Interpretation of John 6:35-40

[zrs6v4]

I agree with #2 but I suspect my understanding of the sentence is vastly different than yours. When God credits a person's faith as righteousness, during their lifetime, and spiritually places them in Christ, that is their individual election for salvation, just as 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says.

The issue you have is directly dealing with verses 37 and 39 where below you avoid half of the statement. Read these words carefully and pay attention to sequence and order that they are translated in. "All the Father gives... Will come" The Father gives in accordance with His choosing of the sheep. Every single person who is given come to faith in Christ. That is why 6:44 explains this process. You cannot come unless you are given to Christ, and the Father does this by drawing the sheep in to the flock to believe in His Son. That is all the passage says here.

I disagree with 3, the Father's will was for Jesus to lay down His life as a ransom for all. Jesus became the propitiation for the whole world. Do not miss the sequence, Calvinism Christ dies for previously chosen individuals, Van's view Christ dies for all mankind and then those chosen during their lifetime "receive" the reconciliation provided by Christ's death.

The issue you have here is you do not want to pay attention to the text (These aren't words of attack so dont hear me with a cocky tone , Im just saying). 38-39, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."

That simply says all the Father has given the Son, the Son will lose none of it. You might ask none of what? His works, His power, His people? It is directly related to His sheep. He will lose none of the sheep God has elected for Him to ransom. I do not recommend reading outside of this right now, but rather see that Jesus will lose none of what the Father has given Him and they will believe and be raised on the final day.

In summary, I have found no passage of scripture that conflicts with this understanding of John 6:37 - (1) God draws people with the gospel message, (2) some of these hear (understand) the message and believe (having learned), (3) God gives those whose faith He credits as righteousness to Christ, (4) all those God gives in this matter are spiritually placed in Christ (arrive in Christ), and (5) everyone that comes to Jesus in this manner is saved forever.

Your number (2) conflicts because again the passage does not say "some" of hear and understand the message. Verses 37 and 39 describe that without a doubt ALL that the Father gives according to His will not be lost but rather saved and glorified. Verses 37 and 39 do not describe how the Father gives or how the people respond it simply and in general terms shows that the ones the Father elects WILL (ALL of them) will be saved. It even connects the ones who believe or "come to Me" are exactly the ones who the Father has given Jesus in verse 37.

 

[zrs6v4]

God draws, we hear, we believe, He gives, Christ saves.

I would change your sequence as follows, Its as easy as 1-2-3:

1. God gives to Christ (election of the chosen) 6:37 and 39
2. God draws (6:44-45) through Christ's words and the Holy Spirit (6:63)
3. The sheep hear and come to Christ (belief happens) (6:37, Also read John 10).


Now this obviously can get really technical and tricky when we start talking abotu Calvinism with all of the New Testament, but I tried to keep it as close to the passages intent as I could.

 

[zrs6v4]

All that the Father gives me is speaking of the word of God. No man can believe in Jesus unless he first believes the scriptures given by the Father. So if you believe in Jesus, you can take no credit, for unless the Father had revealed Jesus, you could not possibly believe...

If you do not believe the scriptures given by the Father, it is impossible to come to Jesus. If you do come to Jesus, it is because it was revealed and given to you by the Father through the word of God.

Winman,

Forgive me for not replying but I feel like you are not trying to deal with the text at hand. If I replied to this I would be getting way off of track even though the topic is the same. If you would like to speak about John 6 and all it contains feel free to and I will comment.

Thanks for replying though.

 

[Iconoclast]

I beleive you are circumventing the text by presuppostions formed outside of this text. I find this is the common practice of those who simply will not deal with any text in context - they always jump outside to another text which is not subject to contextual definition in order to escape the problem with the text under consideration.

Why not simply deal with the immediate context before we make a jump outside of this context to another text which we are not exegeting in its proper context??

Good Post....well said:applause::applause::applause:

 

[zrs6v4]

If we take Jesus at His word, he tells us He only came for His own people, and no one else. I believe His Father give to Jesus Peter, James, John, and others that came through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These I believe will be raised at that last day.

Agree. But again I say we should keep in context for Jesus is speaking only to one group of people, as they live, as we see in verse 40. Everyone that sees Him, and believes on him (not through him) may have everlasting life, and He will raise them on the last day.

Most of what you said did not personally deal with the text line by line. I have no idea how you arrive at your contextual understanding above. In my mind that is an awkward understanding of Jesus' words.

 

[convicted1]

Yes, Jews and Gentiles are part of God's new flock so to speak. That is clear in John 6-12. Jews are left, Gentiles are brought in, then finally Jews will be brought in again near the end. For God to not elect Jews and draw them in sovereignly but elect Gentiles is a real slap in the face. Obviously God did not do this with an exact science because not all Jews were hardened just the vast majority of them. Jews hated Gentiles and would never dream for them to be part of God's people, but Gentiles were grafted in while God didnt elect to many Jews. So God literally controls who are coming in and going out in His kingdom. I think that is the best way to see God's work in the Gospels. Ok, 12:32 is outside of the immediate context of John 6, but I did explain how God does not draw every single man who ever lived in line with Jesus claims in 6:37 and 6:39. If 12:32 meant all people who ever lived then there would be either universalism or contradiction in the text. If you want to exercise our thinking on this further feel free to read my post on page 1 then we can go from there. We might even choose to take into account John 10 and 12 a bit more before this thread ends or gets out of control with name calling and so forth .

My question to you would be the same question I asked Skandelon. If John 6 only speaks about hardened Jews alone, then could they not come to Christ by faith without being elected and drawn by God? In other words, Is Calvinism true as far as the hardened Jews go? I know that sounds funny to say, but do you understand my point?

I think you are missing the point that Jesus made in this passage. I will try to go through this verse by verse, and tell you what conclusions I have come up with through my studying His Word.

John 6:35-40
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.


I think it is safe to say, that we both agree on this verse completely and harmoniously. Not one who believes from the heart will die lost. :thumbs:

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Right here is where I see the blinding of the Jews taking place. They saw Him with their natural eyes, but they were blinded spiritually. Even in the Jews' blindness, you see where some saw who He really was, and believed. So, their blindness wasn't complete, but a majority were. Those who saw and believed were given to Him by the Father.


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

Again, this verse supports what I told you about verse 36. All this had to take place for Jesus to be the sacrifical Lamb. If they were not blinded, Jesus would not have been crucified.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

He came to give His life for the world, that the believers would be saved. He came to die for the ungodly(Romans 5:6), be the world's propitiation(1 John 2:2), to save sinners(1 Timothy 1:15), and to taste death for every man(Hebrews 2:9). This was the will of the Father He came to do.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.


Again, He is talking about those who were given to Him by the Father at that time. Those who believed Jesus while He walked upon this earth, were given to Him by the Father. These who were given, Jesus would lose not even one, save Judas, because Judas did his part to fulfill the scriptures.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Right here shows you who Jesus was talking about at that time. It was those who seeth the Son. So that tells me He is talking "in the now"(meaning at the time He was here on earth), and they may have everlasting life, and He will raise them up on the last day. These were given to Him by the Father.

Do I expect you to agree with me on this? No. But I pray that we can disagree in love.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

Forgive me for not replying but I feel like you are not trying to deal with the text at hand. If I replied to this I would be getting way off of track even though the topic is the same. If you would like to speak about John 6 and all it contains feel free to and I will comment.

Thanks for replying though.

You want to isolate vss. 35-37 to accomodate the Calvinist view. Can you do this? Yes, but it is not the correct interpretation. Those the Father gives (the elect) are those who believed God's word, the scriptures. This is shown especially in vss. 63-66 that I showed before. But if you insist on vss. 35-37 being isolated, yes, doing so could support Calvinism. You can do this if you wish, but it is a mishandling and not right dividing of the word.

 

[convicted1]

I don't know how Calvin, or anyone can see through faith here. Scripture shows this is presented in the present tense, and concerns those addressed at that time.
If we take Jesus at His word, he tells us He only came for His own people, and no one else. I believe His Father give to Jesus Peter, James, John, and others that came through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These I believe will be raised at that last day.

Agree. But again I say we should keep in context for Jesus is speaking only to one group of people, as they live, as we see in verse 40. Everyone that sees Him, and believes on him (not through him) may have everlasting life, and He will raise them on the last day.

I see these scriptures as happening some number of weeks before the Cross. We know, and have read that there was changes made, and not told us until later. Did Calvin, we, or any other man know before we leave the words that Jesus spoke before He ascended, and was seated on the throne, at the right hand of God, His Father?

I am not saying everlasting life can come apart from the blood shed by Jesus Christ.

I think that we are saying the same thing. Agree? BTW, Good post. :thumbs::thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

I beleive you are circumventing the text by presuppostions formed outside of this text. I find this is the common practice of those who simply will not deal with any text in context - they always jump outside to another text which is not subject to contextual definition in order to escape the problem with the text under consideration.

Why not simply deal with the immediate context before we make a jump outside of this context to another text which we are not exegeting in its proper context??

Brother, it's kinda hard to prove any doctrine with one six verse passage. You have to view them in light of other scriptures. When the angel gave John the Word, He gave him all of it, and not just a page or two. We have to take the totality of the Word.


Behold, I come in the VOLUME OF THE BOOK, to do Thy will, O God(Psalms 40:7),(Hebrews 10:7)

Revelation 10:8-10
8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.

9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.

10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

 

[convicted1]

I would change your sequence as follows, Its as easy as 1-2-3:

1. God gives to Christ (election of the chosen) 6:37 and 39
2. God draws (6:44-45) through Christ's words and the Holy Spirit (6:63)
3. The sheep hear and come to Christ (belief happens) (6:37, Also read John 10).


Now this obviously can get really technical and tricky when we start talking about Calvinism with all of the New Testament, but I tried to keep it as close to the passages intent as I could.

1.) Those given to Christ in this passage were those who were not blinded by God, and could see Jesus as He really was, the Son of the living God.
2.) Agreed. They were drawn to Jesus because they were given to Him by the Father.
3.) Agreed again. They were His sheep because they were Jews. However, you see that there were others, such as the Syrophoenician woman with the sick daughter, the Samaritan woman @ the well, etc. who came to Jesus, because they saw Him for Who He really was. So, even in the Jews' blindness, Gentiles were able to see.

 

[freeatlast]

I would change your sequence as follows, Its as easy as 1-2-3:

1. God gives to Christ (election of the chosen) 6:37 and 39
2. God draws (6:44-45) through Christ's words and the Holy Spirit (6:63)
3. The sheep hear and come to Christ (belief happens) (6:37, Also read John 10).


Now this obviously can get really technical and tricky when we start talking abotu Calvinism with all of the New Testament, but I tried to keep it as close to the passages intent as I could.

I understand but that denies free will. I believe in both election and free will. That is why mine was in the order it was.

 

[Van]

The issue you have is directly dealing with verses 37 and 39 where below you avoid half of the statement. Read these words carefully and pay attention to sequence and order that they are translated in. "All the Father gives... Will come" The Father gives in accordance with His choosing of the sheep. Every single person who is given come to faith in Christ. That is why 6:44 explains this process. You cannot come unless you are given to Christ, and the Father does this by drawing the sheep in to the flock to believe in His Son. That is all the passage says here.


You seem not to understand my position. All that the Father gives me refers to the Father crediting a persons faith as righteousness and placing them in Christ. The phrase will come would be better translated will arrive. Thus those God chooses give to Christ will arrive in Christ.

The issue you have here is you do not want to pay attention to the text (These aren't words of attack so don't hear me with a cocky tone , I'm just saying). 38-39, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."

That simply says all the Father has given the Son, the Son will lose none of it. You might ask none of what? His works, His power, His people? It is directly related to His sheep. He will lose none of the sheep God has elected for Him to ransom. I do not recommend reading outside of this right now, but rather see that Jesus will lose none of what the Father has given Him and they will believe and be raised on the final day.

Again you seem not to understand my position. I do want to pay attention to the text.
And I think I have done it! I agree "all that the Father gives the Son, i.e. places spiritually in Christ, will be saved forever, none will be subsequently lost, i.e. once saved always saved. So you are disputing a point where we agree.

Your number (2) conflicts because again the passage does not say "some" of hear and understand the message. Verses 37 and 39 describe that without a doubt ALL that the Father gives according to His will not be lost but rather saved and glorified. Verses 37 and 39 do not describe how the Father gives or how the people respond it simply and in general terms shows that the ones the Father elects WILL (ALL of them) will be saved. It even connects the ones who believe or "come to Me" are exactly the ones who the Father has given Jesus in verse 37.

I think "your #2" might refer to this statement of mine: I agree with #2 but I suspect my understanding of the sentence is vastly different than yours. When God credits a person's faith as righteousness, during their lifetime, and spiritually places them in Christ, that is their individual election for salvation, just as 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says.

There is no conflict. Yes the passage does not say "some that hear and learn from the Father come to Me, it says "All who hear and learn from the Father come to Me, John 6:45. When God credits a person's faith as righteousness, that is the Father saying the person has heard and learned from the Father, therefore "all" these God places in Christ, i.e. all come to Me.

In summary, I did not see where any of your objections actually presented a difficulty in accepting my position.

 

[freeatlast]

First after seeing or hearing all as in the case today they reject.
6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

If they would have believed they would have been given by the Father and Christ would receive them.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

It is not enough to just see (hear) but the one seeing (hearing) has to also believe and those who believe they will receive eternal life as that is the will of the Father.

 

[MB]

As I read John 6:35-45 I find a few things we agree on about salvation (its through faith, its secure, its God's will for Christ, etc. The obvious debate is numbers 2 and 3 below (Calvinistic teaching). My interest in this thread is to see how non-Cals deal with John 6:35-40 namely verses 37-39. If you adhere to Calvinistic style teaching and disagree or can expound on my brief post feel free to do so for discussion purposes.


1. It is through faith in Jesus (v. 35 and 40)
2. The elect are predetermined by God the Father (v. 37 and 39)
3. The Father's will was for Jesus to come and purchase those who He chooses Jesus to save. (v. 38-39)
4. This salvation cannot be lost as it is secure. (v. 39)

My Reply;
Answers
1. Eph, 2:8-9
2. Verses 37 to 39 does not suggest a predetermining. Yes we are given by God to Christ but this has nothing to do with predestination.
3.Actually the will of the Father was that Christ die for the sins of the whole world not a particular few.
4. I agree Salvation is permante.
MB

 

[freeatlast]

My Reply;
Answers
1. Eph, 2:8-9
2. Verses 37 to 39 does not suggest a predetermining. Yes we are given by God to Christ but this has nothing to do with predestination.
3.Actually the will of the Father was that Christ die for the sins of the whole world not a particular few.
4. I agree Salvation is permante.
MB

I would argue based on scripture we are chosen, elected, predestined, but we also have free will which is never violated. Both are taught. It is not our place to deny one or the other for one, but to accept both even when we cannot see how they work together.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, first of all thanks for responding. I am not sure if you read my response on page 1 where I dealt with each verse individually, but I am aware of and am attempting to take into context the fact that the Jews were judicially hardened. As I said this is mentioned in Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and Romans. This is a big deal because this is a quotation taken from Isaiah 6 in prophecy of this time. So it is true that the Jews were judicially hardened.

Thank you for acknowledging this important truth, you would be surprised how many people attempt to dismiss it when it should be a point of agreement for both camps.

You mentioned two questions up front that I did not quote. And that is how you and I are divided. You hold that this passage only applies to hardened Jews (not all were hardened John 12), but I take John 6 particularly to apply primarily to Jews (that is the context) but also to all who are spiritually depraved.

I understand what you are saying, but please allow me to clarify. Even though the historical context of that moment directly involves Jews being either chosen to come to Christ and taught by him personally (disciples) and the rest being hardened (sealed in their rebellious condition temporarily so as to accomplish a redemptive purpose through them); please understand that I too affirm the truth that NO MAN AT ANY TIME can 'come to Christ' without being drawn or enabled to come (how can they believe unless they hear?). I believe the MEANS God uses to draw/enable men to come to Christ is the (1) APPEAL of the GOSPEL, brought by the powerful (2)Holy Spirit, NEITHER of which had been sent at this point in history. Thus, NNE was being drawn by the TRUTH, except for a select few of Israel (remnant) who Christ was explaining things to in private. Even then they didn't get their real power and understanding until after the resurrection and Pentecost.

My question to you Skandelon is: Does this passage convey a Calvinistic idea of salvation applied to hardened Jews? Or better said, if this passage had a Gentile context included would Calvinism have ground to stand on? Keep in mind verses 37 and 39? This is not me asking you to give credit to Calvinism, but asking if my interpretation would be correct if we left our key differences apart? If you need me to explain this clearer please ask.

Yes and no. As I just explained, I do think that Gentiles must also be drawn/enabled to come, just like the Jews. But what I'm pointing out is the reason most of the Jews at that time are NOT ENABLED. I'm arguing that the reason IS NOT because of an inborn nature (i.e. the claim of Total Inability), but a hardened nature (i.e. a result of continued rebellion and judicial hardening). Thus, the same thing that enables the Jews to come is the same thing that enables the Gentile to come: A clear and understandable Holy Spirit wrought appeal to be reconciled through Christ (The GOSPEL). That gospel was hid or veiled from most of Israel at that time, so much so that even the apostles didn't fully understand it until after the resurrection/pentecost, when the Holy Spirit explained it to them more fully (ref. Jn 16) and inspired them to discern it for the world in scripture.

So, the aspect of "Calvinism" seen in John 6 where Jesus has chosen 12, who are the only ones who stay around after his teaching, and the rest prove they aren't chosen by their abandonment is real, but its not a proof of the Calvinistic soteriology. It's only proof of God's elective purpose in ensuring redemption for the entire world by establishing his messengers (the foundation of His church). I hope that answers your question.

I appreciate your efforts. I know you are not saying this for praise or argumentation but simply to show you are not afraid to avoid a line by line discussion. Again thanks for honestly dealing with the text. As I always say, it is hard to do with preconceived theolgical positions we are passionate about. We just have to continue to humble ourselves and be mindful of our motives here.

I could not agree more! How refreshing to discuss matters with a brother so kind and objective in his approach. :thumbsup:

 

[MB]

I would argue based on scripture we are chosen, elected, predestined, but we also have free will which is never violated. Both are taught. It is not our place to deny one or the other for one, but to accept both even when we cannot see how they work together.

This must be because you are Arminian. I'm not nor will I ever be. My beliefs didn't originate with the Catholc religion.

Our election doesn't take place until we are in Christ. We are not predestined to Salvation.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
We simply cannot be in Him and be born in Sin. We aren't capable of being in these two at the same time, because we are not omnipresent.
MB

 

[freeatlast]

This must be because you are Arminian. I'm not nor will I ever be. My beliefs didn't originate with the Catholc religion.

Our election doesn't take place until we are in Christ. We are not predestined to Salvation.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
We simply cannot be in Him and be born in Sin. We aren't capable of being in these two at the same time, because we are not omnipresent.
MB

It depends on who is speaking as to how I am labeled. Some might say I hold to the views of Calvin, what ever those are, and some to the views of Arminian, what ever those are, but I reject both courts and hold to God's Sovereign election and man's free will at the same time as both are plainly taught in scripture.

 

[Greektim]

It depends on who is speaking as to how I am labeled. Some might say I hold to the views of Calvin, what ever those are, and some to the views of Arminian, what ever those are, but I reject both courts and hold to God's Sovereign election and man's free will at the same time as both are plainly taught in scripture.

Semi-pelagian then (labels are fun ). Have you read Geisler's Chosen But Free?

 

[freeatlast]

Semi-pelagian then (labels are fun ). Have you read Geisler's Chosen But Free?

No I have not read that book. In fact I have never heard of the man as far as I remember. The term you used I had to look up as I have never heard of that either. I read about it here;
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Arm_Semi_Differences.html

Based on what that article says the term would not apply to my belief. Like I said I hold both Sovereign election and free will, not one above the other or one before the other. Both equally somehow working the will of God. I htink to be labeled with that term one has to fudge a little on one side or the other. I hold them literally absolute and yet both working without restricting one or the other.