I've heard some attempt to argue that we should evangelize more like Jesus, who was known for turning away people with his difficult messages (i.e. John 6). But was that one of Christ's purposes while on earth? Couldn't Jesus have preached a message as powerfully appealing and effective as Peter did in Acts 2 when 2000+ were added to their numbers? Sure he COULD, but he didn't. Instead, we see Jesus telling his followers to keep things quite for a while, speaking in parables so as to keep others from understanding and believing, and preaching very difficult sayings (like eat my flesh and drink my blood) without much of an explanation as to what he meant. Not to mention, he was calling his audience bad names like brood of vipers and white washed tombs... Seems clear that Jesus wasn't trying to win over a lot of followers, in fact he seems content with the Remnant God had given to Him to train (a few Jews reserved to carry the message of redemption to the rest of the world). It seems Jesus is teaching his apostles and hardening the rest. He is intentionally not drawing all of Israel, but keeping them in the dark for the time being. It is only AFTER he is crucified and raised up that he sends the Gospel (God's enabling power unto Salvation) to be proclaimed to all the earth. That is when he draws all peoples to himself....first the Jew and then the Gentile. WHY??? Who would crucify Him if over 2000 Jews came to believe in Him and follow him? Jesus had to blind and provoke the Jews to ensure his crucifixion. This is what Paul explained in Romans 11, where it speaks of Israel being 'cut off' (hardened), so as to allow room for the Gentiles. This is the Historical Context of controversial passages such as John 6 and Romans 9, and not understanding that context leads to much misunderstanding about the authors obvious intent.