father GIVES me" (6:37)? "Oh, that's something else, the present tense really doesn't mean that God is actually electing people as Jesus is speaking the words."

The perfect tense "given" in verse 38 is in context with the "will of God" and refers to the completed action by God before time. The present tense "give" in verse 37 is in the context and connection with "shall come to me" in time and space and reveals the cause of coming as proven by the perfect tense "given" in the next verse in regard to Gods' will.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jesus emphasized believing. I think my main problem with your "exposition" is that it emphasizes something else, 10+ pages of something else. Giving, drawing, being given, not being given, not being drawn, etc. I think the thread could be closed now with profit.

What you fail to see is that believing is inseparable from divine work which is the subject from verses 29-65. The audience is plainly asserting inherent ability to believe while Christ is plainly asserting universal inability to believe and so believing is the theme throughout with the contrast whether it is man's work or God's work. The obvious teaching is that it is God's work - "this is the work of God that ye believe" as proven in verses 36-65.

BTW, belief is not "works," but it is a work/act/thing commanded to DO. Please don't misrepresent my position by claiming that I believe in "works" in opposition to being saved by grace through faith. That's irresponsible on your part, since that's not what I believe.

Then don't interpret John 6:29 to mean that faith is "work" when the rest of Scriptures plainly deny it is "of works" but is "of grace" (Rom. 4:16; Eph. 2:8-9).

Furthermore, saving faith is not a "work thing" but a "fruit" thing of the Spirit and a "grace" thing and as you ultimately admit it is a "work of God" thing.

 

[Van]

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.

Not the issue at all. Folks being given in John 6:37 comes before "come to Me" that is the order. The dispute is the meaning of come to me. Calvinists claim the idea is coming to faith, a mental change of view, whereas I say the idea is being placed spiritually in Christ, the transfer from the realm of darkness to the kingdom of Christ.

The inability to actually address the issue is evidence of a lack of validity to the argument. Since once a person has come to Me, they will not be cast out, obviously the meaning is to arrive in Christ.

 

[Van]

I see the broken record claims that Dr. Dan Wallace understanding of the grammar of John 6:29 is wrong, and his view is right. You have got to love them.

To return to the issue:
1) God draws people who hear and understand the gospel, for they "behold" Christ high and lifted up, dying for their sins.
2) Not everyone drawn is given to Christ, some like the second soil of Matthew 13 do not have their faith credited as righteousness because it is without root.
3) All those given to Christ arrive in Christ, thus a change in spiritual location.
4) Once a person arrives in Christ, they will not be cast out.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not the issue at all. Folks being given in John 6:37 comes before "come to Me" that is the order. The dispute is the meaning of come to me. Calvinists claim the idea is coming to faith, a mental change of view, whereas I say the idea is being placed spiritually in Christ, the transfer from the realm of darkness to the kingdom of Christ.

The inability to actually address the issue is evidence of a lack of validity to the argument. Since once a person has come to Me, they will not be cast out, obviously the meaning is to arrive in Christ.

I am going to give you three explicit reasons that directly relate to your objection why your interpretation of "cometh to me" is NOT the "arrival in a spiritual state" or "in Christ spiritually."

1. Van where is the first mention of "cometh to me" in John 6? It is first found in verse 35. The first instance is usually the definitive instance for further usage in the same context by the same writer. What does verse 35 say:

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

First, "cometh to me" is mentioned before "believeth on me". If they are not the same, then you have a person that has arrived in Christ before believing in Christ.
Second, it is a common Hebrew idiom to liken eating and drinking to mental partaking of God's Word:

Jer. 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

Ezek. 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.
4 And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them.

This language is expressive of partaking of God’s Word, as one would partake of food, but not with the mouth, but with the heart and mind. Notice the final application of Ezekiel eating the role is “speak with my words unto them.” He was to devour the roll containing God’s Word so that his mind and heart totally digested its content so that he could preach it to the people of God. Likewise, Jesus is telling his audience that they must partake of him, as one would partake of food, but not with their mouth, but through faith receive him into their minds and hearts.
The contextual backdrop and development of this food theme begins in John 6 with Christ feeding the five thousand (Jn. 6:1-15)

2. PRESENT TENSE ACTIVE VOICE VERB. This is describing an action by "he" as the subject not an action by Christ. The "arrival in a spiritual state" is not an action that can be ascribed to any human but only God is the doer of that kind of action. If this verbal action was to be understood of "he" it would be found in the PASSIVE voice but it is not. These two facts repudiate your theory.

3. The phrase "cometh to me" and "believeth on me" are in parallel with each other and synonymous as both achieve the same metaphorical satisfaction. In eating a meal a person is satisifed when they have no more hunger and thirst. If they continue to have hunger and thirst they are still unsatisfied. Coming to Christ contextually means coming to Christ by faith for eternal life and that completely satisfies spiritual hunger or thirst for "eternal life."

 

[The Biblicist]

I see the broken record claims that Dr. Dan Wallace understanding of the grammar of John 6:29 is wrong, and his view is right. You have got to love them.

The "inspired record" is found in context and Dr. Wallace fails to ignore the context and is an uninspired human being like the rest of us. He is wrong. It is a subjective genitive and I have already provided the immediate contextual evidence to prove it is.

1. His audience is asserting inherent ability to believe - vv. 27,30
2. He is denying inherent ability to believe but that it is the work of God
a. Subjective genitive - v. 29
b. The work of God in giving precedes believing
c. The work of God in drawing precedes believing

To return to the issue:

No, you mean "return to van-dalism of the scripture!

1) God draws people who hear and understand the gospel, for they "behold" Christ high and lifted up, dying for their sins.

But NONE do but those God teaches (Jn. 6:45a) and "ALL" God teaches both hears and learns and comes or they are not taught/drawn by God as those in verses 63-66.

2) Not everyone drawn is given to Christ, some like the second soil of Matthew 13 do not have their faith credited as righteousness because it is without root.

The subject of giving precedes the subject of drawing in our text, does it not? All who are given are drawn and must be because "all" given do effectually come.

Verses 44-45 is continuation to the same audiance about the same subject of coming to Christ is it not? Yes it is. There are NONE mentioned in verse 44 coming to Christ but "he" who is the exception to "no man can come" and thus all mentioned as being drawn in verse 44 are the only possible ones placed in contrast to "no man can" " Hence, ALL drawn equals ALL who come and ALL who come equals ALL drawn as ONLY THOSE NOT DRAWN do not come to Christ in faith but remain in "unbelief" - vv. 64-65.

3) All those given to Christ arrive in Christ, thus a change in spiritual location.

The active voice verb denies this can possibly be "arrive in Christ" meaning as even you say it is a "spiritual LOCATION" and no human being has that ability and the ability of this verb is being ascribed to the person.

4) Once a person arrives in Christ, they will not be cast out.

Again, the ACTIVE voice verb wholly repudiates your interpretation as "arrival in a spiritual location" as that cannot possibly be attributed to any human's action.

Your position is wholly exposed as pure rubbish but you ignore all the evidences presented and simply act like a parrot and repeat your nonsense over and over as a man who is blind and deaf to everything around him that broadcasts his obvious errors.

 

[The Biblicist]

Irrational responses

Readers, it is impossible to reason with a person who habitually responds by ignoring the evidences placed before him and simply repeating a mantra. That is not a discussion but rather a parrot who is trained to respond only by a limited vocabularly.

I thank Jonathan, because we at least shared a rational conversation.

 

[Van]

Folks, I see more gibberish has been posted concerning the order of verbs in John 6:35.

1) He who comes to me refers to someone being spiritually transferred into Christ, and therefore will not hunger for the bread of life, having received eternal life. Next, we have He who believing into Christ will never thirst, having received the water of eternal life. Thus these two statements make the same point, outside of Christ - lost, in Christ -saved.

Now in John 6:37, all the Father gives to Me shall "come" to me, does not use the same word for come found in John 6:35, but another word which means "arrive." So all the Father gives to Me will arrive in Me, refers again to the transfer into Jesus. The second "come" in verse 37 is the same word as come in verse 35, and again refers to a change in location, i.e. in the process of coming toward Jesus, i.e. being transferred into Jesus.

Now to address just one of the irrational points expressed - the transfer is not accomplished by the person being transferred, it is accomplished by God putting the person in Christ. So when you see his claim that my view attributes the action to humans, you know it is gibberish.

I stand with Dr. Wallace and his insight into the grammar of John 6:29, and against the gibberish of those who claim Dr. Wallace is wrong.

1) God draws people who hear and understand the gospel, for they "behold" Christ high and lifted up, dying for their sins.
2) Not everyone drawn is given to Christ, some like the second soil of Matthew 13 do not have their faith credited as righteousness because it is without root.
3) All those given to Christ arrive in Christ, thus a change in spiritual location.
4) Once a person arrives in Christ, they will not be cast out.

 

[Deacon]

The context places both giving and drawing in the context of God's covenant people - Isa. 54:13 with Jeremiah 31:33-34 as interpreted by Paul in Hebrews 8:12-15 and 10:15-17.

The clear explicit denial that all without exception are drawn in John 6:64-65 and thus only all in the covenant purposes of God.

Hummmm, while studying next weeks lesson I came across this verse in Joshua 11.

"For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses." (Joshua 11:20 NIV)

God chooses/draws who he wills to bring glory to himself.

Rob

 

[The Biblicist]

Folks, I see more gibberish has been posted concerning the order of verbs in John 6:35.

I finally believe Van when he describes what I write as "gibberish." He is writing from his own perspective due to inability to understand what I have said. This explains why he just repeats disproven arguments. He simply does not have the smarts to be on this forum as even simple things are above his level of intelligence.

So we can expect this level of intelligence from him and just ignore him due to his lack of education and discernment.

 

[Rippon]

Not everyone drawn is given to Christ,

You make it a habit to turn Scripture on its head.

Jesus said :"All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away."

Jesus said "that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."

Jesus said :"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

Jesus said :"This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

The drawn ones and the given ones are the very same folks. Every single person drawn by the Father has been given to Jesus from the Father. Every single one. Every single one of those people will come to Jesus --no exceptions.

 

[jonathan.borland]

The "inspired record" is found in context and Dr. Wallace fails to ignore the context . . .

I agree! He fails to ignore the context as opposed to you, who do ignore it. This is too funny! Do you even know what you're writing?

I've checked all the big gun commentators (even the major published Calvinists like D.A. Carson and others) and so far as I can tell, you have a private interpretation of "work of God" in 6:29 that is contrary to the true meaning of the passage. No doubt you are reading your hypercalvinism into the actual meaning of Scripture. Instead, you should let Scripture stand on its own and modify your beliefs, rather than let your beliefs modify Scripture. Your hermeneutical method needs some work.