Jesus draws all men to Himself? John 12:32

Thanks, as always! I hadn’t looked at it that way. Sadly, a lot of people looking for God end up trapped in groups like JW’s, where the REAL Jesus is kept hidden from them. Calvinism, on the other hand, gives the CLOSEST COUNTERFEIT. It gives the Jesus who is God, manifest in the flesh, virgin born, and who rose, physically from the dead. Unfortunately this Jesus only died to save so many and no more. This unholy doctrine has slithered its way into the church because, foundationally, we agree. Jesus is GOD. The matter of WHO He came to save is the crux. ALL or few. The JW Jesus can’t save. The Calvinist Christ won’t. Or at least, not everyone the Bible says He wants to save.

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.

Robin, It is so good to see you thinking this one through. Let’s start with your first point. 1) Actually “all” does mean “all” in the Scripture. I think you mean that it can mean something other than every single human being. That is true. But “all” means “all” of a category. The primary meaning is the individual components, every. What category is Jesus talking about? If Jesus is talking about all Jews and Gentiles, then that is everyone for there is no other category. There is no option for the word to men only some of the category. For example, if the passage were talking about all of the crowd, then it means all of the category (the crowd). It wouldn’t mean all of the world. But in this context it cannot mean a subcategory of mankind as there is no subcategory mentioned. I do believe that He meant “all” as in all Jews and Gentiles because that means all people without exception. Secondly, it would not be like Jesus who gets all of His words from the Father to be imprecise. If He actually meant that He would draw some Gentiles and some Jews then He would have spoken precisely. In fact just a few chapters later, Jesus said that He would let His followers know what isn’t true. John 14:2 (NASB) “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. Jesus said that if it were not so, He WOULD HAVE told them. Jesus is not interested in being misunderstood or being imprecise. He would have told us what He meant. Thirdly, the fact that the Gentiles had ALREADY started to come Jesus was a sign that they were being drawn to Jesus. So Jesus’ statement makes no sense that Gentiles would only be drawn to Him if He died. Let’s hash this one out before we go on to the other points. I believe that everything you have to say is worth answering and considering.

Robin, So my challenge back to you is to show why you believe that Jesus meant only “some” Jews and only “some” Gentiles when He chose the word “all”. Couldn’t Jesus have just said what He meant if He was going to draw only “some”?

Excellent article as usual, Cheryl!

Robin: good question to consider…. if Jesus only meant SOME, how do you know if you’re INCLUDED or EXCLUDED from the SOME?

Thank you Darrell!

gilliansnotebook, I think you have a good question as well. I believe Jesus when He said that He spoke the words that His Father gave to Him. The Father said what He means. Since He knows all things, He would have know that using the term “all” would mean people would believe Jesus would draw all human beings to Him. Because the Father does not deceive people, He would have used the term “some” or equivalent if He meant “some” of the Jews and “some” of the Gentiles. It may be a hard passage to understand, but I do not understand why the words of Jesus are not seen as meaning “all”. There is no limiting factor in the passage to remove the importance of the term “all”.

I do wish this site had a edit button. Anywho, as far as the DRAWING, Jesus does want ALL to come to repentence (2 Peter 3:9) but not everyone who is offered Christ’s salvation will respond favorably. Ideally, when movies come out, the movie’s producers, not to mention the theater owners would love every member of a city’s population to see said movie. Ka-CHING! But not everyone will want to see said movie, even if everyone had the money to go to the movies. Of course salvation is eternally better than a movie, but Jesus will not drag anyone, kicking and screaming, into heaven. The rich young ruler had a choice; Jesus or riches? The invite is on the table for all (John 4:42, 1Tim 2:4-6, 2 Cor 5:12-15, 1 John 4:14) Romans 2:11 and 1Tim 5:21 talks about the sin of partiality. How could God tell angels and humanity NOT to play favors if He, himself is that very thing?

If all does not mean all in verse 32, then is He only qualified to judge some of the world (verse 31)?

Brad, excellent point!

Robin, In your second point you said: 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?) Robin, I encourage you to trust what the Scripture says without putting it through a Calvinist pair of eye glasses. First of all if Jesus said that He would draw all to Him, it doesn’t mean that we have to understand fully how He can do that, but to just believe Him and take Him at His word. Let’s look at Romans 10:13-18 for confirmation. Romans 10:13–15 (NASB) 13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!” In these verses, God says that it is those who call on the name of the LORD who will be saved. He doesn’t say that it is the ones who are pre-chosen that will be saved. The next verses (14, 15) show that faith will ultimately come down to the sending of the messengers. Who is the one who sends? Is it not God Himself? Is not God ultimately responsible as Lord of the harvest to send out the laborers? Then in Romans 10:16-18 Isaiah is quoted as asking who has believed their report? Romans 10:16–18 (NASB) 16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. 18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; “THEIR VOICE HAS GONE OUT INTO ALL THE EARTH, AND THEIR WORDS TO THE ENDS OF THE WORLD.” Who has believed their report? It can’t be said that they have never heard the word of Christ since verse 18 says they HAVE heard and their voice has gone out into ALL the earth! Then look at the next few verses: Romans 10:19–21 (NASB) 19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says, “I WILL MAKE YOU JEALOUS BY THAT WHICH IS NOT A NATION, BY A NATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WILL I ANGER YOU.” 20 And Isaiah is very bold and says, “I WAS FOUND BY THOSE WHO DID NOT SEEK ME, I BECAME MANIFEST TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME.” 21 But as for Israel He says, “ALL THE DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND OBSTINATE PEOPLE.” Here the LORD is said to be found by those who were not seeking Him. He manifested Himself to those who did not ask for Him. And as for Israel He draws them by saying that all day long He stretched out His hands to the disobedient and obstinate people. He has promised to draw all, even those who have never heard of Him and even those tho have heard of Him but who are disobedient. I believe that eternity will show us the amazing ways that He drew the lost, yet they turned their backs on the revelation that He gave them. Do I believe Jesus when He said that He would draw all to Himself? Yes, I do and I encourage you to accept His words first and then seek to understand. Do not say that He has failed to do as He said. Believe Him and wait for the evidence in eternity. The failure of men to believe is not His failure. God is not limited by our sin or by our unbelief.

Robin, on your third point you said: 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? No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that in order for one to come to God that one must FIRST believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him. I did not say that in order to be drawn by Jesus one must first acknowledge these two things. Do you see the difference? You also said: 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. No! I would imply a direct revelation of God who is Jesus. In order to come to God, one needs to believe 2 things about Him. That is what the Scripture says and I accept it without having to deny any part of what He said. And in order to come to Jesus one needs to believe God the Father and what He said about Jesus. One leads to another when each revelation is revealed and believed. But the revelation of Jesus is not the only way that people are drawn to Jesus. They are first drawn to Him as God!! It has to happen in this order, because God said so. The fact is that the majority of the people in the third world, and in our western civilization to not come to Jesus. They refuse the revelation that they have been given. And, those who are willing to hear can still hear the gospel preached even if they have never heard of Jesus before. Revelation 14:6 says that the gospel is proclaimed by an angel. Today there are many who have given a witness that they were in an area where they had no gospel, but they had visions and dreams of Jesus and have come to a true faith in Him. We may not understand this because we have the gospel so readily available here, but it appears that from the Scriptures God will send out messengers of one kind or another to those who will respond to Him in faith. I think we will be amazed in eternity at the ways that He was able to get the gospel into places where it seemed to be completely closed to the good news. The bottom line here seems to be, will we accept the testimony of the Father that He gave to Jesus to say? Will Jesus draw all men to Him? Whether you can or cannot understand how this will be done, I hope that all who read these words will say that the testimony of the Father and the testimony of Jesus is true. He WILL draw all men to Himself.

gilliansnotebook, I added an edit comment plugin that will allow a commenter to edit their comments for a short time. Hopefully it works on my blog. Let me know if it works for you.

Thanks, Cheryl! You didn’t have to but so glad you did. Otherwise, I’d end up making a hundred posts. Dear woman, you are SO brave to tackle the whole religion of Calvinism. It’s TRAGIC that people even want to believe the idea that Christ came to save only a segment of humanity. I think I’ve mentioned, before, I’ve gotten into arguements with five point Calvinists on the issue of what they would term LIMITED ATONEMENT. I think I even YELLED in ALL CAPS, at Tom McGovern when he said that 2 Peter 3:9 only applied to the ‘ELECT’. I said, “SO, IT DOESN’T MATTER TO YOU THAT YOUR BEST FRIEND OR PARENTS OR BROTHER OR SISTER, OR ALL OF THEM MIGHT NOT BE GOING TO HEAVEN BECAUSE GOD DECIDED THEY WOULD NOT BE AMONG THE ‘ELECT’ ?!?!?!?!” I mean I had a Cow and a calf! So, I need to ask Robin about 1 Tim 2:4-6, John 4:42, Romans 2:11, 1 Tim 5:21, 1 John 4:14 . If Jesus only intended to save so many, doesn’t it bother you? No one has free will. God decides who He’s going to save and the rest of humanity can go to hell. Literally. Does that sound like a God you want to believe in? I may have asked this before, and I apologize if I’m repeating myself, but it all comes down to the NATURE of GOD. Calvinists are fond of saying ‘God is SOVEREIGN’. So? Hitler was ‘SOVEREIGN’ in Germany. He had the power to murder millions of people just because he didn’t like them. He had the power to close businesses of Jewish business owners and arrest people for no reason. That’s Power. That’s authority. And we see that the nature of the man governs his actions. 1 John 4:7,8 says God is LOVE. Well, pardon me if you’re NOT a Dave Hunt ‘fan’, Robin, but “What LOVE IS THIS?” What kind of LOVE condemns the larger segment of humanity to eternal damnation without giving them a choice to decide whether or not to accept the offer of salvation?

Good point, Brad. God can hardly judge those he pre-determined NOT to save. That would have been HIS choice. To judge those who don’t have a choice to accept or refuse the offer of salvation is WRONG.

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!

Hi Robin; The problem with looking at Salvation from a CALVINIST perspective at all is just as dangerous as looking at the deity of Christ with a Watchtower perspective. Your spiritual sight is warbled. Jesus invited the rich young ruler to follow Him, but the man just walked away; choosing worldly goods over God’s salvation. You’ll notice Jesus didn’t grab this guy by the shirt collar and say, “You’re one of the ELECT and you’re going to be saved whether you want to or not!” This man had a choice. But choices have consequences. I’ve asked before but I think it bears repeating; If you put exclusions to God’s invite to salvation, then how do you know if you’re saved or excluded? Or what if God chose to EXCLUDE you? 2 Cor 11:3 says, “But I’m afraid for you, children, for just as Eve was deceived by the craftiness of the enemy, so your minds might be lead away from the simplicity that is in Christ. ….” Simplicity has been translated as purity and devotion, but I like the word that suggests that the Gospel of Christ can be understood, in plainest language, by a pre-schooler. Q: Do you believe in the verse WHOSOEVER WILL MAY COME….? Or John 3:16,17 WILL is the key word. “If anyone wills to do His will…” Again, there’s a choice to be made and GOD offers the choice. Likewise, when Jesus said WORLD, He meant every citizen of the world. Then, now and in the future. Of course, believers have to share that love and GOOD NEWS but in doing so, we don’t discriminate. ALL are just as entitled to receive this good news as we were. And NO ONE knew this better than the Apostle Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) . He called himself the chiefest of sinners and will forever be grateful that God saved him, on the road to Damascus rather than just zap him on the spot, which He could have done; given all Saul had done to His people up that point. God gave Saul the choice; Saul could harden his heart to any entreaty and warning of soon judgement, or stop the killing and follow Him. Under the circumstances, it was a pretty easy choice. But I think Paul would look back on that day, for the rest of his life, amazed that he was even given the choice.

Some say that “draw” equals “actually arriving.” This would seem to negate the “coming.” I note that “draw” and “come” are two different words with two different spellings and two different definitions…even in English…this is also related to John 6 because of the link of the word “draw…”

Robin, I agree that iron sharpening iron is a good thing. I have learned from people who were solidly against me in other areas when they showed me something that I had missed. When I listened to what they had to say, it helped me clear up some loose string and surprisingly made my argument even stronger. I believe that body of Christ needs each one as God has not given any one of us all of His gifts. We are meant to minister to one another and to learn from one another. I agree that the tense of a verb is very important and should not be missed. We want to make sure that we understand what the author is saying, and not try to fit it into our own little box. Robin, you said that Jesus could not have meant “all” in Matthew 26:52 because it wasn’t true. 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. I don’t agree. Jesus’ words are always true and He spoke the truth or else explained when His words had a spiritual meaning and were being misunderstood. When Jesus said “all” in Matthew 26:52, He meant all. Matthew 26:52 (NASB) Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Jesus is not talking about those who just wield the sword. He is using an idiom that has a specific meaning. “To take the sword” is used for rashly usurping magisterial power instead of giving obedience and subjection to God. Are all those who refuse to give obedience and subjection to God, but take their own vengeance into their own hands – will all of these be killed with the sword? Jesus said they would and He gave a second witness. The testimony of Jesus is given in the book of Revelation. Revelation 13:10 (NASB) If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints. His testimony is that God’s justice will bring an eye for an eye and the saints can count on that. Also in Revelation 19:15 He is said to be the one who measures out the wrath of God and the sharp sword is mentioned as the way He accomplishes God’s wrath. Revelation 19:15 (NASB) From His mouth comes a sharp sword , so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. Revelation 1:16 (NASB) In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. Do I believe that Jesus meant “all” in Matthew 26:52? Yes, I believe He meant exactly what He said. I believe He meant “all” and the perishing is the judgment that He will do in the future. All judgment is given for Him to accomplish as He is the Son of man and the sword from His mouth is how He will slay the wicked. I like how Paul said it in Romans when he was responding to those who were accusing God of not being faithful to His own words. Romans 3:4 (NASB) May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.” Robin, if you have biblical evidence for Matthew 26:52 that Jesus said “all” but the Father really meant just “some”, I would be very interested to read your reasoning. Until I am convinced from the Scriptures, I stand on Matthew 26:52 and John 12:32 that all means all.

Brad, You said: Some say that “draw” equals “actually arriving.” This would seem to negate the “coming.” I note that “draw” and “come” are two different words with two different spellings and two different definitions…even in English…this is also related to John 6 because of the link of the word “draw…” Exactly! That is how I see it too.

The father was handing the Jews over to Jesus. They didn’t believe in Jesus. Jesus was trying to convince them of who He was, the Messiah. Previously Jews were drawn to the father by the Law of Moses, which they didn’t do very well at keeping. Now Jesus is saying you are still drawn to the father, but it will be through me not the Mosaic Law. It has nothing to do with a calvinistic view of predestination. And they will be drawn to Him through His Holy Spirit now.

Jasen, welcome to The Giving blog. I do think you are conflating the giving of people to Jesus and the drawing of people to Jesus. People who are GIVEN TO Jesus believe in the Father. People who are DRAWN to Jesus are not necessarily believers.

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!

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.

It looks like the comments were somehow closed while I was away. I have fixed that and comments are now open again.

Hi Peter, Thanks for your comments. You said: 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. I would be interested in your view of the timing of Jesus’ comments in John 6. Jesus said in John 6:37 about a continued giving (present tense) and He also speaks of the future “will come to Me”. In the light of the context of John 6 where “many” of Jesus’ disciples left Him and no longer walked with Him because of His hard saying in this chapter who are the ones who will come to Jesus who are physically given into His care after the exodus of the disciples who followed Him in chapter 6? I will wait for your answer before I comment more. It is nice to see others who are interested in apologetics. There are so many teachings that have come into the church unawares that have caused great harm to many.

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?

Peter, Thank you for responding. You said: 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. In John 17:9-19, Jesus is speaking only of the disciples who have been given to Jesus by the Father. Jesus said that He was with “them” and He guarded them, and not one of them (the disciples) perished except for Judas so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. Jesus also says in verse 20 that 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. Can we agree on this? Here is a second point that we can maybe agree on. 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 it is not a giving of people who are no believers and not a giving of people who have been unconditionally hand chosen for salvation from eternity past?

Peter, in your last comment you said: 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? 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. Rather, Jesus is talking about an assurance that He emphasizes with the double negative. Jesus said that the one who continues to come to Him, (continues to place his faith in Jesus) will NEVER (NASB certainly not is a double negative) be cast out. 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. Does this help?

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!

Hi Peter, You wrote: 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. In John 17:11,12 Jesus uses specific words that should help us know who He was talking about. These were ones that Jesus said had already been given to Him. He was “keeping” them in the Father’s name. He “guarded” them and only one perished. To “Keep” means to maintain, to keep in a certain state, position, or activity. To “Guard” means to keep watch over. “Perished” means to be lost – to be or become no longer in one’s possession, whether physically or abstractly. In John 17:15, 16 Jesus asks the Father to “keep” the believing eleven from the evil one. Also, in John 17:11 Jesus asks the Father to “keep” them in the Father’s name, the name which the Father had given to Jesus. In John 18:8, 9 Jesus asks that the eleven disciples be allowed to leave and the reason is given to fulfill what He prophesied, “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.” From John 18:8, 9 it appears that Jesus had physical care of the disciples so that those in His care would not die prematurely. From John 17:11, 12 it appears that Jesus “keeping” them also involved spiritual care – a keeping free from the evil one. Can we agree that the “keeping” of the eleven involved saving them from physical death before their time and it also involved a spiritual “keeping” that kept them safe from the evil one? Could we also agree that the will of Jesus is that the Father would “keep” from the evil one those who believed because of the preaching of the disciples?

Peter, you wrote: 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”. That is a part of the will of the Father. But it is not limited to these Jews. The will of the Father that sent Jesus is far greater than the believers during the first century. This passage does not teach that those who come to Him are unbelievers who were unconditionally chosen before time and who are promised from their election that they will be saved. In John 5, Jesus points out the unbelievers in the guise of religious people who cannot come to Him. In John 6, Jesus speaks of those who already belong to the Father as believers, not unbelievers for unbelievers cannot believe His words. Psalm 25:14 shows that God’s revelation and His covenant (Jesus) are given to those who fear Him. Psalm 25:14 14 The secret of the LORD is for those who fear Him, And He will make them know His covenant. You wrote: 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). I would suggest that Jesus did not “drive away” people in John 6. It was their unbelief that caused them to leave. Jesus made an observation in John 6:64 just before verse 66 says that people withdrew and were not “walking with Him anymore.” John 6:64 64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. “Driving away” is an action that Jesus accomplishes as the Judge. But in John 6:66-69 we see that it the actions of the crowd was because of unbelief. John 6:66–69 66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” The crowd went “away” from Jesus because they had not placed their faith in Him. They were unbelieving followers just like Judas. Notice that Peter says that they can’t go away from Jesus because they have believed in Him. They believe that Jesus is the Holy One of God and that He has the words of eternal life. The crowd was looking for eternal physical bread and the fact that Jesus said He came down from heaven was too much for them. They would not stay around long enough to see Him go back to heaven where He came from for no unbeliever was in that crowd when Jesus left.

Thanks for the response Peter, and your continued dialog. I am going to ask questions and respond to just pieces at a time so that we can better define any differences we have, The beginning part of your synopsis I agree with. I will pick out what stands out to me. You wrote: – He was trying to get them to go away as He only wanted followers who believed Him. I don’t see this in the passage. Where specifically in the passage does it say that Jesus wanted many of His followers to go away? You wrote: In that sense his offensive language served its purpose What specifically does Jesus say that identifies why people are scandalized by His words? Jesus responded with their problem, yet He said that the words that He gives are spirit and life. If Jesus is giving the crowd words of life, then what makes you think that Jesus was expressively desiring that people would not stay around Him to hear the words of life?

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 Peter, I can agree with you that the words of truth that Jesus gave were spiritual and they were life and they showed who believed Jesus and who were willing to continue to hear words of life because those ones stayed. The others were there for a free meal and they were not interested in spiritual words that brought spiritual life. However, I disagree that Jesus did not want some people to follow Him. I think this is going beyond the text and beyond what Jesus said. If I am wrong I am willing to be corrected. You wrote: I think they did what He wanted them to do. I think that it is clear that He wanted them all to eat of the spiritual food that was given to them as He said that His Father gives them the true bread out of heaven which was Himself. John 6:32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 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.

However, if we see that casting out or driving away refers to the final judgment then the passage is completely consistent within itself and with Jesus’ purpose not to judge in His first coming but to judge in the next life and expel unbelievers at that time.

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.

Peter, you wrote: 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. I see nothing of that in the text. Instead, Jesus spoke to the crowd truth about the Father’s intention and that did not include driving unbelievers away. Who is Jesus talking to in John 6:32? Who were the ones who received the bread out of heaven by Moses? Only believers? John 6:32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. Jesus was not speaking to just believers but to unbelievers as well. The same kinds of people that were fed with the manna are given the true bread from heaven. Then Jesus said to the unbelievers: John 6:64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. Jesus did not say “there are some of you who do not believe and I want you unbelievers to be driven away from Me”. That is foreign to the passage. Notice Jesus included Judas in the group of unbelievers and Jesus did not send Judas away. Judas STAYED with Jesus. IF it was the purpose of Jesus to DRIVE AWAY the unbelievers, then the text would have said this. We would not have to guess that meaning by reading it into the text. And Judas, who was (referred to by Jesus as the one who would betray Him) would have been driven away if Jesus did not want unbelievers to follow Him. Jesus had the worst kind of unbeliever following Him, yet Jesus cared for Judas and even washed his feet! You wrote: In actual fact, he was making a judgement against them – but it was not the final judgement. The text doesn’t say this. You are saying that Jesus was not interested in having unbelievers follow Him, yet Jesus washed Judas’ feet and He told the mostly unbelieving crowd that the Father gave Jesus (the true bread from heaven) for them. I think that you have very good intentions. You are rightly dismayed that there are many who are taught that God planned an unconditional election to salvation for some people. But we must also be careful in proving our point by being fair with the text and not reading into it what is not there. It is not a matter how we FEEL that Jesus was thinking, but what the text actually says. Again, I may have missed something, but you have not yet corrected me with the inspired words and the inspired grammar. You have just told me what Jesus was thinking. That is only valid if you have the actual proof of that thinking. I think that the example of Judas totally vindicates Jesus from having the plan to deliberately DRIVE away those for whom He would shortly die on their behalf. Logically and textually, where am I wrong? You wrote: 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. No, that is not right. John 6:37 says it is the “one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” The grammar shows that the one who comes (present tense) is the one who believes (present tense) as the one who continues to come (continues to believe). The believer who continues to put his faith in Jesus will never (double negative) be cast out. You wrote: Remember this is a Jewish-specific passage that is not speaking about the general will of saving sinners. The Bible doesn’t say that Gentiles are saved in a different way than Jews. Are you perhaps a dispensationalist who believes that the church was not founded until after Paul was saved?

Jesus did not say “there are some of you who do not believe and I want you unbelievers to be driven away from Me”. That is foreign to the passage. He did not say that, but the words He spoke served that very purpose. I still maintain that this is about discipleship. Earlier in the passage he told those present to work for food that endures. If this was a salvific passage, that would be akin to teaching works salvation. So, in that regard, it makes complete sense that He was trying to separate out the true disciples from the wannabes. Re Judas, I would simply say that He diid believe – except his flesh go the better of him at some point, which puts him in a different class than the others. I don’t think it is necessary to place a demand on the text and try to make it say precisely what we need it to say or we will not except it. Many commentators have made this same point. As well, it is entirely within the range of sound reasoning to consider that Jesus is teaching truth with a desire that some would come to believe knowing full well that any imposters would go away. We may have to disagree on this point. I see that it is in the text even though it is not spelled out in exact words. I am not sure I can say much more to convince you otherwise. Next point: “For I have come down from heaven :not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” Here it is very clear that Jesus has come down to do the Father’s will – which is to lose none of those who the Father sent him. That is the specific will that is germane to this passage. You then said: The grammar shows that the one who comes (present tense) is the one who believes (present tense) as the one who continues to come (continues to believe). The believer who continues to put his faith in Jesus will never (double negative) be cast out. This does nothing to refute my premise. The grammar is present tense and I am not disputing that. Where I see it differently, is that by considering the setting (of Jesus’ earthly ministry which is in view here) the FIRST thing to notice is that he is saying what he is saying to the Jews present and he is telling THEM how this relates to them. They are the initial recipients. That is the observation stage reading that should not be overlooked. What you are arguing for is a part of the interpretation stage.So, as we make observation of what the grammar is conveying, we should not fail to consider the setting that the grammar is being tempered by. Where we differ here is that I am simply looking at the grammar and tying it to the context of the previous verses. Given that what He says applies to these ones within the setting and context, it doesn’t do any violence to the text to suggest that He is telling them a universal truth that is applicable to them at that time. By saying that, I am not saying that there isn’t an interpretation that leads to an application for future generations of believers. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t jump there first – and if we do jump there first, it shouldn’t overrule what the original conversation was pointing at. So, to clarify, I am simply saying that there is a present tense in the words of Jesus – as He spoke AT THAT TIME. That is not to imply that the truth of what He said won’t carry forward universally. Just that it also doesn’t disqualify my premise – as it fits this context perfectly well. Where you and I disagree is at the first sentence of your comment here. I am saying that the one “who comes” was one who was coming at the time of his ministry – present tense at that time but a past setting (from our perspective).

Peter, you wrote: He did not say that, but the words He spoke served that very purpose. Knowing the future actions of people does not mean that the actions are His intended purpose. God knows that most people will be lost but it would be illogical to say that the rejection of Jesus by the masses was His purpose. The fact is that we cannot determine a purpose outside of God’s stated will because we think His purpose changed because the response was negative. We define God’s purpose not by the actions of men, but by God’s revealed purpose throughout the Scripture. You wrote: Earlier in the passage he told those present to work for food that endures. I have written on this passage on this blog. “Work for” here means put your effort towards chasing after. It has nothing to do with earning salvation. Jesus is talking about discipleship because He is mainly talking to unbelievers. Unbelievers cannot be discipled before they are saved. I think it is possible that you are working hard to defeat Calvinism to the point that you may have missed the point in John 6. It seems to me that you are starting with a conclusion first. I start with the understanding that Jesus is teaching truth and I don’t need to explain away what appears to be clear words about salvation. I want to understand the inspired words in context because a proper understanding will never contradict other clear passages and will allow the inspired words in this passage to stand strong and powerful. You wrote: Re Judas, I would simply say that He diid believe – except his flesh go the better of him at some point, which puts him in a different class than the others. If you would say that Judas was a believer then you would come face to face with the words of Jesus that contradict that belief. Jesus called Judas a devil in John 6:70. John 6:70 Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” Jesus didn’t say that Judas would become a devil when he betrayed Jesus. He said Judas IS a devil. Again, it is present tense and ongoing. Jesus also connects unbelief to the one who would betray Him. John 6:64 64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. Jesus did not say that a believer would betray Him. He said that Judas was a devil and continued to be a devil and as an unbeliever Judas would betray Jesus. Judas was not only a devil, but he was a practiced thief. John 12:6 Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it. You wrote: As well, it is entirely within the range of sound reasoning to consider that Jesus is teaching truth with a desire that some would come to believe knowing full well that any imposters would go away. Now that is different than you said before. Of course Jesus knew that impostors would go away when He claimed that He came down from heaven. However, it is entirely a different matter to know unbelievers would not believe and would walk away to saying that this is what He willed to happen. You wrote: I see that it is in the text even though it is not spelled out in exact words. I think this is where you and I differ. I want the truth so much so that I will let the exact words and exact grammar of the text convince me rather then what I bring into the text by what I “see”. When you can see Judas as a believer when Jesus called him a “devil”, I think you may very well be letting your own feelings cloud your pursuit of truth. I LOVE truth more than I love my own understanding. That is why I allow myself to be corrected. You have not yet corrected me because you have not brought out the words and grammar to correct me. And if shown that Jesus called Judas a devil in John 6, you still see him as a believer, we have a completely different foundation for our doctrine. You can’t convince me that way and you are unlikely to influence a Calvinist either. I will answer the rest of your post later as I have time.

Re Judas, I think it is possible to believe and to not follow. In James, he says that Satan believes and he shudders. It may be a point not worth harping on – but I was trying to differentiate between Judas and these unbelieving Jews. It is very possible to believe – in the sense that one believes the truth about a situation, and yet not follow that truth. That was what I was trying to convey about Judas. After he betrayed Jesus he killed himself because he knew that he had betrayed the very son of God. That knowledge came as a result of believing. In contrast, these unbelieving Jews did no possess that knowledge. They did not believe that Jesus was who He proclaimed to be. What I am NOT saying here is that, for believers in general, head knowledge believing is enough. A cursive reading of the passage reveals 2 groups of people – believers and unbelievers. The preaching of Jesus drove some away – as He knew it would. He was not unfamiliar with these ones. We are left to derive our own interpretation and inference from this outcome of the passage. You should know that I am likely as committed to scriptural truth as you are. Although you have now moved to trying to determine my motives (a place I hoped we could avoid) – by pondering whether I am a dispensationalist, and if my feelings are clouding my pursuit of truth, I can tell you that I LOVE truth more than anything myself. Re the grammar point that you make, I don’t think you are factoring the setting into your analysis of the grammar. Our particular dividing point is verse 37. When you read that verse, you are reading it through your own interpretive lens that tells you that there is an ongoing “giving of the Father” that continues to this day. In that regard, the “grammar” there clouds your reading of the following verses. But this wrong turn can be avoided if it is determined that the ones that the Father gave Jesus – and continued to give Jesus as He walked the earth as a human, are specific pre-existing people. I asked you before in what manner does the Father give people to Jesus today and still maintain a non-respecter-of-persons perspective but you did not answer me. I maintain that the “giving” only happened as a transitional process while Jesus did earthly ministry. I think the text bears that out. Only if you read your interpretation of the giving into the passage will you be able to come away with a giving that is still ongoing today. Remember what He says in verse 37 has to FIRST make sense to these hearers so they can make application to his message. They would have understood that they could not “come to Him” (in a purely motivated sense) without believing. “All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away”. This is a then-specific situation – and not a universal truth embedded in a then-specific narrative. It is imperative that we do the consistent reading here. That is the first step if we are going to arrive at the truth that you desire as I do. It is critical to keep in mind that the “coming to Him” that is IN THE TEXT is an actual physical type of “coming”. This much is evident because they actually HAVE come to Him – and He is rebuking them for doing so. I should say that I have had very good success with Calvinists when I show them who the ones are that the Father gave Jesus. They were not concerned about the notion of an ongoing “giving” so that was a non-starter for them. The main thing that stopped them in their tracks was that they were forced to acknowledge that the “ones that the Father gave Jesus” was a specific group of pre-existing people – and not a class of people spanning across the time line of history. In actual fact, I think you may have more difficulty explaining your view and convincing them than I do. Because you are only coming half way on the text and your view (it seems to me) still seems to hold some degree of unconditional election and is a hybrid view in that regard. I say that will all due respect.

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!

Hi Cheryl, At this point, I think it is best if I do go back and read your articles before resending too much more. It does seem to me that we are stuck a bit and it would be good to clarify things – if we are to continue in a productive manner. Here is a snippet which I offer as an example that may typify our greatest divide – and also my perspective as I read your comments. You wrote: I am not saying that the Father is giving people unconditionally to Jesus. Not back then, not after Jesus spoke the words and not now. Salvation is conditional on faith. Would you like me to document the condition of faith from the Scriptures? First of all, I have a good understanding that salvation is by faith – so you need not express any doubt in that regard. Your offer here to explain this to me is somewhat telling. It reveals that you seem to think that perhaps I am deficient in that knowledge. I do find that a bit troubling – but I am willing to ignore that in order to get to the crux of the matter. (If you are interested in looking at some solid evidence that salvation is conditional by faith, I can send you a response I wrote to a universalist who was championing Romans 5:18 as a proof text for universalism. In that article I listed 9 times prior to 5:18 where Paul notes the condition). Secondly, you have inserted the word “unconditionally” into the equation. I have never said anything about an “unconditional giving” at any point so you can rest assured that there is no impasse for us there. My view – so that you are clear on that, is that there was a conditional giving at the time of Jesus’ ministry on the earth – but there is NO giving now whatsoever. IOW the Father is no longer giving care of the Jewish believers who believed prior to Jesus’ arrival over to Jesus today. I will report back after I have read the articles.

I should also point out that I made it very clear in the article I sent you on reconciliation, that I believe that salvation is by faith. So no need for any doubt in that regard.

Peter, you wrote: First of all, I have a good understanding that salvation is by faith – so you need not express any doubt in that regard. Your offer here to explain this to me is somewhat telling. It reveals that you seem to think that perhaps I am deficient in that knowledge. I do find that a bit troubling – but I am willing to ignore that in order to get to the crux of the matter. I never suggested that you don’t believe salvation is by faith. I was trying to explain one more time that I do not believe in unconditional election/salvation. It never occurred to me that you would see my statement as questioning your faith. When I asked you if you want me to document salvation by faith, I am asking if you need me to share my acceptance of conditional salvation/election from the Scriptures. Hopefully you will get a clearer picture once you read my articles. It is weird to have to defend my belief in conditional election with a non-Calvinist when no Calvinist ever labeled me that way and I have defended conditional election for years!

OK I accept your clarification – but you can see how I might misconstrue what you said there. The weakness of this mode of communication! I did read your articles. I am not sure they affect much of what we have discussed to this point – because I don’t disagree with much of what you say there. While I am not sure that your premise that John the Baptist died an unbeliever, it doesn’t really change the fact that I agree with you that he would have needed to make his own personal confession of faith. As for Judas, I think we will just have to agree to disagree there. I think there is too much conjecture that needs to be made as to his status – as it relates to his unbelief. Whether he had a knowledge of truth that he could have acted upon for his own salvation or not, I am not sure it makes a huge difference to our discussion. Even though he didn’t go away after he heard the words of Jesus (like the others) does not mean that Jesus wasn’t unhappy that he was still following him. After all, it was he that it was prophesied about that he would betray Jesus. There was a purpose for him continuing to follow Jesus. My premise is not affect by a scenario whereby all but one of the unbelievers left. The reason I say this is because the narrowing down of the crowd was still achieved by most of the unbelievers leaving. I know you had much more to say about him there but I know that you reject my premise, but it seems that you must be saying that Jesus wanted unbelievers to follow him – even with their wrongly motivated reasons. We may have to have a restart because we are at a place of misunderstanding each other frequently. You say it is weird to defend your belief that you have held for years. This may be a point where you are misunderstanding me. So I will try to state as clearly as I can what I believe about election: I believe that election is conditional upon one placing his faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. When an individual does that, he becomes part of the elect. But election as it regards individuals, is a moving categorical process. It has nothing to do with God choosing individuals to be elect before they were born (I know you agree here). It is individuals who determine whether they will join themselves to the “elected-ness” of Jesus. They are not pre-elected by God (I am making up words here to convey a point – that is how convoluted this has gotten because of Calvinist rhetoric). They are never pre-elected by God and never will be pre-elected by God. So God sets a condition on how one is able to join oneself to the ELECT. Election can be said to be conditional in that regard – from God’s perspective. So corporate conditionalism. From an individual’s perspective, conditional is a moot point – because individuals are not elected by God. There is no conditional election of individuals from the point of view of God electing individuals personally and individualistically. I know that is hard to follow – but I think it is necessary for me to go into more detail in order for you to see how I view election. To clarify, the demographic of the elect is WHOSOEVER. The condition set by God is that, for WHOSOEVER to join the elect, WHOSOEVER must believe. That is conditional election – full stop.

EDIT: I am not sure if I can edit on this program – but I meant to say that “conditional” is a moot point rather than election in the 8th line from the bottom.

I made the correction for you. You may need to refresh your browser to see it.

Peter, I am going to try to reflect back on what you have said to see if I understand you correctly. I am picking out points that stand out to me as important to see if I understand. My points may also bring in the things you may have expressed in earlier posts. You said: 1. You accept much of the Scriptural argument that I made for John the Baptist, although you don’t know if John died as a believer or an unbeliever. 2. You did not agree with my Scriptural article on Judas and you do not know if Judas was a believer or an unbeliever. 3. Jesus was unhappy that one unbeliever (Judas) kept following Him. 4. Jesus spoke a particular teaching to the crowd in order that they would abandon Him and leave and it was Jesus’ will and what makes Him happy, that unbelievers would not follow Him. 5. Judas had a purpose to follow Jesus and not leave because he wanted to betray Jesus. 6. Conditional election is solely accomplished by men and not God. 7. There is a “moving categorical process” in election. I do not know what you mean by this so I am going to take a stab at it. Does this mean “individuals” move to the “category” of elect which is not no longer “individual” in nature but “corporate” thus no one is an elect individual but there is only an elect corporate body? 8. No individual is pre-elected before faith. 9. Individuals self determine to join themselves to the ELECT which is a corporate body and not individual members. 10. The condition is set by God in how an individual may come into the elect. 11. Individuals are not elected by God either before or after they respond in faith. Jesus is the only one who was elected but the corporate body is the ELECT. Jesus Himself is not the ELECT. 12. Individuals self determine whether they will join themselves 13. God does not elect anyone before or after they have faith, and individuals do not elect themselves. Thus there is no individual election at all. It is a myth promoted by Calvinists. 14. Conditional election is only applicable to a thing called the ELECT and never to individuals. 15. Any other biblical term that would be associated with the term election must be interpreted to mean corporate and not individual. Whosoever then is not “any individual” but a corporate non-individual entity. Peter, how did I do in trying to restate my understanding of your view?

I will comment on each one in order to bring clarity. If this is your understanding of my view (on some of the points), you are quite confused! 1. You accept much of the Scriptural argument that I made for John the Baptist, although you don’t know if John died as a believer or an unbeliever. Correct. But I don’t think it is relevant either way. I see where you are going with your premise but your point is made whether he was saved or not. The issue of his salvation (for me) has nothing to do with unconditional election – just whether or not the expression of his doubt qualifies as being being a total lack of faith. So its a textual issue for me an not something that is based on unconditional election. IOW is that one verse enough to portray him as an unbeliever or is just a matter of him wavering a bit? We can leave this for the sake of our argument. 2. You did not agree with my Scriptural article on Judas and you do not know if Judas was a believer or an unbeliever. I did not disagree with your article for the most part. Its just that I am somewhat agnostic as to Judas’ role in our argument. It seemed to me like you pulled him into our argument – but I am not sure why. Perhaps you think if you can show that there is one unbeliever that Jesus did not try to chase away, it is therefore proof that my premise fails? We could go round and round on the question of whether or not Judas believed – but I don’t think we will get anywhere. We will both agree that he did not have the type of belief that saved him. Does that mean he never believed in a way that could save him if he had persevered? I don’t know. It is a conjecture filled argument. I don’t believe in OSAS – but perhaps you do. If so that will affect how we see things – each differently. 3. Jesus was unhappy that one unbeliever (Judas) kept following Him. You like to reframe things in a way that tends to misrepresent my view. Happiness or unhappiness is not the issue. To repeat what I said earlier, Jesus would have been most happy to have each and every Jew believe in Him. But given free will, many Jews rejected His teaching. They had also been rejecting the Father’s teaching as well – prior to Jesus’ arrival. It is not difficult to see that Jesus often made effort to escape the crowd and resist their efforts to make Him king etc. These ones who were not true disciples and not interested in true bread, were counter-productive to Jesus’ ministry. He did not want this group of people who were following Him for the wrong reasons, to follow Him everywhere He went. So, this is not a matter of perfect-world-happiness as you seem to be framing it. It is a matter of Jesus’ desire in that setting – GIVEN everything that is happening. In that setting, given the role of Judas’ betrayal, Jesus understood the situation and the need for Judas to remain with Him. I don’t know how else to explain this. 4. Jesus spoke a particular teaching to the crowd in order that they would abandon Him and leave and it was Jesus’ will and what makes Him happy, that unbelievers would not follow Him. This again misrepresents me. Jesus merely spoke the truth. He knew that some would not believe and would leave because of the truth. But what He said also provided truth for them to be saved – because they could be saved if they believed. You seem to feel that they could hear the truth, not believe – and Jesus would still be fine with them following him around the country side in large crowds. Again, happiness is nowhere on the radar here – and it seems like I have not been able to adequately convey this scenario to you. 5. Judas had a purpose to follow Jesus and not leave because he wanted to betray Jesus. There is much that I don’t know – because I am not told in the scriptures. So it would be conjecture to lay out an exact time line depicting his motives and whether or not he believed or not – or if he believed, when he stopped believing and when Satan entered his heart. I do believe that Jesus was not unaware of his heart went he chose him to be a disciple. But as I said it, all of this is irrelevant to my premise. Its more your thing. 6. Conditional election is solely accomplished by men and not God.,/blockquote> Conditional election is your term and not mine. But again, this is a misrepresentation. When you say “solely” are you implying that I don’t factor the role of the Holy Spirit into the equation? But beyond that, from God’s perspective (which is the only one that matters here) election is a matter that He settled before creation. He pre-decided that a category (believers) would be chosen to shine forth HIs glory to the world. The condition was that they would believe. Is that conditional election? <7. There is a “moving categorical process” in election. I do not know what you mean by this so I am going to take a stab at it. Does this mean “individuals” move to the “category” of elect which is not no longer “individual” in nature but “corporate” thus no one is an elect individual but there is only an elect corporate body? Election is corporate, meaning is irrespective of individuals – as far as it relates to any choosing of individuals by God in their becoming part of the elect. BTW I don’t think much in terms of election. It is not a huge deal for me and it is only necessary to harp on it because the Calvinists do. It is a grossly misunderstood term – and it gets muddled even in our conversation. To answer you here, the category is corporate, an individual can call himself/herself elected – but that conjures up notions of being selected individually. Refer to the school band analogy I gave you to help gain understanding of how I think in this regard. 8. No individual is pre-elected before faith. This is an interesting point. It seems that John the Baptist was pre-elected before faith because he was chosen before he was born. But he was chosen for a purpose. Election is primarily about a mission and a purpose per se. As such, it is helpful to not think of election in terms of “election for salvation”. God chose before time that the elect would be predestined to show forth his glory (Eph 1:12). So it was an election to service. Of course, it should be a logically accepted notion that the witnesses should model the message – and, in the end, gain the reward that the message espouses. But no individual is chosen to be saved before they are born. 9. Individuals self determine to join themselves to the ELECT which is a corporate body and not individual members. In some ways yes. That self determination entails that it is their free will choice that is the final move. There is no coercing force and no one acts outside their will. But by saying that, it doesn’t mean that they make that decision extemporaneously without the wooing of the Holy Spirit and the power present in the gospel. But the decision to follow Christ puts them in the category of the ELECT and they now have work to do. That work does not save them – but if they have no works they may not be saved. Saving belief is accompanied by evident fruit. “Produce fruit in accordance with repentance”. 10. The condition is set by God in how an individual may come into the elect. Yes. Although I would word it “how individuals” – lest one misunderstand me to be conveying that there are different conditions tailor made for each individual. Sorry to get pedantic, but it is so easy for words to be misconstrued in this type of format. There is one condition that all individuals must meet – that being BELIEF. 11. Individuals are not elected by God either before or after they respond in faith. Jesus is the only one who was elected but the corporate body is the ELECT. Jesus Himself is not the ELECT. If this is what you think I believe – it shows what a poor job I have done in trying to explain myself. First of all I don’t believe individuals are elected by God – if you mean by that that He is selecting individuals to be saved. A better way to say it would be “individuals become part of the elect group”. It can create sort of a straw man to infer that God is electing individuals because it really confuses and distorts the matter. A good way to understand it is that God pre-set (before time began) a process whereby one could join the elect. In that sense, it is not helpful to try to imagine a one-by-one election process where God is doing a unique “electing” thing for each individual. Re Jesus, He is the chosen one and we participate in His chosen-ness. Similarly, you could say He is the ELECT one and we participate in His ELECTED-NESS. 12. Individuals self determine whether they will join themselves In some ways yes – although I would be careful to omit any involvement by the Holy Spirit. But in the end, the deciding factor is the free will choice of the individual of whether to follow Jesus or not. Some will have revelation of the truth of the gospel (believe its truth claims even!) – but still choose not to follow because they understand the cost. They are unwilling to give up the pleasures of sin for a season. 13. God does not elect anyone before or after they have faith, and individuals do not elect themselves. Thus there is no individual election at all. It is a myth promoted by Calvinists. It muddies the water to say it the way you do. It is a highly confusing matter if one does not understand the concept of corporate election. But yes, I would agree with this. God conceived a concept of corporate election. Individuals are joined to the category by faith. 14. Conditional election is only applicable to a thing called the ELECT and never to individuals. As it relates to the notion of a condition, how one comes to be joined to the ELECT is conditional upon their faith. The term “conditional election” is vague and problematic. It needs extensive unpackaging before one knows exactly what is trying to be conveyed. 15. Any other biblical term that would be associated with the term election must be interpreted to mean corporate and not individual. Whosoever then is not “any individual” but a corporate non-individual entity. WHOSOEVER, of course, does not carry any kind of non-individual notion – so I would not categorize it in that way. In much of this kind of thinking, it is important to keep in mind the vantage point of the setting being depicted. WHOSOEVER carries a “looking ahead” connotation. So it just means that, as far as individuals are concerned, they are as yet unidentified – and exactly who they are is not important. The critical part is that, whoever they are, they must believe. When reading the Bible, we need to consider the vantage point as well. The point there is that individuals in passages and settings there, are speaking from a vantage point of their “present day” and looking backwards. So there are specifically identifiable people who are the elect – because those ones have come to make their faithful decision and can now self-identify as the elect. Therefore, Peter can now say things like “for the sake of the elect” – and have identifiable individuals in mind. It is critical to plot the settings of then and now on a time line to be able to make sense of this. I alluded to this in the article I sent you.

Hi Peter, I will answer back point by point so we can continue working for understanding. Under my point #1 about John the Baptist and his salvation you wrote: Correct. But I don’t think it is relevant either way. I see where you are going with your premise but your point is made whether he was saved or not. However, this blog was written to refute Calvinism, not to refute you. It makes a huge difference whether John the Baptist was outside the kingdom. I picked one of the people who Calvinists say was definitely one of the elect and who was chosen to be saved unconditionally from long before he was born. So if Calvinism teaches that God picks certain people to be saved and some to be lost, and if John the Baptist is universally admitted to be one of the elect, then would it not make a strong point that Jesus said John the Baptist was outside the kingdom while others were entering the kingdom? If John the Baptist is not in the kingdom does that not put a serious dent into Calvinism’s unconditional election to salvation? If you were a Calvinist and believed as Calvinist’s believe, might Jesus’ words cause you some problems when there was never a reversal of Jesus’ assessment of John’s spiritual condition? I appreciate any attempt you make to think outside of the box and into the mind of a typical Calvinist.

Peter, by the way, when I said this blog was not written to refute you, that was not intended in any way to be against you.

Sorry – I am in Japan right now so was away from the computer for a while. IF you are right about John the Baptist’s status as an unbeliever, then you have a strong case. I am of the opinion that it is not a strong case. When Jesus uses John’t role as the greatest prophet of the OT era juxtaposed against the least person in the new covenant kingdom, he is not focusing on John there – rather using an example of the best of one thing being less than the least of another. THAT is his intended meaning. In hermeneutics, if we try to draw a truth out of a text that the author is not making, there is no authority on that interpretation. I could similarly say to you that Elijah was not a believer because of his wavering. The reason I suggested that John the Baptist and Judas were not really relevant to our discussion is because they aren’t – in OUR discussion. I do understand that they are important to your argument with Calvinists. But the fact of the matter is that we are approaching that false doctrine from different angles (at least as it pertains to John 6). So our discussion is centered around the notion of the Father’s drawing. Given that I don’t support your idea of an ongoing drawing, I will naturally want to drop the other stuff – particularly the point you are making about John the Baptist. This is a passage that Calvinists to prove irresistible grace – more than unconditional election, although the 2 do tie together. Re Judas, I think I made myself clear there, and made a good point – the main thing being that just because Jesus knew the purpose that Judas served, and in that regard, knew that Judas needed to keep following him – when the others didn’t. Whether or not Judas had a knowledge of the truth of who Jesus was (whereas the others definitely did not) is immaterial to my premise – as I see it. I will point out that in John 17, a good case can be made for Judas as being included in the group of those given to Jesus by the Father. If you read the text, it seems that he was included but he was lost whereas the others weren’t. I strongly believe that the revelation that Jesus gives is the most important in determining truth. A biblical premise must have a foundation in the revelation of God’s Word or it is just an assumption based on human reasoning. It is a given, though, that the words of Jesus hold authority – at least as it regards our discussion. We have a common ground which allows us both to appeal to the scriptures. If one of us denied the authority of the Bible, it would be a show stopper. But the fact of the matter is that both of us will say that our premises have a foundation in the revelation of God’s word. Where assumption and human reasoning come in, though, is why these discussions arise in the first place. If things were crystal clear, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. However, because they are not clear, I could just as easily turn your argument around and point it back at you. IOW you are assuming that your reasoning is lacking assumption and human reasoning whereas mine is not. For example, if you believe in the doctrine of the trinity, and I don’t (I do for the record), I could insist that because the term isn’t clearly stated in the word of God, I am rejecting your claims based on the fact that Jesus does not state “I am God”, or the word “trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Bible. I reject your claims and maintain that I only go with the clear revelation of the word of God. Just for the record, that kind of response can TEND to come across as a patronizing one. Not saying that is the case with you but just saying… If I set my standard of proof so high that it disallowed any further discussion, almost zero progress could be made in these matters. But, given that things are not always spelled out as clearly as we would like (and aberrant doctrines arise as a result of that) we are left with reasoning. Hopefully, it is not mere HUMAN reasoning as you mentioned – rather it is good, solid, Holy Spirit-enlightened reasoning. I feel really satisfied by the reasoning that allows me to accept that the ones that the Father gave Jesus were OT regenerate Jews and the care involved was a for-a-season situation, and therefore is not something that is occurring today. In that regard, I feel that most Calvinists, if they accept the argument as revealed in John 17, will see no need to continue to cling to an ongoing “giving of the Father”. IOW once they see how their misreading of the text led to an erroneous notion, they should reject the whole notion – and should feel no need to adopt a hybrid model. I made this comment on another blog: I have noticed a trait that seems particularly particular to Calvinism. Even when it is pointed out that the contextual reading of a passage should alter their understanding of what they thought the passage is saying, they will carry their original misunderstanding back into the passage – all done to insist that they weren’t misguided in the first place. So, a cycle of error becomes evident. Instead of starting from the beginning and starting the process of re-thinking the intended meaning of a passage, they determine NOT to discard their original interpretation which was arrived at by way of a mistaken understanding of what the author meant. This is evident in John 6. The context reveals that this is a descriptive matter that pertains to a specific people to whom Jesus was making specific argumentation. He is NOT disclosing a universal teaching that will be authoritative across the church age. Hope that helps.

There is much that you say that I could respond to but for sake of time, I think I will pull out a few points that I have them most objection to: John 17:12 “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled”. In this verse, looking at the words of the text, Judas is among the “them” group. Of the members of this group, Judas is the one that was the exception. The “exception” part is not that he is not part of the group. His lost condition was the exception. By saying this, I am not arguing that he was a good man – as you seem to be inferring that I am saying. Its just an observation that cannot be wiggled out from underneath. Judas didn’t need to keep following Jesus to betray Him. When you say the “purpose” that Judas served, that comes across as if you accept unconditional election. When I use terms like “purpose” I use them as I understand them – not as a TULIPist uses them. God can have a purpose for someone – which says nothing about their salvation and doesn’t guarantee it. Jesus saw something in Judas that caused Him to choose Judas because He knew that Judas would betray him as the scriptures foretold. You have not been successful at showing such a conclusion. If Jesus said “All that the Father GAVE Me will come to Me” you would be far more successful at showing your conclusion. But then so would the Calvinists who believe that the “giving” is a past action of unconditional predestination. I am able to read the verse – without having to change the grammar. I think this is the crux of our whole discussion. Can you not see that Jesus can speak in present tense language AT THAT TIME – and yet,at the same time, there be a scenario whereby the presentness of that language has an end date? If my premise is correct (and I am fairly certain it is) He is merely telling them that there is an ongoing giving that expires at the time of His death. What you are doing is front-loading your assumption that there is a future giving – into the passage. But imagine that you are there at that time. In the context of these ones that are “coming” to Him with wrong motivation, His words indicate that there is an ongoing giving. Since the “giving” is a matter of those ones learning from the Father through His word, there is no reason to reject a notion that more could be given to Jesus by the Father – while He lived. Don’t forget that, in this passage, there is a distinct Jewishness occurring. Jesus is not teaching universal theological truth. If He was, He would be contradicting Himself when He later said that He would draw all men to Himself – as opposed to the Father drawing them. If the Father is no longer drawing, I would make the claim that He is no longer “giving” either. Your insistence that the giving continues beyond that time to today, is driven by your rigid insistence that the grammar says it does. But this is circular reasoning. The difference between my premise and yours is that mine fits better with the context (I love context by the way) – and yours is pure speculation driven by a definition of the word “giving” which is outside of the passage and is vague and obscure as to its definition. You need to let go of the Calvinistic influence that has trapped you here. I reject the Calvinist interpretation and I reject yours as well – as it is a hybrid model. If you want to change a person’s view you need to use the Scripture more. Then you need to include the context rather than give a conclusion without explaining the passage in detail. I am only so happy to use the scripture. I guess that I assumed that you know what I am talking about when I bring up points – in that my points are driven by scripture. The article that I sent you is the result of a more careful reading of scripture. I don’t just read words – I also look for the intended meaning of the author. There is no authority outside that intended meaning. I read and think deeply and do not allow myself to change the meaning of words and verses. If you like, I could give you a massive article on this whole John 6 giving thing – complete with all the quotes, but time is not my friend right now. But if it is better, I will quote more verses from here on. I will say though, that this argument is not that complex. Judas and John the Baptist are more of a side bar to the discussion – because they don’t really factor into it.

One last comment: I don’t think you have considered the ramifications of your view to the extent of its logical conclusion. Given (there’s that word again 🙂 that the “giving” of the passage is a unique situation, it seems like a stretch to try to force that as a template going forward from the text. Here’s why: The giving from the Father was a unique situation because it involved Jewish people (and perhaps Gentile converts) who believed in a coming Messiah – and when Jesus arrived, they believed He was that Messiah. They believed this way because they were taught by the Father. IOW they were the ones spoken of in 6:45. They knew and accepted the OT scriptures that prophecied the coming of Jesus. They may also have been ones that heard the message of John the Baptist. When Jesus actually did come, and they heard his message they did not waiver from their previous belief. They knew it was him who the scriptures had foretold of. To insist that this same scenario carries on today as you suggest, is not an impossible one. The question, though, is it a likely one? It seems that there are some serious hoops to jump through to get to that way of thinking. If no one can come to Jesus unless the Father is giving them to Jesus in today’s world, that would mean that Jews and Gentiles alike would have to be in a scenario whereby they are being taught by Him. So, they would be in the Father’s “care” before they heard and embraced the gospel. They would be kind of in a strange environment of knowing the Jewish scriptures but not knowing about the New Testament. In that sense, when these ones hear the gospel, they are turned over to Jesus by the Father. Of course, they are hearing about the coming Messiah after the fact – after he has come. One would have to envision a notion of them living in a vacuum – given that the gospel has gone out to most nations. Another option is that your view might encompass only Jews today – those who know the OT but then come to have a revelation of Jesus and put their faith in Him. But this narrows the scope of this verse to Jews only, and I think you will agree that that is not likely. Another option, is to view people who have a general belief in a creator God (IOW they are not atheists) who come to faith when they hear the gospel, and, as such, can be viewed as being cared for by the Father. In this scenario, if one were to hold to this view they would have to accept the premise that these ones in the “Father’s care” are being cared for without them knowing about it. IE. their general belief is an uninformed one. They are ones who say they believe in God in a casual sense when queried by someone else. Perhaps they haven’t even read the Bible. Surely, no one would venture to make a claim that these people were being cared for by the Father. In our world today, people hear the gospel and then put their faith in Jesus. There is no prerequisite for them to have read and understood the Jewish scriptures before they can embrace Jesus. To force that take away from the text is a questionable practise IMO.

As I said, your view is not an impossible one. But the more likely truth is that the simple conclusion that fits best with the setting and the context – and the grammar, is the best way to read this.

I don’t mean to be a dog with a bone here, but it has occurred to me that our conversation has confirmed something that I have recently come to realize more and more – that being the failure of Christians to properly read passages in their context. It is often the case that there is an over-eagerness to derive doctrine from passages – and that is done at the expense at not taking the careful time necessary to determine what is actually happening in the narrative. Any haste that is exercised at the expense of doing proper observation only leads to a misreading of the passage – and ends up with a wrong interpretation. Most of my time here has been spent trying to get you to read the passage with me. You have accused me of not using scripture – which I find to be an odd thing to say given that I am actually just reading the scriptures in question. In this case, it seems that you have overlooked a few things: – Jesus is involved in ongoing ministry where his teaching leads to Jewish people placing their belief in him as He travels around the area – in an ongoing sense. This is seen in John 10:42. As such, this fact harmonizes with 6:39 and locates his words there as being specific to his earthly ministry – and is not harmed by the fact that the present tense is used there. – When he says that those that come to him He will not drive away, the most natural reading is to conclude that He means He will not drive them away as they come. Within the setting of people coming by way of wrong motivation, He is simply saying that if they come with right motivation He will accept them. There is no reason to read this and determine that He is referring to a time in the future. Doing that serves to introduce a concept that is foreign to the text. In the context, it can be easily understood and accepted that if someone comes to Him they are either coming with good motivation or with bad motivation. He is simply saying that if they come with good motivation (i.e.. they truly believe) He will accept them – AT THE TIME THEY COME. One last thing: you have pointed out several times that you are loyal to the inspired words of the text. I don’t want to wrongly assume what you mean there, but I merely wanted to point out that there is no magical nature of the words of the Bible – as it relates to individual words themselves. The only authority and only inspiration that is present, is within the realm of the intended meaning of the author. That is where the importance of the hermeneutical spiral comes in. The whole is determined by the parts and the parts are weighed against the whole. This process must be entered into without bias. Only when it is determined what the author is actually saying to the original audience can we then attempt to make application for our own lives. I am not sure if you have left the conversation, but either way I have enjoyed the chat and hope that I have made a small amount of inroad to your understanding and hope that you will consider the things I have said.

Peter, sorry for being so slow. I have not left the conversation. I am teaching 3 teen classes on suicide, the problem of evil, and forgiveness with PowerPoint presentations in addition to my normal work. I have been crazy busy. I have not even had time to read your comments. I will get back to the conversation as soon as I can. My first class starts Sunday.

Judas seems to be more important to your case than mine – although I am still not sure in which way he factors in. Much of our argument is based on speculation. If I say that he was a believer who backslid when his flesh got the better of him, you will merely reject that as me not being true to the text. Much of what you say is answering questions that I am not answering. I don’t dispute the fact that he ended up badly – but you seem to think I am saying he was a good man. I don’t know where to go with that so I think we should just leave him for now. As I mentioned several times, our impasse is situated at the grammar of verse 37. You insist that the present tense be an ongoing feature that spans time beyond the death of Jesus. At the same time you accuse me of not paying attention to context and relying on what people are thinking. When you say that you believe the words that are written, it somehow insinuates that I don’t. And yet my whole case is based on the words that are written. Essentially, our disagreement lies around one thing: I say that the present tense situation has an expiry date. You say it is ongoing. I have told you why I believe that and you argue by way of an assertion it seems. I say that because the thing you assert needs to be supported by a premise that these Jews fully understand a type of “coming” that is different than the “coming” that they are engaged in – a physical approaching Jesus in order to follow him as He ministers around the country side. I have shown you from the grammar in this post and I have shown you what the present tense means. You have NEVER listed the inspired grammar and show me where my view is contradicted by the grammar. In fact you make an end-date to the present tense and yet you cannot point to even one verse that lists the end. A person from a different persuasion could say that the end date is the conversion of Paul, or mid-Acts, the death of Paul. You name it. Speculation has no proof. And you have no grammar. Here is why I believe that there is an expiry date that can be concluded from the text, FROM THE TEXT: – the will of the Father stated in verse 39, serves to locate the setting as an earthly one – GIVEN that Jesus came down from Heaven to do that very will. This will is not the only will. In fact, there is more information regarding what else the Father’s will entails in verse 40. These different aspects of his will do not interfere with each other. But it can be seen that it is an earthly will that is in view – IN THE TEXT. In John 17, we see that the passage serves to provide a wrap up by Jesus of His earthly ministry. He is giving a recap and a report of the will that He set out to do while He walked the earth. Earlier you said, in regard to the present tense being a deal breaker for me, that it doesn’t say “everything that the Father GAVE me”. But in John 17:6 it does say that very thing – “I have made your name known to those you GAVE me from the world”. Surely that is some evidence that you will take a look at without trumpeting your lofty standard and berating my own lowly one? This is essentially a matter of doing basic reading. I suggest that we let the context determine whether there is an end date to the present tense used in any passage. You are rigidly denying the possibility of doing that here – without giving a reason why we cannot do that. You asked for a verse and I gave you one. Re John 17:20 you said: This is the verse that the other believers come in. “Believe” in this verse is present active, the ones who are presently believing because of their word. If Jesus was talking about all present believers through the entire chapter, He would not have had to add in that He was not asking on behalf of “these alone”, for they would all be included. I am not quite sure what you are driving at here. It is clear from the text that Jesus is referring to the “given ones” up to verse 19. After verse 20, there are definite markers that indicate He is back to referring to the original group. In verse 23 he mentions that He “loved them” (past tense). In verse 24, He mentions them directly – “whom you have GIVEN me”. If you are suggesting a “giving” that is Calvinistic (people given before they are born) here I would reject that notion. There is more past tense used in the last 2 verses. So, as it regards how much Jesus is referring to the 2nd generation believers, who will believe in me through THEIR (the first believers) word”, I think the only reference to their inclusion is in verses 20 and 21. Verse 22 MIGHT be pointing at them, but you would have to concur that Jesus is referring to a corporate giving of glory there – and not giving his actual glory to individuals who exist at that time. IOW something like “Jesus decided before time that He would give HIs glory to believers”. That premise might fit in this verse – but I don’t think it is the likely one. I really think we are at an impasse. My whole argument really rests on the expiry date of the present tense in verse 39. Your argument seems to be based on an insistence that there is no expiry date. I feel like we should let the text decide that. You insist that I am not good at doing the reading and I like to add things. I have pushed past the offence that is embedded there. I have given you some push back as well – but in order to leave this as a civil exercise, I think we should agree to disagree at this point. I will say that I do believe in the words that are written. You cannot do that observation without determine what the words mean. What the grammar means. The truth of the word cannot contradict the grammar. That is in the inspired model of interpretation. When you try to do interpretation by meditating on what you think the readers were thinking without considering the grammar (which they would familiar with) you can take a giant step past reality and then create a theory that has no verse to back it up. All you have is what you imagine they are thinking. I am not sure why you feel it is necessary to say this kind of stuff. I have told you that I am all for doing the observation as a FIRST exercise. In that regard, I have determined to figure out FIRST what the intended meaning of the author is. When you say the “truth of the word cannot contradict the grammar” – what you are really saying is the “truth of the word ACCORDING TO HOW I INTERPRET IT”. The better method is to figure out the grammar first before you do any interpretation. I said this before, but I feel that your biggest mistake is wanting to do interpretation prematurely. Here’s a synopsis to where I see things to this point: – I am mainly interested in determining what was being said in context to the original hearer here. – You seem to argue as though you disagree with what is being said to the original hearer – I don’t understand why you insist that the present tense of verse 39 defeats my argument. – given that it works with both my argument and yours, it seems the crux of the matter comes down to whether or not Jesus was referring to all believers there across the entirety of time. – you insist that Jesus was stating universal, theological truth about “giving” there – despite the fact that the context is dealing with specific, pre-existing people. So your claim seems to go against the warp and the woof of the passage. IOW your “giving” is a different “giving” that Jesus is referring to in the passage. – although, you claim to be the purveyor of sound methods of interpretation and only go with the inspired words of scripture, you make an unfounded claim that Jesus is jumping from the specific occasion pointed at individuals to stating a universal truth. – you argue against me vehemently on many points, but surely you must agree that the use of the present tense doesn’t hurt my view in verse 39. If Jesus is making a universal truth statement, then it must ALSO apply to those ones as well. – As such, the real argument is whether or not the present tense has an end date. The context of the Father’s will suggests that it does – as that will is seen as happening in the setting. – It seems that the burden of proof is on you to establish that the “giving” is continuing today. In the passage, looking at the inspired words of the text and yielding them their proper authority – without reading anything into the text or trying to imagine by way of speculation what the actors were thinking, my case seems pretty airtight.

A. The “giving” according to the text: The Father is giving the care of regenerate Jews (who were looking forward to the arrival of Jesus) to Jesus with His will being that Jesus would lose none of them. At the end of his ministry and life, He reported that He lost none that the Father gave Him – except one. B. The “giving” according to Cheryl: The Father is giving believers in Him to Jesus and this giving continues today. I can support A from the text. However, B is a matter of assertion – because nowhere in the text is there any mention of a non-Jewish/post-cross giving. As such, it comes about by reading that premise into the text. It assumes it without any support for it. It is circular reasoning.

You wrote: the only “context” that you seem to provide is what you think the people are thinking. You don’t actually prove your point with the actual context or the actual words. When we do exegesis, we are trying to understand the words as the original hearers would have heard them. This is NOT a mystical exercise involving imagination – as you seem to suggest. It is actually the proven and readily accepted methodology of exegesis. It should be the first thing we do when we read any text. Otherwise, we risk getting stuck in wooden views which take words out of context. So contrary to what you say here, I am MOST interested in the context – but it is the context of what the words meant in their ORIGINAL SETTING. In that regard, we should be focusing our conversation on just that. Here is what I suggest Jesus is saying to these Jews (AS THE RECIPIENTS OF THE WORDS – OR AS THE FIRST HEARERS) and how they would have heard it. I have done some bracketing to help explain myself. As a disclaimer, this is NOT me changing the word of God. It is simply a tool to help you understand my point: 35 Jesus said to them (the unbelieving Jews), “I am the bread of life. Whoever (particularly YOU since you are the ones I am talking to here and it is YOU who this directly applies to at this time) will never be hungry, and whoever (of YOU in particular) believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But I say to you (Jews) that you (Jews) have (actually, physically) seen me (and have seen the miracles that I have done) and yet you (Jews) do not believe. 37 Everything (including, and in particular you people) that the Father gives me (as I go about preaching and displaying the truth of the kingdom) will come (with the purpose of following me coupled with believing in me), and anyone (who believes in me) I will never drive away (because I will accept them); 38 FOR (explaining previous section) I have come down from heaven (for a short time), not to do my own will, but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose nothing of all that He has given me (pre-existing believers in the Messiah prior to the arrival of Jesus), but raise it up on the last day. This is not an example of me practicing my imagination. It is simply using common sense to discern how these people would have heard the words he said. I may be wrong here – but your correction of me should be in the realm of what I have said HERE – as the starting point to our disagreement. I am simply alleging that IN THE CONTEXT of the passage and the setting of that day, the “coming” and the “giving” have a different nuance than what you are claiming they have. In John 20:29 Jesus said, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” So there is even scriptural reference to the distinction between physically seeing and not physically seeing (yet still believing). This verse reveals the fact that when Jesus says that these Jews DID see and DIDN”T believe, He is referring to them ACTUALLY seeing with their physical eyes – and not a revelatory, metaphorical “seeing” IN THE PASSAGE. The bottom line: this is all a matter of reading the passage carefully so that from there, we can derive a proper interpretation and then a proper application for our own lives. Remember the word spoken were first said to them and not to us. I am merely claiming, that in supplying the comments in brackets, that this is how the original hearers would have heard it. It was a message to THEM – so it had to make sense to them. I am confident that it would have – presented in the way that I have suggested. What I am saying is not controversial. The context reveals that this is a time specific mission dealing with setting-specific people. Since it is an earthly mission done during the life time of Jesus that has a built in expiry date (the crucifixion day) – common sense should tell us that the specifics of the mission will become moot once the parameters of the mission no longer exist. The question remains – Does this setting-specific “giving” act as a template or model of a universal type of giving that carries on beyond the setting here? I am not saying that that is not possibly the case. But to argue that it is a universal principle, there needs to be some evidence that goes beyond mere assertion IMO. Nowhere else in scripture is there anything said about the Father giving people to Jesus. Given that lack of evidence and the specific nature of the term in John 6, it would seem reasonable to question why there is a need to press that point – let alone the implications of what doing so brings about.

I just finished teaching the second of three teen Sunday School classes in the problem of evil. I have a PowerPoint presentation to do this week on forgiveness. I will see if I can fit time in later this week to answer you,Peter.

OK Cheryl – no panic It seems that our disagreement can be distilled down to whether 6:39 is a descriptive statement or a prescriptive one…