Peter McKenzie

I would assume that you don’t hold to unconditional election – its just that it seems to me to be the natural outcome of your view. If the Father is still giving people today – and it is NOT everyone who is being given, it would seem that there is some sort of selection that determines who is being given. You haven’t explained how that occurs. I think I am going to leave this with you for now – as it now seems that we may be talking past each other. You seem to be hard pressed to prove me wrong on the unbeliever/believer/Judas thing – when it isn’t the main part of my argument. You focus on that and ignore what I have to say about the basic reading of the text – which I maintain defeats your view. I tried to distinguish between different types of believing but it feels like you didn’t catch what I said there. You say I misunderstand your view. All I can go by is what you have told me – which is that the Father is still giving people to Jesus today. I merely maintain that the careful reading of the text denies that. I am not sure if I hit a nerve with you, but the conversation is becoming slightly less than irenic, and I think it is best to leave it before it becomes personal. Thanks for the chat!

To be clear, He is willing that none perish. So in an absolute sense, of course he doesn’t want anyone to reject him. But given the fact that He knew that many did not believe Him – it is within that context that He was not interested in unbelievers following Him around the country. He wanted those ones to go away. In actual fact, he was making a judgement against them – but it was not the final judgement. I am sure that there was a scenario where it is possible that some of these ones could have had a change of heart after that encounter and chose to believe in Him. It would be inconsistent for Jesus to purposely drive away people from Himself when He came to do the Father’s will and the Father’s will was that Jesus had been given out of heaven for those unbelievers. Actually, I disagree with you here. The text says that the Father’s will (the specific will as it pertained to this setting. I am not saying it is the entirety of the whole will for him) was that He lose none that had been given to him. Those that were given to him were the pre-existing believers who were looking forward to his coming and they knew He was the Messiah when they saw him. Remember this is a Jewish-specific passage that is not speaking about the general will of saving sinners. These Jews were regenerate – they did not need saving as they already believed.

It doesn’t specifically say this verbatim, but the whole passage deals with the contrast of the 2 groups of people – those Jews who believe Him and want to follow Him with right motivation and those who don’t believe and are following him for the wrong reasons. So what we see in John 6 is really a dividing out of the one group from the other. I think the fact that the latter group went away when Jesus delivered the truth via a “hard saying” serves to show this point. I am really just drawing that by way of inference, but given that Jesus knew that they weren’t believers and their hearts weren’t right I think they did what He wanted them to do. IE if they weren’t going to believe, He preferred that they didn’t follow Him for the wrong reasons. Of course, if some heard the words He spoke and ended up believing He would have been most happy. But He knew what was in their hearts. Despite His desire that they hear the truth and be saved, he likely expected that they would leave.

Hi Cheryl. Thanks you so much for your comments. It seems like the crux of our where we disagree distills down to verse 39. In the context of the entire passage, my reading doesn’t cause any strain on the narrative. (I am not saying yours does either at the outset). But, as you know, we need to establish first what the setting was – and how the original hearers would have heard the words of Jesus. It can’t mean something to us that it didn’t meant to them. In that regard, a brief synopsis reveals that: – Jesus was speaking primarily to Jews – mostly those who don’t believe him – those Jews were following him around the country side with the wrong motivation – a desire for physical food – He was trying to get them to go away as He only wanted followers who believed Him. In that sense his offensive language served its purpose – the Father’s drawing was an act that applied specifically to regenerate Jew’s s who believed prior to the arrival of Jesus. These people were not just the 12 disciples. The “drawing” is defined in verse 45 – it is essentially described as being “taught” by God. – the “giving” is something that took place when the care of these ones was transferred from the Father to these specific people. From the setting that is in view, there is no need to consider (as a first notion) that Jesus is engaging in general theological teaching. He is instructing a specific people with specific information for a specific situation. It is no different than any one of Paul’s occasional letters. So, in doing the first step of observation, we notice that Jesus does use the present tense of the word “giving” in verse 37. However, if we imagine the setting and consider what it would be like if we were present at that time, there is no need to consider a present continuous action that Jesus is describing here. Given that more and more people will come to Him with right motivation (due to the teaching of John the Baptist for example) in other locations – and given that those ones will “come” to Him in order to follow Him (in a physical desire), there is no valid reason to say that the use of the present continuous action needs to continue after He ascends from the earth. Let’s assume for the moment that the use of His mention of “driving away” is purely an eschatological occasion. Even then there is no reason to eliminate a notion of people being given to Jesus by the Father (in a then-specific-caretaking sense) – who are then not “cast out” at the last day. This same scenario can be seen in verse 40. In fact, I think it is the proper way to read that verse. IE. “those who physically see Jesus and believe Him will have eternal life and Jesus will rise them up on the first day. In the context of the passage – and as those ones present would have heard the words, they would have understood these straight forward words. What I am suggesting here is the first order observation of the text. Does that mean if we move on to interpretation and application, that people reading the Bible today can’t take away truth from this verse? Of course not. Even though I can’t “see” Jesus in a physical sense, I can realize that if I believe in Jesus I can have eternal life. So, I don’t think the “driving away” as seen as you do, is a stumbling block to our argument. Having said that, I think a good case can be made for a setting-based “driving away” scenario. You mentioned that they stopped following Jesus because of unbelief. That is true – but that actually proves my point. His offensive language was not the thing that caused their unbelief though. It simply was the thing that exposed their pre-existing unbelief. It sussed out the fact that they were improperly motivated. Given that He did not want a huge entourage of unbelievers following him around the country side, it is not implausible to consider that His rationale was to “drive away” believers. At that time. A few things to note at this point: – we know that God is not a respecter of persons – we know that Jesus said that blessed are those who don’t turn away because of Him. (Matt 11:6) In your article, you said //And those who believe the Father’s revelation about Jesus, will be allowed to come to Jesus. It is all about faith in the amount of revelation that one has been given// As I mentioned, the subjects of this passage was Jews. So the first sentence here is correct. In that setting, the ones who believed the Father’s revelation would be those who it could be said to be “drawn by the Father”. That aligns with the context of the passage. But I disagree with the second sentence in that it seems to portray unconditional election. People today may respond to the gospel having had differing amounts of available revelation – but to infer that some have been “given” more and some have been “given” less implies that God is a respecter of persons. My personal view is that there is a great amount of revelation that is available to all – and the accessibility of that revelation only really varies to the extent that some seek for it more than others. You asked a few specific questions which I did not have time to address here – but I will get to them later. As I said though, I think that one aspect of our disagreement comes from moving on to interpretation and application too quickly. I am sure that your questions will arise once more after you read this bit that I have just written. I will leave you with this: if the Father is still giving Gentiles to Jesus today, in what manner do you see this “giving” coming about? If it is about giving them special revelation wouldn’t that be akin to an unconditional election – and be a case of the Father actually being a respecter of persons? For the record, many people are saved today who don’t previously believe that God exists – but come to believe in Jesus through the gospel and then accept the truth of God’s existence by way of that process. IOW they didn’t have to have a Jewish-based knowledge of the Father before they could proceed to exercising faith in Jesus. These ones do an end run of sorts.

Hi Cheryl, thanks for responding. Here are answers to your specific questions: //He is not praying for just “these alone” (the disciples) but also for those who believe (present tense) because of their word. Jesus has not had physical care of these ones who believed because of the preaching of the disciples.// I agree that in John 17, Jesus may not have care over those second generation believers – but that isn’t ruled out by the text. If He is still alive when they also begin to follow Him, it seems that He would be caring for them as well. I would just say that they are not the primary subjects in view in the prayer. They are included in the prayer – but in verse 20 Jesus is again talking about the “ones the Father gave him” as a specific, identifiable group of existing people. In verse 26, he says that “I made your name know to them” so that is a past tense action – which identifies the ones verse 24 as again being existing believers. //In John 6:37 Jesus speaks of a future giving of people who do not yet know Him. Can we agree that the giving of people to Jesus spoken of in John 6 is not a “giving” that is from eternity past? // That is a good question. I would not be that quick to say that this “future giving of people” extends beyond the lifetime of Jesus. That is my main point – and one where I may have confused you. I absolutely agree that no one was given to Jesus from eternity past. So, in maintaining that the giving is an action limited to the time period of Jesus’ ministry, it rules out any notion of a metaphysical/spiritual giving. My premise is that if we read the text in this way (and I think it is the right way) it completely disallows the Calvinist way of reading it – which has determined how most non-Calvinists read it as well. The giving was a specific, earthly act that took place for 3 years. So in verse 37, it is not implausible to read it as (paraphrasing): “Everything that the Father gives me (in the next 3 years) will come to me, and anyone who comes to me (in the next 3 years) I will never drive away”. As I mentioned in a previous comment this “driving away” helps to locate the “giving” in the first part of the phrase as a then-specific occasion. There is no reason to consider that the Father is giving anyone to Jesus today. To concede that to the Calvinists opens the door to acknowledging that the Father does give ones to Jesus – and gives way to the notion of irresistible grace and unconditional election. If we isolate the giving to a then only event, it upsets their apple cart. Which is not to say that is what should motivate our hermeneutics – just that the careful reading grants clarity of truth and the by-product is that it defeats their view. One thing that points toward a limited setting, is seen in verse 38. The will of the Father is seen as an event which had a set time frame. It was done while Jesus was on earth. IOW that will was done after being “sent down from heaven” and “done by the one who sent Him”. In verse 39, we see what the “will” is. It is losing none of the pre-existing, believing Jews – those who are said to to be “the ones that were given to Him”. //Jesus’ words reflect Matthew 7:23 where in the end times Jesus will command the unbeliever to depart from Him. However in John 6:37, Jesus used the aorist tense which in this instance does not indicate time…Jesus is not referring to the ones who will be cast out but the ones who will never be cast out. There is no view of Jesus casting people out in our time that I can see from John 6.// That is an interesting observation – and one I hadn’t considered. I haven’t looked at the original language to see if “casting out” is the same thing as “driving away”. If it is, your point is certainly weighty. My only observation is that, in the context of John 6, Jesus is driving away people at that time (and this notion is substantiated by the fact that many left him). So, if “driving away” can be said to a physical, earthly rejection of anyone who would try to follow him – with wrong motivation, it takes on a different nuance than does the judgement day scene in Matthew 7. I am not a Greek scholar, so perhaps you can answer (and help me understand) whether or not the use of the aorist tense allows for a reading of a time-based understanding of a judgement day future “driving away” – which comports with the present day action of people coming to him…” I see this passage as primarily being about discipleship – and not a salvific passage. That is not to say that salvation doesn’t factor in – just that He is mainly dealing with people who want to follow Him for the wrong reason. Not sure if that helps…

I should add that I have debated with Calvinists quite a bit around this passage. Most of them go away when they see that the “ones the Father gave Jesus” is a specific group of people (it cannot be said of future, yet-to-exist people that they “kept” His word). Also, typical non-Christians get nervous when they think I am trying to alter truth or something. In actual fact, I am merely suggesting that the observation process take place first. Once that is established, then we can move on to interpretation and then to application. So, I am not in any way suggesting that, just because we have narrowed this passage to a then-specific narrative, we cannot therefore derive any take-away truth and application for ourselves in today’s world. It just that our application will be to derive the general concept of the truth that the passage conveys – as opposed to the truth that the specific action conveys, that may not directly apply to us. IOW we cannot follow the physical, earthly Jesus today, so we need to be careful to not inject ourselves into a narrative that is dealing with following a physical,earthly Jesus. My issue is that we do the observation first and then make application after. Most people seem to jump to application pre-maturely. It is great that you are sticking with the text with your line of questioning!

I meant to say non-Calvinists – not non-Christians. Sorry about that!

Re the timing of 6:37, I feel like there is a continued giving in view – but it has an expiry date. Given that the “ones that the Father gives me” is a distinct group that existed only at that time and the “giving” is only for the duration of Jesus’ earthly ministry, it can be determined that this is a unique situation for a specific time. So, while there is future aspect in the text, that only applies to the original hearers and their future is our past. If I am correct as it relates to the subjects (as specific people existing at that time) those who “will come to him” can only be those who come to him while He is still alive – therefore revealing a temporary situation. Remember, in verse 38 we see that there is a will (ministry) that occurs during this temporary time of him being on earth.. As far as your last question, I would suggest that those who “will come to him” are simply those who he anticipates encountering in other places other than Caperneum. I think the penny will drop as it regards this passage (and John 17) when it is first established who these ones are that the Father gave Jesus. Once it is realized that Jesus is not speaking about a class of people who span all of history, many of the pieces fall into place. If you read these verses (37-39) carefully, you will see that there are things in each verse that link to the other verses that reveal a setting that is focused on that time. This passage in John 6 is near the start of his ministry – whereas John 17 is kind of the recap at the end and there he provides an encapsulation and report of how things have gone. He lost none of them except for Judas.

Here’s an interesting question that might help: In verse 37 Jesus says that “anyone comes to me I will never drive away”. If this applies across time – thereby inferring a future-ness to the meaning of the passage, are you able to envision a scenario whereby Jesus is “driving people away” in our current time?

Thanks for the reply Cheryl! A few thoughts: //I would add that the ones given to Jesus were all believers in the Father, whether they were Jews or Gentiles. Cornelius would be an example// I agree that Gentiles could have been given to Jesus – at least the ones that were alive when he was alive. I am not sure Cornelius could be said to have been given to Jesus – unless he came to faith prior to the arrival of Jesus – in such a way that it could be said that he was under the Father’s care at that time. I guess my point is that this idea of giving was a “physical handing over for care” type of thing. I don’t think there is a need to spiritualize anything beyond that. Re what you say about verse 37 // It is important that John 6:37 is in the present tense with the action in process or a state of being with no assessment of the action’s completion.// I think this is an interesting point. But it is noteworthy to notice that everything that is happening here is happening while Jesus is on the earth. “He has come down from heaven to do the Father’s will”. Doing His will and ministry took place on earth. So that in itself infers an end to the process of “coming” in the text – as well as “giving”. Everything that Jesus is said to be doing here can be said to be directed at specific people – with specific things being done to only them. At least that is what the observation of the text tells us. From there we can interpret and then make application for us today. When I started looking at it more carefully, I realized how much I have been conditioned to look at it through the Calvinism lens. For the record, I am NOT saying that all believers will not “be raised up on the last day”. These pre-cross believers are included as a subset of all who will be raised up. I just think it is necessary to make all these distinctions because reading the passage in its context (together with John 17) defeats the notion of the Calvinist “drawing”. Re your question about pagan nations being “drawn” by the Father, I am not really sure. Certainly, they would have the general revelation that creation provides – but is that the same as the drawing of the Father as per John 6? Perhaps, and perhaps it is overly pedantic to argue otherwise, but it seems like the John 6 drawing is particular to the Jews in view there – and that drawing is in direct relation to the fact that they “heard and learned” as per verse 45 (which would be from the OT scriptures and from John the Baptist said). So there is a direct connection between “drawing” and “coming” it seems. Drawing is about people coming and being rightly motivated in their coming. I am not sure it is about some special, mystical wooing. As far as the ones you mention, if pressed, I would likely point to the Holy Spirit for any notion of “drawing” – but that’s just my opinion. Interestingly, in the setting, if we consider the words being spoken by Jesus as having literal meanings – we can understand that “coming” has a notion of physically coming to Jesus for the purpose of following him and attempting to be his disciple. It is easy for us to read our 21st C. “come to Jesus moment” mindset into the passage. So this is an interesting exercise in dissecting this passage. Looking at it in that way, helps to make the words more that-setting-focused – and not a universal theological teaching by Jesus. That doesn’t mean we can’t make application for our day, but we should do the correct observation in order to get to the correct place. In any case, if we do allow ourselves to accept that Jesus is talking about people physically coming to Him while He walked the earth, this further locates the “drawing” as a feature that is focused on that time primarily. And don’t forget something said first had to make sense to the original hearer. Those Israelites would not have had any concept of a spiritual “coming”. Thanks again Cheryl. It was interesting to peruse your website. I seem to go after the same culprits that you do. I am fairly outspoken against the contemplative prayer movement and also against NAR. I live in Kelowna and attended a NAR church here for 18 years (an elder for 3 of those years) – so I am very familiar with it.

Hi Cheryl. I see this post hasn’t been commented on for a while but it caught my attention. I have been debating some Calvinists on-line quite a bit lately – and in particular, the statements of Jesus in John 6. The point that I have made in that regard, is that the ones that the Father gave Jesus were the Jews who were believers prior to the cross. As individuals who physically existed (in that particular setting) it can be said that the care of them was passed from the Father to Jesus. In John 6, Jesus said He would lose none of them. In John 17 (recap of his ministry) He said He lost none – except for Judas. I mentioned to someone on a site that this type of “the Father drawing individuals” is a unique event and has ended. In that sense, the Father is no longer drawing anyone. The fact that Jesus arrived meant that the “looking-ahead-to-His-coming” type of drawing is now redundant for obvious reasons – He has come! In my estimation, the phrase “the ones the Father gave me” merely means that these ones were given to Jesus to care for during the time of His earthly ministry. The parallel of this passage with John 12:32 that often arises, is a different issue. The temporary individual-specific drawing of John 6:44 is about being a faithful Jew with right motivation for following Jesus – not following him to get free food. The universal, corporate drawing of Jesus in 12:32 is more about a universal atonement and is not individual-specific. Basically, if examined carefully, the passage infers that it is the crucifixion that draws all of mankind. I mentioned to one fellow that the verse is NOT saying, “When I have been lifted up from the cross at that time – that is the time that I will start to irresistibly draw people to myself”. Rather, He was referring to the universality of the fact that no one will be excluded any longer – all due to the ramifications of what the atonement means for all of mankind. All Gentiles are included as well. I am most interested in your thoughts re what I say about the temporary nature of the “Father’s drawing”. In my careful thinking about this, I came to realize that all my Christian life, I read this through a Calvinistic lens – taking this verse as a universal, absolute teaching of Jesus to the church. Now I have come to see it much differently. Blessings!