Interpretation of John 6:35-40

[Greektim]

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.

I was there once w/ my beliefs. I always fell back to the "W/ God things don't have to logically line up... look at the Trinity." I still think there is value in that, but I eventually rejected the concept of a freed volitional capacity opting for a volitional capacity that is marred by sin to the extent that the unbeliever cannot believe w/out God's intervening grace.

Anywho... you should read Geisler's book Chosen But Free which they just put out a new 2010 edition (you've really never heard of Norman Geisler, big time apologist... Stormin' Norman ?)... it argues for the same thing and may help to reaffirm your position. At the least, it will help you better interact w/ the debate. I don't agree w/ it now, but I thought it was helpful at the time.

 

[freeatlast]

I was there once w/ my beliefs. I always fell back to the "W/ God things don't have to logically line up... look at the Trinity." I still think there is value in that, but I eventually rejected the concept of a freed volitional capacity opting for a volitional capacity that is marred by sin to the extent that the unbeliever cannot believe w/out God's intervening grace.

Anywho... you should read Geisler's book Chosen But Free which they just put out a new 2010 edition (you've really never heard of Norman Geisler, big time apologist... Stormin' Norman ?)... it argues for the same thing and may help to reaffirm your position. At the least, it will help you better interact w/ the debate. I don't agree w/ it now, but I thought it was helpful at the time.

Thank you for the information. To answer you no I am not familiar with either person. I may have come across their names in some discussion, but mostly I shy away from too many writers outside the bible as I find they tend to cloud what is written by giving opinions that usually explain away the text in some fashion or another. Also I am always concerned that I will find someone who agrees with me and use that as a cruch to continue to support a false belief I might unknowingly hold.
Mostly I just spend time with the text looking at some Greek and Hebrew through some scholars relying on the Lord to guide me, with the intent on keeping things as close to what is written as possible and making sure it all agrees with other passages of equal value.
Again thank you for the information. I may take a look at it so as to test my view but not so as to support it, admittedly a difficult thing to accomplish.

 

[Greektim]

Thank you for the information. To answer you no I am not familiar with either person. I may have come across their names in some discussion, but mostly I shy away from too many writers outside the bible as I find they tend to cloud what is written by giving opinions that usually explain away the text in some fashion or another. Also I am always concerned that I will find someone who agrees with me and use that as a church to continue to support a false belief I might hold.
Mostly I just spend time with the text looking at some Greek and Hebrew through some scholars relying on the Lord to guide me, with the intent on keeping things as close to what is written as possible and making sure it all agrees with other passages of equal value.
Again thank you for the information. I may take a look at it so as to test my view but not so as to support it, admittedly a difficult thing to accomplish.

Fair enough...

BTW... I only mentioned Norman Geisler (aka stormin' Norman). He is a smart guy. You might also profit from his recent 4 volume systematic he put out. Volume 1 was pretty good since his forte is definitely truth, philosophy, and apologetics.

 

[freeatlast]

Fair enough...

BTW... I only mentioned Norman Geisler (aka stormin' Norman). He is a smart guy. You might also profit from his recent 4 volume systematic he put out. Volume 1 was pretty good since his forte is definitely truth, philosophy, and apologetics.

Again thank you. I have already looked into it. I have just not decided as of yet what to do.

 

[zrs6v4]

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.

I agree that the Jews here in context were spiritually blind. I have no issue with this statement. They could not believe because their hearts could not see Jesus or spiritually understand His words just like Isaiah said. I think your last sentence is a little shady. When looking at verses 37 and 39 we see that those who are coming b/c they were given to Jesus by the Father. Thus they were drawn because in and of themselves they could not come. That is what the Father's giving looks like. The Father draws the sheep into Jesus by the Spirit of life. References include 6:37, 39, 44, 63, 70. I realize how hard it is for both of us to read outside of our preconceived notions here, but I think John 10:25-29 expresses the same thoughts Jesus had in John 6:35-40, but in a slightly different tone. Jesus said to the Jews that they did not believe, not because they chose not to or understood less, but because "you are not of My sheep" (v. 26). What do the sheep look like (remember 6:44, 45, 63, 37, and 39 here)? "My sheep hear my voice". In Mathew 13 it says "to you it has been given to know" the secrets of the kingdom of God". In other words the disciples and all other sheep of God hear, are taught by the Father, are given to the Son, are drawn in, and so forth. now 10:29, "My Father has given them to Me". So here we see that it is indeed the sheep that the Father has given and there are more of them than just the disciples as some here are trying to narrow chapter 6 down to (see 10:16).

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.

There is truth to this but that single purpose does not limit the context and implications of it.

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.

In your commentary on verse 38 you said that Jesus came to pay for every man. I won't get much into this statement because I dont want to shift our attention away from unresolved issues, but verse 39 disagrees with you because those given to the Son are the sheep, not just the disciples or a select group of the sheep. Again I would refer you to later statements that Jesus taught the same truth but with more depth in 10:16, 25-29.

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.

That is an interesting thought, I always understood this passage as seeing Jesus spiritually rather than physically. I do think it is seeing spiritually although in either case it does not effect the interpretation. If you see how it effects one interpretation or the other please comment.

 

[zrs6v4]

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.

I do not think this is a fair statement based on the work I have already laid down from John 6, 12, and 10 showing otherwise. But if we disagree here no need to keep debating. Thanks for your time.

If you wish to think through the large context here that is beyond chapter 6 that is fine you will need to examine the passages I have laid out to conclude my view. If you do go outside of John's gospel I would keep in line with similar teachings such as Mathew 13, but it may only open up more cans than we can close.

Those who the Father gives the Son are those who believe. we agree here. Our disagreement is on which comes first. I am showing how belief does not come before God gives and draws His sheep (His sheep terminology can also be called elect). My references include 6:37, 39, 44-45, 63-65, 70; 10:16, 25-29 and if you wish to go outside the box Mathew 13:11 showing how God grants/teaches His chosen vessels.

Your continual use of 63-66 does not show faith preceding God's giving to the Son. All it says is "the flesh profits nothing" and "it is the Spirit who gives life" through Jesus words. Jesus words in and of themselves left the majority of Jews lost, confused, blind, and even more hateful of His teaching they could not reconcile with the OT. That is why God has to draw and teach these ignorant people (and us) to understand who Jesus is to see His value. Once we get it or see the light so to speak we come to Jesus. I probably said to much here.

 

[zrs6v4]

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. .

Which in this context Jesus started with over 5,000 people the previous day and is now left with His chosen 12 and maybe a few more who did not abandon His hard teaching they could not understand. This is a philosophical question but why do you think so many people couldn't get it or how do you think God hardens? I appeal to the curse of the flesh that comes from Adam. This is probably a good topic outside of this discussion though because we are already leaving the original post and debating only Calvinism at this point. Maybe another thread . But in this topic to respond to your question look at my response to Winman right before this one. I think you will find that God's teaching, drawing, and the Holy Spirit are the ones who effectually (work for a purpose without fail) draw in the sheep so they aren't coming to Christ with blind faith. All those that God does this to 6:37, 39; 10:25-29 will come, will be saved, will hear, and will never lose their salvation. Does that make sense?

2.) Agreed. They were drawn to Jesus because they were given to Him by the Father.

Yes, this is directly affect by 1 and 3 listed. God's giving to the Son is what sets up everything. When God has picked a person to experience grace He draws them and gives them to the Son. This includes His teaching them (Mtt 13:11) and that work of the Spirit 63:-65. Again look at John 10:26 for the primary purpose of unbelief "you do not believe" WHY? "because "you are not my sheep". If the Jews would have been the sheep they would have believed WHY? "My sheep hear My voice" WHY? "My Father who has given them to Me". Going back to verse 26 Jesus didn't say you do not believe because you have chosen not to believe in Me. He literally knew they were hardened and left blind and cursed by God in judicial punishment. He knew the impossibility for them to see something without God drawing and teaching them (6:44-63) but yet He also knew that if they did the impossible and came to them there would be no rejection.

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.

In the Old Covenant God was the Shepherd of Israel and technically in John it is the Old Covenant still. The Jews were always a nation who were considered the flock of God. In the New Covenant and new agenda set by Jesus we already see a change in line with God's promise to Abraham "I will bless all nations through you" (John 4). So God no longer was "primarily" calling a people from the Jews through Jesus but rather left them in sin as Sodom and Gomorrah. God's primary work in the New Covenant was to draw some Jews but also Gentiles. It could be argued that they made up a large portion of the church at first but I wouldn't know how to tell without studying it. That is why I believe Jesus said, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd" (10:16). The sheep in focus in the New Covenant are elected vessels from all nations now rather than just Jews. We see this beautifully in Paul's letter to the Ephesians chapters 1 and 2. Whoops I broke y rules

 

[zrs6v4]

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.

I'm not sure if I misunderstand your statement here or not, so I wont assume anything on you. If John 6 goes against your rule on free will would you change? The answer to most of is including myself at times is "no" because it is like pulling teeth. We are to concerned with preconceived notions to listen to Scripture. Do you adhere to a Molinistic style teaching?

 

[zrs6v4]

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.

Ahh I see, you are right I misunderstood you. My apologies. I still have absolutely no idea how you get justification from 6:37 even with your word scramble job. I am no Greek expert but knowing word order is unimportant I cannot look at the English and refute you here, but I do not think that fits the context. The context shows giving (drawing), coming (faith), and never casting out (security of the believer who comes). Maybe someone else from either side would chime in.

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.

So you hold election happens at the time of justification? I wont take this to far and will leave it at your answer when you give it.

 

[zrs6v4]

My Reply;

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.
MB

Can you explain verses 37 and 39 and why you see them differently?

I understand that other Scriptures come into mind and can change this partcular passages interpretation which in some cases can be a safe practice. The goal is to do our best in each passage alone first then start taking other passages into consideration. If there are obvious contradicitions we did something wrong somewhere. With that said I would hope you add #3 esplanation to your explanation to number 2

 

[zrs6v4]

The only person I have not responded yet to is Skandelon. My brain hurts from trying to wrap it around everyones different ideas (And some of them are very foreign to my thinking). When I cool down maybe later or tomorrow I will reply to Skandelon first so I can reply with clear thinking.

 

[JesusFan]

I was there once w/ my beliefs. I always fell back to the "W/ God things don't have to logically line up... look at the Trinity." I still think there is value in that, but I eventually rejected the concept of a freed volitional capacity opting for a volitional capacity that is marred by sin to the extent that the unbeliever cannot believe w/out God's intervening grace.

Think that is a big reason why so many here fail to see that without God effectually applying Grace towards us and His enabling, we would still be in lost state...

What they argue for "might" have made sense with Adam, as he was indeed created in innocent sate, and had real "free will", but they seem to not see that all of that went awasy after the fall, as we became sinners bound up with a sin nature and "limited violation" will now!

Anywho... you should read Geisler's book Chosen But Free which they just put out a new 2010 edition (you've really never heard of Norman Geisler, big time apologist... Stormin' Norman ?)... it argues for the same thing and may help to reaffirm your position. At the least, it will help you better interact w/ the debate. I don't agree w/ it now, but I thought it was helpful at the time.

what strikes me very oddly is that while we Cals are seen as being aloof and looking down on others as "beneath" us , at least bother to read our own materials, while Many Non cals seem to not read anything other than the Bible at all!

 

[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.

If you're speaking of sovereignty as do Calvinist. Sovereignty is not a dictatorship as according to them. Sovereignty is Rule with freedom of thought. The Calvinist definition does not exist except in there minds. No one is elect before the foundation of the world except Christ. If we are elect in Christ we most certainly have to be in Christ to be so. We are not in Christ before the foundation of the world. We simply did not exist before the foundation of the world.

Augustinianism is nothing more than a facsimile of the truth. Therefore the whole of it is corrupt.
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
It was evil in the beginning of it and still is. God may have known about us because He knows all. Yet that doesn't mean we could have been in Him at the time.
MB

 

[freeatlast]

I'm not sure if I misunderstand your statement here or not, so I wont assume anything on you. If John 6 goes against your rule on free will would you change? The answer to most of is including myself at times is "no" because it is like pulling teeth. We are to concerned with preconceived notions to listen to Scripture. Do you adhere to a Molinistic style teaching?

Let me answer the last first. I am not even sure what is involved in Molinistic style teaching so I am not able to give you an answer. You asked me this;
" If John 6 goes against your rule on free will would you change"
Actually I have no rule and I accept John 6. I simply believe what the bible teaches on this and it teaches free will as well as sovereign election. I believe both.

 

[Van]

The reason many Calvinist cannot come to grips with my views is first they think my view is simply a scrambled Arminian view, which it is not. Second, they read verses like John 6:37 thinking they are understanding the verse when they are misunderstanding the verse.

I believe God corporately elected "us" i.e. everyone in Christ, per Ephesians 1:4. But the mechanism for being individually put into the corporately elected group is our individual election per 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where God chooses us for salvation through the sanctification by the Holy Spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit sets us apart when He spiritually places us into Christ's body, and through faith in the truth,i.e. God chooses us based on crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness.

As far as John 6:35-45, my order is exactly as presented. I am not relying on tricky Greek grammar, it says what I say in the English translations.

Here is the HCSB translation of John 6:37-39:

37 Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out. (A) 38 For I have come down from heaven, (B) not to do My will, but the will of Him (C) who sent Me. 39 This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise (D) them up on the last day.

I understand "everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me" to mean everyone the Father places spiritually in Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit, will come or arrive in Me. So my order is the same, but the assumed action of give to me and come to me is very different than the Calvinist view.

Second the one who comes to (arrives in) Me I will never cast out, i.e. is saved forever.
I think we agree on this. Therefore Christ will lose none of those given Him by God spiritually placing them in Christ.

My view is simple and straightforward and scrambles nothing. It just is a fresh way of understanding what Paul is actually saying.

 

[freeatlast]

If you're speaking of sovereignty as do Calvinist. Sovereignty is not a dictatorship as according to them. Sovereignty is Rule with freedom of thought. The Calvinist definition does not exist except in there minds. No one is elect before the foundation of the world except Christ. If we are elect in Christ we most certainly have to be in Christ to be so. We are not in Christ before the foundation of the world. We simply did not exist before the foundation of the world.

Augustinianism is nothing more than a facsimile of the truth. Therefore the whole of it is corrupt.
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
It was evil in the beginning of it and still is. God may have known about us because He knows all. Yet that doesn't mean we could have been in Him at the time.
MB

You are trying to separate the two or lean to one side more then the other. I am saying I believe in them both. Just like I believe that Jesus is 100% a man and 100% God I believe in 100% Sovereign election and 100% free will. Both are taught so I am not a middle of the road person on this. I believe totally in both sovereign election from eternity past and free will without causing the person to accept or reject even though I cannot explain how they can possibly work together.

 

[JesusFan]

The reason many Calvinist cannot come to grips with my views is first they think my view is simply a scrambled Arminian view, which it is not. Second, they read verses like John 6:37 thinking they are understanding the verse when they are misunderstanding the verse.

I think better to say that we do NOT agree with your "novel" intrepretation of it!

I believe God corporately elected "us" i.e. everyone in Christ, per Ephesians 1:4. But the mechanism for being individually put into the corporately elected group is our individual election per 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where God chooses us for salvation through the sanctification by the Holy Spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit sets us apart when He spiritually places us into Christ's body, and through faith in the truth,i.e. God chooses us based on crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness.

So those who do a work of believing in jesus in and by themselves are elcted on that basis by God?
That its due to us accepting jesus, that we have that intrinsic means within us?
seem to base this on what we do, based upon how we decide to handle Jesus..
Do you see God knowing who will get saved beforehand, or does He wait to see what we will choose to do?

As far as John 6:35-45, my order is exactly as presented. I am not relying on tricky Greek grammar, it says what I say in the English translations.

You are saying that we cannot use the original texts for understanding, HAVE to rely upon english versions instead?
Are they tricky because one has to learn the Greek language and its complexities?

Here is the HCSB translation of John 6:37-39:

37 Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out. (A) 38 For I have come down from heaven, (B) not to do My will, but the will of Him (C) who sent Me. 39 This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise (D) them up on the last day.

I understand "everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me" to mean everyone the Father places spiritually in Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit, will come or arrive in Me. So my order is the same, but the assumed action of give to me and come to me is very different than the Calvinist view.

64,000 question on this is on WHAT basis does God set us into body of Christ, saves us in Christ? By Him waiting to see how we will 'freely" respond to Christ, or by Him selecting and choosing us in Him by His grace alone?

Second the one who comes to (arrives in) Me I will never cast out, i.e. is saved forever.
I think we agree on this. Therefore Christ will lose none of those given Him by God spiritually placing them in Christ.

IF the basis used was our faith, chance could be lost, as something that we could chose to undo, but if based upon the Cross and God selection, safe and secured!

My view is simple and straightforward and scrambles nothing. It just is a fresh way of understanding what Paul is actually saying.

Fresh way, but not so sure that it would be a biblical view on pauline theology!

 

[convicted1]

I agree that the Jews here in context were spiritually blind. I have no issue with this statement. They could not believe because their hearts could not see Jesus or spiritually understand His words just like Isaiah said. I think your last sentence is a little shady. When looking at verses 37 and 39 we see that those who are coming b/c they were given to Jesus by the Father. Thus they were drawn because in and of themselves they could not come. That is what the Father's giving looks like. The Father draws the sheep into Jesus by the Spirit of life. References include 6:37, 39, 44, 63, 70. I realize how hard it is for both of us to read outside of our preconceived notions here, but I think John 10:25-29 expresses the same thoughts Jesus had in John 6:35-40, but in a slightly different tone. Jesus said to the Jews that they did not believe, not because they chose not to or understood less, but because "you are not of My sheep" (v. 26). What do the sheep look like (remember 6:44, 45, 63, 37, and 39 here)? "My sheep hear my voice". In Mathew 13 it says "to you it has been given to know" the secrets of the kingdom of God". In other words the disciples and all other sheep of God hear, are taught by the Father, are given to the Son, are drawn in, and so forth. now 10:29, "My Father has given them to Me". So here we see that it is indeed the sheep that the Father has given and there are more of them than just the disciples as some here are trying to narrow chapter 6 down to (see 10:16).




There is truth to this but that single purpose does not limit the context and implications of it.




In your commentary on verse 38 you said that Jesus came to pay for every man. I won't get much into this statement because I dont want to shift our attention away from unresolved issues, but verse 39 disagrees with you because those given to the Son are the sheep, not just the disciples or a select group of the sheep. Again I would refer you to later statements that Jesus taught the same truth but with more depth in 10:16, 25-29.



That is an interesting thought, I always understood this passage as seeing Jesus spiritually rather than physically. I do think it is seeing spiritually although in either case it does not effect the interpretation. If you see how it effects one interpretation or the other please comment.

I think it goes both to Jesus' flesh, and also Him Spiritually. Peter, James, and John saw Jesus "unveiled", when He showed them Himself Spiritually on the mount of transfiguration. The others believed Jesus by His words, plus the works/miracles He performed. So, some believed Him, even though they did not see Him in His "unveiled" glory.

 

[zrs6v4]

Let me answer the last first. I am not even sure what is involved in Molinistic style teaching so I am not able to give you an answer. You asked me this;
" If John 6 goes against your rule on free will would you change"
Actually I have no rule and I accept John 6. I simply believe what the bible teaches on this and it teaches free will as well as sovereign election. I believe both.

ok what does John 6 teach?

 

[freeatlast]

ok what does John 6 teach?

It teaches free will as well as sovereign election.