Featured Expository note on John 6:37-45

Your "view" simply ignores the primary contextual problem stated in this context and its solution and your "view" ignores the proper work of exegesis and attempts to suggest the overall context contradicts the precise language used by Christ. Thus, you go about chopping down all the individual trees that stand in the way of forming the kind of forest view you like. That is called eisegesis not exegesis. However, as we shall see the overall context does not support your "view" at all.

What labor they had done is in following him across the sea in order to get more physical food instead of performing that kind of labor - seeking him out across the sea for eternal life. He is not saying that one must labor for eternal life as he repeatedly says that eternal life is something he "GIVES"

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Moreover, note the distinction between the use of the plural "works" used by the audience in verse 28 versus the singular use of "work" by Christ in verse 29. They are coming at this from a works for salvation point of view by asking what they can "DO" in the form of "WORKS":

28 ¶ Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Remember, this is stated in direct relationship to laboring for eternal life, as they saw this as labor on THEIR PART to obtain eternal life. This is an assertion in direct contradiction to John 6:44 that "no man CAN come to me" for eternal life.

In direct contradiction to their assertion Jesus responds by the singular "work" but denies it is a work produced by them but rather a work produced by God - "this is the work of God" that was needed to be performed in them as they were incapable of coming to God by faith for eternal life, just as Jesus later repeats in verse 44 "No man CAN come to me" by faith for eternal life.

Of course, just like you, they also rejected this assertion by Christ that coming to him by faith is "the work of God" but insisted they were indeed capable of doing that with no other assistance than the visible provision of the miraculous as a basis for their faith:

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

At this point they insist upon a miracle equal to that performed by Moses (v. 31) IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BELIEVE. However, they had already seen Jesus perform the miracle of feeding 5000 and therefore in verse 36 Jesus said they already did "see" and yet that was insufficient for them to come unto him by faith for eternal life:

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

Nothing EXTERNAL can bring a person to come to Christ by faith for eternal life, and that is why coming to Christ by faith is "THE WORK OF GOD." Jesus bluntly says this in verse 44 "No man CAN come to me" except by the work of God.

This is the fundamental truth of this entire context from John 6:27-70 - NO MAN CAN COME TO ME apart from the work of God. Giving them TO COME to Jesus is THE WORK OF GOD. DRAWING THEM to come to Jesus by faith is THE WORK OF GOD.

Your false commentary contradicts this primary assertion by Christ that coming to Christ by faith is "THE WORK OF GOD" and that is why you are not able to see it plainly stated in John 6:44 "NO MAN CAN" and that is why you fail to see that being GIVEN and being DRAWN are inclusive in "THE WORK OF GOD" that is necessary for any man to come to Christ by faith.

So, if you reject that coming to Christ by faith is "THE WORK OF GOD" then you must also equally reject "NO MAN CAN COME TO ME" as saying exactly the very same thing.

The contextual development is very clear: They were laboring to follow him across the sea for the sake of physical bread to sustain physical life. Jesus simply points out their motivation had the wrong end goal for seeking Christ, they ought to have been motivated by all that labor to seek him as the spiritual bread for eternal life. However, their WORKS FOR SALVATION MENTALITY prevented them from doing so which stemmed from a greater INTERNAL INABILITY to do so (Jn. 6:44) as "NO MAN CAN come to Christ" for that purpose apart from "THE WORK OF GOD. That work involves being GIVEN to the Son before the world began, and the Son coming to fulfill the will of the Father in saving all those given him. This work includes the DRAWING of the Father to the son. The work of drawing is limited to ALL who are part of the New Covenant people or the people GIVEN to the Son - Jn. 6:45.

You failed to note the plural "Prophets" not singular prophet as your theory suggests (Isaiah only) but both Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33-34 as interpreted by Hebrews 8:12-13 and 10:15-17.

 

Now, lets return to you "view":

I commend you on seeing the obvious truth here that Van and others deny. Yes, the word "come" is synonymous with "come to me" by faith for eternal life. Now be consistent and apply that meaning to verse 44 - "NO MAN CAN COME TO ME" by faith for eternal life EXCEPT or APART from "THE WORK OF GOD" - being drawn by the Father and being given by the Father are irrefutably the SOLE WORK OF GOD, and furthermore, both are stated and placed in the grammatical position as CAUSE for coming ("shall" come is future tense in verse 37 where as being given is placed as the contextual cause).

The Greek term translated by the NIV here is "ekballo" and literally means "cast out" (ek - out from; ballo" to cast). Hence, the KJV is more faithful to the literal meaning of the Greek. Moreover, Christ in this context is referring to the final analysis on judgement day as the words "I SHOULD LOSE NOTHING but raise it up at the last day" is repeated four times in regard to this promise (vv. 38,39,44, 54). The translation "drive away" suggests that it is possible for them to leave him but it won't be due to him driving them away. That is not the intent of this context or meaning of that Greek term.

This is pure imagination on your part without any contextual basis. Indeed, it is direct contradiction of the context. NO MAN CAN COME except the Father gives and draws them. Both of these works by the Father are presented by Christ as the CAUSE for coming. Note, the future tense "shall come". However, you are attempting to reverse the stated cause and effect to make it read as follows:

All that come to me, the Father shall give them and I will welcome them rather than drive them away.

However, verse 44 says exactly the opposite of what you are trying to do with verse 37. My view makes them both consistent with each other whereas your view pits verse 37 against verse 44. You cannot reverse the cause and effect order in verse and if you are honest with the Greek tenses you cannot do it in verse 37 either as coming is FUTURE tense from being "given."

That idea is not only foreign to the overall context but in direct contradiction to the overall context. You ignore the fact that Jesus bluntly says "NO MAN CAN...EXCEPT" the work of the Father makes that possible and he makes it possible by both His work of GIVING them to the Son before the incarnation, before the world began and by the Father's work of DRAWING.

First, verses 38-40 is not merely repetition of verse 37 and thus it is NOT rhetorical but verses 38-40 are EXPLANATORY with FULLER INFORMATION not found in verse 37.

In verse 38 "And this is the Father's will" is clearly EXPLANATORY" not rhetorical.

Rhetorical merely suggests emphasis whereas verses 39-40 provide FULLER INFORMATION. For example, in verse 38 there is MORE INFORMATION concerning WHY He came down from heaven. In verse 39 there is FULLER INFORMATION not found in verse 37 in regard to the PRECISE TIME in view when they will not be cast out - "the last day" in the resurrection.

Verse 40 is in direct response to verse 36 where those who "have seen and believe not" based upon THEIR OWN WORKS is contrasted to THE WORK OF GOD in verses 37-39 which do see and believe in verse 39. The ""everyone" in verse 40 is part of the "ALL" in verse 37 and part "of all" in verse 39 and the proof is that the same concluding remarks to verse 39 is the same conclusion to verse 40 proving he is speaking of "ALL" those given to the Son, as they ALL do come to the Son in faith.

Verse 44 is directed at the response in verses 36, 41-43 as proof they were NEVER GIVEN to the Son by the Father because "ALL" who are given do not fail to come to the son in faith and their obvious rejection is proof they are not "of all" those given by God to the Son. Verse 44 is proof that coming to Christ by faith is "THE WORK OF GOD" (Jn. 6:29) as "NO MAN CAN" except God performs this work. This is a clear assertion by Christ of the UNIVERSAL INABILITY of all mankind to come to Christ by faith and the only way that any can come to Christ by faith is by THE WORK OF GOD (given, drawn).

Second, you are confusing "chosen" in the natural sense from "chosen" in Christ before the world began as not "all of Israel is of Israel."

He says "prophets" PLURAL not singular as in Isaiah only. He is referring not only to Isaiah 54:13 but to Jeremiah 31:33-34 are both NEW COVENANT passages and the "ALL" is restricted to those chosen, given and drawn according to the eternal covenant of redemption, rather than all mankind without exception.

There is nothing complicated about your "view" but as with most fairy tales there is no truth to it, no contextual support for it. You have to twist, pervert and change the context to suit your fairy tale. What you are doing is chopping down every individual tree that stands in the way of creating your forest view. That is called eisegesis not exegesis.

 

The Greek grammar demands that giving precedes coming to Christ by faith in verse 37. Note the FUTURE tense "shall come" in relationship to being given by the Father.

The context demands that giving precedes coming as verse 38 states that the coming of Christ to secure those given or the incarnation was the consequence of the Father having already given them to the Son. So the act of giving PRECEDED not only the incarnation of Christ but the actual coming "OF ALL" those given in time and space.

John 6:44 demands the work of God must precede coming to Christ by faith and therefore is consistent with the grammar and context of John 6:37-38 which equally demand the work of God in giving precedes coming to Christ by faith.

If your theory were true verse 37 would say,

"All that come to me, the Father SHALL give to me"

That is precisely what your interpretation demands it should read. BUT IT DOES NOT READ THAT WAY! Jesus certainly could have said it that way IF YOUR INTERPETATION was the intent BUT HE DID NOT. You are twisting and perverting God's word to the very opposite of what it actually says.

First, Jesus flatly denies it is "OUR ABILITY" - "NO MAN CAN"

Second, you are making the absurd assertion that OUR ABILITY is both the CAUSE and AFFECT for coming to him. First you claim it is "OUR ABILITY" to come to Christ, thus making it the cause, and then you claim it is "A RESPONSE" thus making it the consequence - make up your mind, it can't be both the cause and effect! This is the irrrationality you must resort to to ignore the Biblical grammar and context.

Jesus clearly denies it is "OUR ABILITY" as he says "NO MAN CAN" that is a statement of UNIVERSAL INABILITY or the exception clause means nothing at all (and your interpertation renders it meaningless). The exception clause restricts ABILITY to come to be "THE WORK OF GOD" identified as drawing. The Greek term translated draw is ALWAYS found in the passive voice denying that the object provides ANY POWER in the action. Furthermore, wherever this Greek term is used in Scripture coming is simeltaneous with drawing as what is being drawn IS COMING but the sole cause for coming is in the Person doing the drawing. This is the undeniable fact of Biblical usage.

 

Here is the bottom line of the interpretation of deacon, Quatum Faith, Van and all others on this forum which oppose the interpretation I gave.

THEY MUST PROVE THAT COMING TO CHRIST IS THE CAUSE AND BEING GIVEN AND BEING DRAWN ARE THE ULTIMATE CONSEQUENCES OF COMING. IF THEY DO NOT PROVE THIS POINT THEIR WHOLE SOTERIOLOGICAL POSITION COLLAPSES.

It is very simple to disprove these conclusions by the context. They are demanding that John 6:37 be interpreted to read as follows:

"All that come to me by faith, it is those the Father shall give me, and I will not drive them away, but welcome them."

However, this intepretation is IMPOSSIBLE if, the Biblical language and grammar is accepted as inspired.

1. Grammatically impossible. Jesus uses the FUTURE tense "shall come" in relationship to the present tense "gives" thus placing the work of giving by the Father as the textual cause for coming rather than coming as the textual cause for being given as their intepretation demands.


2. Contextually impossible. In verse 38 Jesus provides a TIME CONTEXT in regard to the giving of the Father in relationship to the incarnation and coming "of all" that have been given. He says that his incarnation was a CONSEQUENCE of the Father having given to him "ALL" those that "SHALL" come to him in verse 37. Hence, giving preceded the incarnation as the CAUSE for both his coming to earth and "all" coming to Christ.

Now remember, I said their interpretational conclusions are IMPOSSIBLE "if" you accept the inspiration of the grammar and words of Scripture. If you don't, then any interpretation is possible.

3. Their interpretation of John 6:44

Our ability to come to him, to be given to him, to be drawn to him, is a response to God's grace to sinners who hear his voice. - Deacon

Notice that he has to go resort to IRRATIONALITY to justify his conclusions. He makes "our ability" both the ultimate cause and the effect. He claims it is "OUR ability" that is the cause for believing. He then claims that coming to Christ by faith is also the consequence "response to" God's grace. Notice he replaces being "given" and "draw" with "grace" in attempt to fog the real cause for coming to Christ is found in God alone but rather implies some kind of participating ability. However, the word "draw" is found in the PASSIVE VOICE utterly denying that there is any participating POWER involved in this act but it is God's act alone and thus the ultimate CAUSE for anyone coming to Christ by faith.



He claim it is "OUR" ability when John 6:44 explicitly denies that - "No man CAN come." Jesus is making a UNIVERSAL DENIAL of HUMAN ABILITY to come to him by faith. If that were not the case there would be no reason for the "except" clause would there??????????? Hence, there is no such thing as "OUR ability" in regard to coming to Christ by faith as THE CAUSE. The cause for coming to Christ is GOD'S ABILITY in drawing.

Every single solitary use of the Greek term translated "draw" in scripture is found in the PASSIVE VOICE. This utterly denies that those coming to Christ are participating in the act of DRAWING or that drawing involves any of their own power

Every single solitary use of the Greek term translated "draw" in scripture is SIMELTANEOUS with the action of coming by whatever is being drawn. There is no drawing with EFFECTUAL coming. When Peter draws his sword the sword is effectually coming with drawing.

The attempt to suggest this is not true with its use of the fishing net being drawn in is only due to the lack of strength by those doing the drawing, however, it is God doing the drawing in our context and he is not deficient in strength.

Last, the obvious and clear reading of John 6:44 defines drawing as THE CAUSE and coming as THE CONSEQENCE, thus repudiating their conclusion that it is the cause for being drawn or being given.

Their conclusions fail, fall and are utterly repudiated by the inspired scriptural grammar and words chosen by the Holy Spirit as well as the overall context in which that grammar and words are found.

 

I would like to point out that Deacon, Quantum, Van and others still have not addressed the challenge above. Instead, Deacon simply ignored the points I made and simply replaced my points with his own interpretation model and then argued from his own model.

There is no spirit of arrogance in challenging those who dispute my interpretation to simply man up and provide contextual based exegetical based reasons. This is a debate forum or have you forgotten?

 

That is why I am demanding an exegetically based response to this immediate context rather than mere opinions or a patch work pick and choose response.

The immediate context forbids this is restricted to "some" Jews or Just Jews for the following contextual reasons:

1. Universal terms "no man can" not merely "some" Jews can't - v. 44

2. The resurrection "of all" given and drawn as verses 38,39, 44 and 54 all have the same end in view - the resurrection at "the last day" and therefore neither rejection or acceptance by "some" can be in view in regard to God's work of giving or drawing.

3. The incarnation as a consequence of this Father's work of giving "all" to him and that cant be restricted to "some" Jews but is inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles in the term "all...of all" given. - v. 38

Sadly, what they attempt to do is to take a later and briefer passage on the subject (Jn. 12:32) to repudiate what the former more comprehensive passage clearly states and teaches. However, that will not work either, as John 6:64-65 repudiates their whole interpretation of John 12 as here are "some" whom the Father never drew and Christ clearly and explicitly gives that as the reason/cause for them remaining in "unbelief" right "from the beginning."

Therefore, "all" in John 12 is the same "all" and "of all" and "all" in John 6:37,39,45 - and in John 12 is designed to include "the Greeks" unto which John 12;32 is addressed in direct connection with, thus "all mankind without distinction of race, class or gender" as in Rev. 5:9.

John 12 and then try to reinterpret John 6 to fit their view of John 12. However, John 6 precedes John 12 and provides a fuller exposition and it is simply backwards to take the lesser to deny the obvious exposition of a former treatise on the same subject.

Furthermore, divine hardening is not mentioned nor is the subject of this context. The point of contention is that the audience asserts that ability to come to Christ by faith is their own inherent ability (vv. 27,30,33). In direct contrast Christ denies that coming to Christ by faith is inherent ability (v. 44) but that power is "the work of God" (vv. 29, 37-45) and the absolute proof is that even "some" among his own disciples who have professed faith still don't possess faith even "from the beginning" (vv. 63-66) BECAUSE the Father never drew them (v. 65)