Robin Tomlinson

Hello, Cheryl (and Gillian and Brad). What a great iron sharpens iron discussion. Yesterday, I read Mark 12:26 and was reminded that Jesus hinged his whole argument with the Sadducees on the mere tense of a verb. Thus, words in Scripture are extremely important, as you pointed out, and even a little word like “all” deserves attention. Let’s use the definition you provided: “in totality with focus on its individual components.” If the definition is applied to “all who take the sword will perish by it,” we would interpret it as “the totality of individual persons who take up swords will (each) perish by them.” Of course, that can’t be a true statement. However, it is true that “some” of the people who take up swords will perish by them. If the John 12 passage refers to the categories of Jews and Gentiles, does it then follow that every individual of the Jews and Gentiles will be drawn? I’m not bringing our other beliefs in here – I’m just scrutinizing whether this particular verse, standing on its own two feet, MAY properly be interpreted to mean a “subset” of individuals (i.e. some) of Jews and Gentiles will be drawn? As to the question, why didn’t Jesus just use the word “some” instead of all, I would think that if the context goes something like 1) Jews welcome Jesus with “Hosanna” 2) a group of Gentiles wish to see Jesus 3) Jesus says now is the time He will be glorified 4) Jesus states He will draw “all” – that Jesus COULD BE referring to the fact that all people groups will be drawn. To simplify, we’ve got: Jews, Gentiles, Glory, and “All are drawn.” It’s at least plausible in my thinking, because of the context, that Jesus could be speaking of “peoples.” This seems consistent enough with the Abrahamic covenant in which all nations are blessed, to Psalm 2, “Ask of Me and I will give the nations…” to “go make disciples of all nations,” right on through history to Rev. 5:9,10 when “all tribes, peoples, tongues and nations” are represented in heaven. In other words, God often speaks about salvation in terms of groups and nations. Just seeking to rightly interpret this particular verse of John 12:32, trying my best to see all points of view, and to approach it as unbiased as possible. No easy task!

Well, I was really looking forward to this post, but I found the answer to be somewhat surface-level reasoning. Not to harp on you, Cheryl, because I know you’ve been very busy! Here are some possible issues that may be brought up about this passage: 1) the word “all” (in “all” honesty…ha) really doesn’t always mean “all” in Scripture, and Calvinists will say that the mention of Gentiles previously in the context will say that “all” means Jews and Gentiles (not each and every individual.) 2) If God’s plan to reach the Third World people is to show them He exits and that He has power via nature… then hasn’t that plan seemed a little inadequate, since the majority of people through the centuries don’t acknowledge God? (This seems to illustrate how necessarily essential supernatural intervention in the human mind must be?) 3) It sounds as if you’re saying that a prerequisite to being drawn by Jesus is to acknowledge God-exists-via-creation first, so how does that adequately explain that Jesus promised that “every individual” would, in fact, be drawn to HIM? The only condition, as you pointed out, was fulfilled – that is, Jesus was lifted up. Therefore, whether one acknowledges God-via-creation or not, all should still be drawn to Jesus HIMSELF. This would imply a direct knowledge about who Jesus is and what He did for us – and 100% of the world’s population does not get this info. So…. I’m still at a loss for understanding how all are drawn to Jesus. Hope you understand what I mean. Thanks for your consideration.

Cheryl, I’m somewhat surprised. It seems as if you are saying that people must first come to the Father before they can come to the Son. If that was true, then Paul would have said to the jailer, “Believe on the Father, and then also believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” Regardless, there’s still the infamous Lydia passage that’s always tossed about. Here was a woman who believed in God (the Father), yet it is particularly pointed out that God “opened her heart” so that she heeded the things spoken regarding Jesus. The million dollar question is, Was it a necessary component in Lydia’s salvation for God to open her heart, or was God just being particularly nice to this lady, although He doesn’t do this in all cases? Surely many Jews believed in a living God, believed in the things Moses wrote, believed in a coming Messiah, but didn’t believe in Jesus. Their hearts were not opened by the Lord… I’m still thinking this one over. There does seem to be some Scriptural support for the idea that spiritual knowledge must be directly communicated by God. For example, Peter was a disciple, but Jesus told him it wasn’t flesh and blood that revealed to him that Jesus was the Son of God, but the Father had. If the natural man doesn’t receive spiritual things, then wouldn’t it actually take a supernatural act of God to communicate truth in a way that can be understood – whether it’s first to believe in a living God, or in Christ Himself? As to an example of someone who hated God but became a believer in Jesus – well, anyone whose mind was once governed by the flesh was at enmity (hatred) with God. We once all hated the light because we loved darkness. We couldn’t serve God and mammon because we’d hate the one and love the other. I would think it would be proper to say that all unbelievers, while in that state, hate God.

Cheryl, you brought up the question: Does being “taught by God” necessitate that all are taught about Jesus? Well… yes. Jesus said, “No one can come to Me…” and that He would draw all people “to Myself.” This passage is all about coming to Jesus in particular (knowing and understanding His true identity), not just coming to a general belief in God, right? If the drawing is necessary, and if the Father desires to draw people to His Son, then of course, He must teach them about His Son. A verse that comes into mind to illustrate this is, “For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor. 4:6) If it’s true that “the god of this age has blinded” unbelievers, it makes sense that God must intervene somehow in order for His Son to be seen. I once was blind, but now I see… The more I think about it, the more the whole thing seems very…struggling to find the word…God-sided? I mean, it was dark and the Creator spoke and there was light. If God shines “in our hearts” to give “the light of the knowledge” of God “in the face of Jesus Christ” – well, I have to admit that this sounds like a work of God that is not only necessary, but (to borrow a despised term!), effectual! (A side note that really bugs me that I have not seen addressed: I get that the word draw doesn’t mean dragged and all that… but that said, the other instances of the use of the word do, in fact, have the desired results accomplished – the sword really was out of its sheath, the fish really were in the net, the disciples really did have to go along, etc. Doesn’t that have any bearing on how the word is used here as well? Besides that, the Isaiah verse Jesus quoted, “they shall “all be taught,” also seems effectual in its own context. What is up with that?) If you are growing weary of me, no offense taken.

Thank you, Cheryl, for your response, as I fully appreciate the time it takes to formulate thoughts into words. I heartily agree with you regarding Romans 1; creation and conscience are sufficient evidence of a living God. I went to a Christian high school, and I vividly remember receiving an unaccustomed lower grade by my response to my teacher’s question: Is the light of creation sufficient for salvation? My school was non-denominational, and my teacher not a Calvinist by any stretch…but he emphatically pointed out my 17-year-old-understanding-blunder. I had answered that yes, salvation could result from the light of nature – when, of course, the true answer is that creation gives light as to a supreme being, but salvation itself only comes from knowledge of Christ. So, I guess what I’m getting at, is that it seems to me that the drawing referred to in John 6 and 12 must be something extra, if you will, something above and beyond what all human beings receive through nature and conscience. John 6 seems to indicate that whatever is meant by the Father’s drawing is a prerequisite of salvation…So…(I’m thinking)…if the Father desires all to be saved, then all will be drawn. Jesus said He would draw all people to… Himself. Doesn’t that necessitate that all people should actually hear about Jesus? Especially since He didn’t put any qualifiers (conditions) in that statement? Thanks again.

Could someone please define drawing? And, what it means to be “taught” by the Father? By drawing and being taught, do we mean that the Holy Spirit and the Father make Jesus look appealing? Or, is the drawing and the teaching merely that the bare facts of the death and resurrection are known? What advantage do people have today that people didn’t have prior to the death/resurrection? (And, if there was no advantage prior to the time of Jesus, how was God loving everyone?) My son went on a mission trip to China this summer… He met a man who literally never heard the name Jesus before. Apparently, China is full of people who don’t believe a God even exists, let alone knowing anything about the Son. These people are dying every day with no knowledge of salvation. Salvation wasn’t rejected… it wasn’t even known. How are these people drawn or taught? Thanks for your time.

Playing devil’s advocate here, but all Christians should be sharp in rightly dividing the Word. My son, who was a fact-checker for his law school’s journal has taught me to be very discriminating with Scripture as well. John 5:25 only demonstrates that by an act of God’s speaking to a human heart, some will live. It technically does not say if any other necessary element takes place; that is, it does not specify how or why a person hears with acceptance. I think even Calvinists would agree that God originally must speak, so I don’t see this as an exclusive Arminian verse. If you look at the verse just before, it says “he who hears My word and believes… has everlasting life. The Greek for “has” means “already holds, or possesses.” Plus, the very next phrase reiterates that by emphasizing again that this person who hears and believes “has passed” (Greek, has already passed) from death into life. So, can verse 25 actually be properly used to confirm that some act of God (let’s play rough here… some “effectual” apparatus) isn’t also in play here? In addition, verse 25 says those who hear will live. Thayer’s cites John 5:25 as an example of how life in this text means in the Messianic sense to enjoy life, to live life to its full, eternally. In other words, it doesn’t specifically refer to the theological act of regeneration or rebirth. The bare facts that we can glean from John 5:25 are: there are spiritually dead people, some of which hear God and experience eternal life. What the verse specifically does not teach is: how many people are spiritually dead, how many spiritually dead people hear God, how it comes about that they hear God, or how it is that they are born again spiritually. If anything, Calvinists could perhaps use this verse to demonstrate there is a limited number of people who effectively hear God! I say all this to say, let’s be careful how we use Scripture. There may be other verses to support the idea that spiritually dead people are able to hear God – but this is not one of them, in my humble opinion (just a housewife who enjoys studying). About how we treat Calvinists, my sister said it very well; she said the reason she can “put up” with Calvinists is because she knows they hold their opinions because they believe they are upholding the glory and sovereignty of God. You can call me a sympathizer if you want… But I’d also like to point out that God has gifted his church with pastors and teachers down through the centuries, and among the godliest theologians there is a lengthy list of Calvinists. My daughter had AP Euro in high school this year, which tracks Renaissance and Reformation history. I spent half my life helping her study for that class, and I learned a thing or two. We should all graciously keep in mind that God used many Calvinists to put Scripture into the hands of the common people, and these great men of God paid for it by blood, sweat and tears, literally. Let’s please be kind. Calvinists are not to be equated to Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons, for pity’s sake. My two cents.

Thank you for your kind responses, and please excuse my slow reply, as I was out of town and chose to take a vacation from my laptop. When I read John 6:65, it does seem evident that it corresponds back to verse 64, As I read it, it seems that the link, according to Jesus’ words is this: some of you don’t believe, and this is why some of you don’t believe – “it” must be given by My Father. To what does the “it” refer? I’m trying to research this. What is it that must be given by the Father? I heard an interesting illustration recently about a lion. A lion has all the natural faculties necessary to eat grass (the teeth, the mouth, the tongue, etc.) But by nature he is a carnivore. He may be starving to death, but will not eat the grass all around him. Similarly, an unregenerate person has no desire or affection for Christ. It’s not that the person lacks the ability to choose, it’s simply that he won’t choose to come to Christ. Therefore, since Christ is first viewed as repulsive (stumbling block) to the Jews, or as foolish (against common sense) to the Gentiles, there must be “something” (“it?” vs. 65) that brings about a changed mindset or attitude in regards to the cross. Verse 65 seems to say that whatever the “it” refers to must be granted by the Father. I’m wondering if this is what is meant by the “call” of I Cor. 1:24. This passage basically says there are Jews, there are Gentiles, and then this group of “called” – and to this group, Christ is viewed as the power and wisdom of God. How did that happen? This question haunts me.

I am a 50 year old mother of five. haha

Why do you assume I am Calvinist? I have read a lot of Calvinist literature; therefore, it is reasonable for me to frame a question from that point of view. I have legitimate questions that I am working through. So far, I have yet to come across a reasonable answer to my question as to what brings about belief. It’s obvious that one must “hear.” But when there are verses about God’s Word being powerful and effective, and not returning void, and accomplishing the thing for which it is sent, it makes me wonder if indeed there must be an “effectual” impetus in coming to believe. Satan successfully blinds men spiritually. Shouldn’t we assume that in order to combat Satan’s power that God has at least equal (if not more) power to illuminate the mind? And, if God has equal (if not more) power to illuminate a mind, shouldn’t we see more people coming to know the Lord than not? In other words, since the pull to love sin is so strong, doesn’t the drawing of God have to be great enough to overcome that pull to sin? To illustrate, God’s wooing me would be like presenting Christ to my mind so that Christ is attractive to me… like chocolate cake. Given spinach (sin) and chocolate cake (Christ), I would want to choose cake because it appeals more to me. So, my question stands… What causes someone to actually believe? If preaching causes some to stumble (Jews) and to others preaching is foolishness (Gentiles), how does one overcome the stumbling, or the seeing of the cross as foolishness?

For the sake of argument, let’s assume you, Cheryl, are correct: the people don’t believe, and for this reason (because they don’t believe) Jesus tells them they can’t come (since the Father doesn’t give unbelievers). A question for the non-Calvinist: What does it mean that “the flesh profits nothing?” Since the words Jesus spoke “are spirit and life” and yet after hearing Jesus’s words they still don’t believe, what is the mechanism by which one does begin to believe?

Doesn’t John 6:65 say it must be “given to a man” to come?