Featured Expository note on John 6:37-45

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).

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.

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).

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

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

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.

 

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 "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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.