god's free mercy: all the father gives me (chp. 1)

8/14/2019 God's Free Mercy: All the Father Gives Me (Chp. 1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gods-free-mercy-all-the-father-gives-me-chp-1 1/19

All That the Father Gives MeJohn 6:37-70

The Bread of Life Discourse is a familiar portion of Scripture, for within this passage we find

Jesus' statement that He is “the bread of life.” Many Christians have memorized Jesus words, “I am the

bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst”

(John 6:35 ESV). If we come to Him, we will not be hungry and will never thirst; a great promise to be

sure. Yet while we have such a great promise, which is for “whoever believes,” Jesus makes clear in this

passage that not everyone will come to Him and He also makes clear why not everyone will come.

Jesus even goes so far to say that only particular people even can come to Him—those given to Him by

the Father, those the Father draws and grants to come. Those who would use John 6:35 to negate any

particularity (i.e. election) in the saving purpose of God seem to be unaware that the very context in

which this verse is particular about who can and will come to Jesus.

Jesus drew crowds and, as we will see, He was also good at repelling them. On the particular

occasion of passage, a crowd followed Jesus and His disciples to Capernaum after having been fed by

All that the Father gives me will come to me, andwhoever comes to me I will never cast out.38 For I have comedown from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of himwho sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that Ishould lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it upon the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyonewho looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternallife, and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:37-40 ESV



Jesus with only a few loaves and some fish. The crowd inquires of Jesus when He had come to

Capernaum. Jesus had retreated to a mountain by Himself and the disciples had taken a boat out onto

the Sea of Galilee without Him. Nevertheless, Jesus does not indulge their curiosity and rather exposes

their true reason for seeking Him. “Truly, truly, I say to you,” Jesus tells them, “you are seeking me, not

because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves” (John 6:26 ESV). The crowd was notseeking Jesus because of His miracles or because theses miracles attested that He was the Messiah. The

crowd was seeking, not Jesus, but food to fill their bellies. Jesus therefore exhorts them not to work for

food that perishes, but for food that “endures to eternal life” (v. 27). The crowd then asks, “What must

we do, to be doing the works of God?” (v. 28) Jesus answers, “This is the work of God, that you believe

in him whom he has sent” (v. 29). In other words, what God requires is that they believe in His Son

whom He has sent. “Faith, faith with proper Christological object, is what God requires, not 'work' in

any modern sense of the term.”1

At this statement, the crowd asks for a sign, saying, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see

and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is

written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat'”(vv. 30-31). This demand for a sign is truly amazing!

Had they not already seen a great sign when Jesus fed them with only a few loaves? Besides, this, the

reason this crowd began following Him in the first place was because they “saw the signs that he was

doing on the sick” (v. 2). D.A. Carson observes, “Their forefathers ate manna in the desert; there is

even an Old Testament text to prove it. True, that manna spoiled with time. But that means, for thecrowd, that if Jesus is promising to provide something better, then he had better be prepared to display

an even more dramatic miracle than the miracle of the manna itself. If Jesus is superior to Moses, as his

tone and claims suggest, then should not his followers be privileged to witness mightier works than

those seen by the disciples of Moses?” 2

Jesus offers this rebuttal, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread

from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who

comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (vv. 32-33). The manna their fathers ate in the

wilderness under Moses was not the true bread from heaven. It was not Moses who gave bread from

heaven; it is instead the Father who now gives the bread from heaven by sending “he who comes down

from heaven.” The crowd was all too eager to receive this bread (v. 34). However, Jesus says to them,

1 D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John , The Pillar New Testament Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991),285.

2 Ibid. 285-286



“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never

thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe” (vv. 35-36). Jesus reveals that

He himself is the bread that the Father gives. In other words, Jesus is the one whom God has sent to

give life to the world—to whoever in the world believes in Him. Jesus reiterates what He said earlier

(see v. 26), “But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.” The crowd had seen Jesusperform signs—healing the sick and multiplying the loaves and fishes—yet they did not believe; they

were only seeking more signs in the hope of eating more bread. It is in the following discourse that

Jesus will expand on this and address why they did not believe.

First, Jesus states positively, “ All that the Father gives me will come to me” (v. 37a). “All will

come to me that the Father gives to Me” is another way of rendering the clause. Here the Greek

adjective pa/n ( pan, “All”) takes the place of a noun and forms an independent clause, “All will come to

Me.” The second dependent clause qualifies this statement, beginning with the relative pronoun“that.” All will come to Methat the Father has given to Me. All that the Father gives to Jesus will come to

Him. The certainty of this is expressed in the indicative mood of the Greek verb h[ xei (hezei, “he

comes”); the indicative mood is the mood of assertion or “ presentation of certainty.”3 This verb is active,

meaning that the subject (in this case, “All”) does the action; each person who is included in the “All”

will themselves come to Jesus. All that the Father gives to Jesus will themselves come to Him and that

they will come is certain.

Not only is it a certainty that “all the Father gives” will come to Jesus, it is also certain that eachof them remain with Him. Jesus continues the thought from v. 37a, “and whoever comes to me I will

never cast out” (37b). Here Jesus uses a figure of speech known as a litotes, which serves to affirm one

thing by negation of its opposite. In negating that He ever “cast out” those who come to Him Jesus is

affirming that He will certainly keep them. Carson observes that the affirmation is often taken to mean

that “whoever come to be I will certainly welcome.” Leon Morris, for instance, comments, “The second

part of the verse brings us Jesus' warm welcome to all. He rejects none.” 4 Morris admits that this

creates “difficulties as we try to reconcile the two parts of the verse.” However, it is typical that the useof the Greek verb evkba,lw (ekbalo, “drive away” or “cast out”) presupposes that who or what is being

driven or cast out is already “in.” 5 For instance, this verb in the gospels describes the action of “casting

out” demons. The demons that were cast out were presupposed to have been “in” the person who was

3 Daniel B. Wallace. Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics . (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 448.4 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John , New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1995), 325.5 Carson, 290.



possessed prior to being driven away. Surely Jesus will welcome all the Father gives to Him;

nevertheless the sense of Jesus' litotes is not one of welcoming, but of preserving. There is no need to

reconcile the two parts of verse 37, as they are perfect compliments to one another: All that the Father

gives to Jesus will certainly come to Him and He will certainly keep them. That this is so will also be

clear from the next three verses.All will certainly come to Jesus that the Father has given to Him, and whoever comes to Him

will certainly be preserved by Jesus because He had come from heaven not to do His own will, but the will

of the Father who sent Him (v. 38). The conjunction o[ti (hoti) introduces a statement of cause. Jesus

is saying, “I will never cast out anyone who comes because whoever the Father gives to Me will come.

For (o[ti ) I have come down from heaven to do the Father's will.” Jesus continues in verses 39-40 to

explain what the Father's will is, namely, “that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but

raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son andbelieves in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (ESV). It is the Father's

will that Jesus not lose any of all that the Father gives to Him, but that everyone (all that the Father

gives) who looks on the Son and believes in Him (i.e. who comes to Him) should have eternal life and

be raised on the last day. It is for this reason Jesus said in verse 37 that “All that the Father gives to me

will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. It is Jesus' mission that He receives all

that the Father gives Him and that He also keep (and therefore not lose or cast out) them all, in order

that they be raised up on the last day (and therefore have eternal life).Some may protest the assessment of Carson when he says, “Jesus' confidence in the success in

his mission is frankly predestinarian.” It may seem that the predestinarian air of verse 37a is softened by

verse 40. There Jesus says that the will of the Father is that everyone who believes in the Son should

have eternal life and be raised on the last day. Everyone and anyone who believes will be saved. The

Arminian or the non-predestinarian want “everyone” and “whoever” to be terms that remove any sense

of particularity in the saving purpose of the Father. He wants everyone to come and believe in His Son,

so clearly He makes it so that everyone and anyone can come, but that it is only the ones who do comeand believe who receive eternal life. However, Carson's assessment is vindicated when we examine the

words of Jesus that follow verse 40.

Whereas in verse 40 Jesus says that “everyone” who believes in Him should have eternal life, in

verse 44a He says, “ No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws Him.” That

“everyone” who believes in the Son receives eternal life does not mean that everyone and anyone can



come. That is, those who the Father does not draw, the ones He does not give to the Son, do not and

cannot come to Him. Here Jesus is speaking of inability; no one is able (Gk. ouvdei.j du,natai , oudeis

dynatai) to come unless they are drawn. It may also be stated this way, “if one is not drawn by the

Father, he is unable to come to Me.” In 44b Jesus repeats the thought, “And I will raise him up on the

last day.” If one is not drawn by the Father, he cannot come to Jesus, but as for the one the Fatherdraws, he will come and will be raised up on the last day.

When verse 37, 39, 40, and 44 are considered together, they display a parallelism that

demonstrates the “strong predestinarian strain” that exists in this passage. This is brought full circle in

verse 65 where Jesus explains to His disciples, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me

unless it is granted him by the

Father.” In this verse the thought

of verse 37a and that of verse 44aare brought together. As in verse

44 Jesus says “no one is able to

come” so also in verse 65.

However, in verse 65 Jesus, rather

than repeating, “unless the

Father...draws him,” He says,

“unless it is granted him.” Theword “granted” in the English is

the same Greek ( di,dwmi, didomi)

word Jesus uses in verse 37. No

one is able to come to the Son

unless he is drawn ( helkyso,v. 44) and given ( didomi, vv. 37, 65) by the Father. In other words, those

who are drawn (v. 44) are one and the same group as those given or granted (vv. 37, 65). This also

means that when Jesus says that it is the Father's will that “everyone who looks...and believes in himshould have eternal life” He still has “All that the Father gives” in view. Everyone and anyone who

comes to Christ will receive eternal life and be raised on the last day, but the only ones who can and do

come are those whom the Father has given to Jesus; these are the ones the Father draws and the ones

that He grants to believe.

Carson rightly observes that the “combination of v. 37a and v. 44 proves that this 'drawing'

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever

comes to me I will never cast out.(v. 37)

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose

nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

(v. 39)

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on

the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise

him up on the last day. (v. 40)

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent medraws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.(v. 44)

This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it

is granted him by the Father.(v. 65)



activity of the Father cannot be reduced to what theologians sometimes call 'prevenient grace'

dispensed to every individual, for this 'drawing' is selective, or else the negative note in v. 44 is

meaningless.” 6 Indeed, verse 44, taken out of this context, could be used to suggest that, as taught in

Wesleyan-Arminian theology, God must take the initiative in salvation by drawing (i.e. enabling) the

sinner to come to Christ, but that once enabled he must choose whether he will come. The implicationbeing that the person who is drawn by the Father does not necessarily come to faith in Christ because

he may at any time choose to reject Christ. It is certainly Wesleyan doctrine that man cannot by

himself come to Christ because of original sin and that God freely gives prevenient grace to every

person enabling them to, if they so will, to look upon Christ and believe in Him for eternal life. However,

the Wesleyan-Arminian concept of “prevenient grace” cannot, as Carson asserted, be adduced from this

passage. If Jesus means to teach the Wesleyan concept of grace here, then we must all become

universalists. If the Father draws everyone by prevenient grace and if all the Father gives(understanding that those who are drawn are those who are given) to the Son will come to Him, this

must mean that everyone will come and receive eternal life. Yet it is where Jesus says that all who are

given/drawn/granted will come to Him that is itself inconsistent with Wesleyan “prevenient grace,”

since this grace only enables a person to come, but does not make coming a certainty. That is, the

Father draws every person to the point where they can and may come, but not always will. Yet it is

Christ Himself who states that all that the Father draws will come.

Jesus proceeds, in verse 45, to describe the manner in which the Father draws those whom Hegives to the Son. “It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has

heard and learned from the Father comes to me—not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is

from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life” (vv. 45-47

ESV). Here Jesus cites Isaiah 54:13, “All your children shall be taught by the L ORD , and great shall be

the peace of your children.” These are words of the new covenant, as witnessed also by the prophet

Jeremiah, who says, “And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying,

'Know the L ORD ,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the L ORD ”

(Jeremiah 31:34 ESV). Jesus had in fact come to establish this new covenant through His blood. In the

old covenant, it was the responsibility of one generation to teach the next; parents were to teach their

children the ways of the Lord that they would walk in them and so keep the covenant. Yet the pattern

that is seen repeated over and over in Old Testament history is the failure of parents to instruct their

6 Carson, 293.



children this way, so that while one generation returns to the Lord, the very next generation reverts to

rebellion. Yet in the new covenant, this will not be so. All who are truly the children of Israel, those

who are true sons of Abraham, who are the children of God, these will be “taught by the L ORD .” This

is so that, as Jesus declares, all who receive instruction from the Father come to Him. In other words,

the Father does not simply drag people to Christ who don't want to come to Him; nor does He preventanyone from coming who does not already want to come (we will consider these people later).

The Father draws the elect by means of “an insight, a teaching, an illumination implanted

within the individual, in fulfillment of the Old Testament promise.” 7 They are not forced to come by

external coercion; they are rather given an inward illumination by grace, which upon receiving they

believe and willfully come to Christ. Just as it is only those who are drawn and given by the Father that

come to Jesus, so it is that only those taught in this way come to Jesus. Jesus himself also “makes it

quite clear that all those who are taught this way, who hear God, and learn what they hear, do come tohim.”8 This certainly does not mean that anyone is free to be among those drawn or taught by the

Father; to make the accomplishment of the Father's will hang finally on the free decision of man runs

counter to the certainty with which Jesus speaks. For if is at all dependent on human decision (in the

libertarian sense) then Jesus could not speak in such certain terms. The sense of the text is not that

everyone is free to be drawn, but that the Father is free to draw whomever He wills; whomever He wills

to draw will come to Jesus and Jesus will preserve them and give them eternal life.

While verse 46 seems parenthetical to the thought of verse 45, Carson sees a profoundconnection. In his words:

Verse 45 must not be interpreted to mean that a person may enjoy a direct, personal, mystical

knowledge of God apart from the revelation that has been given in Jesus, not even if in consequence

of such an experience he or she then becomes a follower of Jesus. Only Jesus has seen the Father;

no-one has seen God except the one who is from God(cf. 1:18; 3:13; 14:7ff.). Jesus himself is the

mediator of such knowledge: his is the one who 'narrates' God ( cf. 1.18; 12:45). Thus, however

much people are unable to 'hear' Jesus because of their moral delinquency (8:43), however much

they can hear him only if they are 'taught by God,' it is simultaneously true to say that they are

'taught by God' if and only if they truly 'hear' Jesus. Only then will they truly be attracted to

him.9

7 Carson, 2938 Morris, 329.9 Carson, 294; emphasis original



This gives some insight into Peter's confession in Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:16-17). There Simon

Peter confesses that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Jesus then intimates that it was

not by human wisdom or understanding that Peter came to this knowledge, but by the Father's

revealing it to him. Yet this knowledge was mediated through Jesus; Peter and his fellow disciples had

“heard” what Jesus was saying, and even if they did not understand everything He said, the Father hadgiven them understanding enough to know as Peter will later confess to Jesus, “you have the words of

eternal life” (6:68).

Verse 47 restates in simple terms what Jesus has said in the preceding verses, “Whoever believes

has eternal life.” This does not mean that anyone is free (in a libertarian sense) to believe. Taken in

context, this statement is best interpreted to mean that whoever is given, whoever is drawn comes to

and believes that Jesus is the Christ and whoever believes Jesus will himself preserve and will raise on

the last day; whoever believes has eternal life. However, Carson rightly observes, “Notwithstanding thestrong note of predestinarian thought in the preceding verses, this is an implicit invitation to believe, an

implicit warning against unbelief...They must believe—but they do so on his terms, and by his grace.” 10

In verse 48 Jesus begins again to speaking in metaphor. “If Jesus' opponents find his words

unacceptable,” Carson remarks, “when he unpacks his 'I am the bread of life' claim in non-metaphorical

fashion, he will revert to the metaphor itself and extend it.” He again contrasts the manna that the

Hebrew fathers ate in the wilderness with Himself as the bread from heaven. “Your fathers ate the

manna in the wilderness, and they died” (v. 49 ESV). Carson observes, “the manna in the wilderness,heaven-sent though it was, and useful for sustaining natural life under desert conditions, could not

bestow eternal life. The proof is irrefutable: all the Fathers died.” By contrast Jesus says, “I am the living

bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that

I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (v. 51 ESV). Here is where the Jews take offense; in the

first instance they were troubled that Jesus claimed heavenly origin (v. 42) and here they take offense

that Jesus seems to imply that they must literally eat His flesh in order to have eternal life. Jesus'

following words do nothing to assuage their offense.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you

have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise

him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my

flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood

10 Ibid. 294.



abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever

feeds on me, he also will live because of me.58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like

the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (vv. 53-58 ESV).

Speaking in metaphor, Jesus is saying nothing different from what He said in v. 40. Eating Jesus' flesh

and drinking His blood is simply a metaphor of “looking on,” “coming to,” or “believing in” the Son.Whoever believes in Jesus in-so-doing “eats” His flesh and “drinks” His blood and thus partakes of the

bread of life that brings eternal life. Carson well observes, “Any dullard could see that Jesus was not

speaking literally: no-one would suppose Jesus was seriously advocating cannibalism and offering

himself as the first meal.” 11 However, this is what the Jews thought Jesus meant and so took offense,

saying in verse 52, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Not only did the crowd of Jews take

offense, but even many of His disciples said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (v. 60)

Jesus knew of their grumbling and addressing his disciples says,“Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to

where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have

spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew

from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)65 And

he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

(vv. 61-65 ESV)

Carson sees in Jesus' statement “the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all” a connection to Hisbread of life metaphor. He comments, “it is impossible not to see in 'flesh' a direct reference to the

preceding discussion, and therefore a dismissal of all primarily sacramental interpretations. It is not as if

the flesh is of no significance: after all, the Word became flesh (1:14). But when all the focus of

attention is on the flesh, then the real significance of Jesus is missed.” In other words, when Jesus says,

“the flesh is no help at all,” He means that literally eating his physical flesh is of no use—He was not

speaking literally and taking His words in a wooden literal sense is unprofitable and indeed, absurd. 12

Yet Jesus here is addressing the fact that the flesh is incapable of accepting the words of Jesus. Thus

Morris remarks, “A woodenly literal, flesh-dominated manner of looking at Jesus' words will not yield

the correct interpretation. That is granted only to the spiritual, to Spirit-dominated people. Such

words cannot be comprehended by 'the flesh.' 13 In other words, Jesus is telling His disciples that their

11 Ibid. 29512 Ibid. 30113 Morris, 341



away as well?” (v. 67) Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal

life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” (vv. 68-69)

Unlike those who had turned away, the Twelve (save Judas Iscariot) remained. They had come to know

and believe the Jesus was “the Holy One of God” or as Peter confessed in Philippi, that He was the

“Christ, the Son of the Living God.” They recognized that His words, even if they did not fullycomprehend them at that moment, were the words of eternal life. Yet as Jesus made plain to Peter in

Philippi, such is not the artifact of human reason or of an autonomous decision, but of grace. It was the

Father's gracious revelation that led to Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi. Jesus again makes clear

that the disciples faith is not a human artifact when He says, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And

yet one of you is a devil.” (v. 70) The Twelve had not chosen Jesus, He had chosen them. They had

responded to His calling them, but it was He who called them in the first place and it was the Father

who granted them to come.hg

Divine Initiative & Human ResponsibilityWhen the doctrine of election & predestination are under consideration, one of the major issues

involved is the relationship between divine initiative (i.e. the sovereignty of God) and human

responsibility (i.e. free will). John 6:37ff clearly presents the necessity of divine initiative in salvation.

The Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) and Arminian (or non-Reformed) traditions both affirm the need for this

initiative on God's part in the salvation of human beings. The contention between these theological

positions lies in at least two vital questions. First, does God take this initiative with everyone? In other

words, does the Father “draw” or “grant” everyone to come to Jesus? Second, once God takes the

initiative, is the individual being “draw” able to resist and not come to Jesus? In other words, once a

person is being drawn by the Father, is it really certain that they will come to Jesus and be saved?

The Reformed school would answer the first question in the negative. The Father does not

draw everyone to Jesus. The Arminian school would, to the contrary, answer in the affirmative. The

Father does indeed draw everyone. Appeal may be made to John 12:32 where Jesus said, “And I, when I

am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” Carson notes that the “context shows

rather clearly, however, that 12:32 refers to 'all men without distinction (i.e. not just to Jews) rather

than to 'all men without exception.'” 18 Indeed, to understand the “drawing” of 12:32 as “all men

18 Carson, 293



without exception” creates at best an unnecessary paradox or at worse an outright contradiction. In the

discourse of John 6, Jesus clearly excludes the concept of a universal drawing by the Father when He

states that everyone the Father draws (or gives) to Him will certainly come. If the Father draws everyone

and everyone the draws will come, then this would mean that everyone would come. Yet as Scripture

everywhere makes clear, and as Jesus denotes in our passage, not everyone does come; not everyonebelieves. No good Arminian would subscribe to universalism; yet to maintain that the Father draws

everyone without exception and to be consistent with John 6:37, the Arminian—to be consistent—

would have to be a universalist. Unfortunately, failure to see this inconsistency is due in part to the

Arminian answer to the second question.

While the Reformed answer to the second question is taken from Jesus' own words, that all the

Father gives to Him will come, the Arminian answers the question in such a way as to preserve a

particular philosophical view of human free will (“free will” will be discussed in an appendix). TheReformed tradition teaches, going by the words of the Lord Jesus, that everyone the Father “gives” or

“draws” will certainly believe in Christ; they will certainly be saved. They come voluntarily, but they

nevertheless come by necessity of their being drawn by the Father. The Arminian tradition, however,

teaches that, while the Father draws everyone equally, in the end it is the autonomous human decision

that determines whether a person believes in Christ and is saved. In other words, the Father draws

everyone without exception, but not everyone chooses to come.

It might be asserted that the action of the Father “drawing” everyone is not the same as Hisaction of “giving.” That is, the Father surely draws everyone, but only the ones who choose to believe

are those that the Father “gives” to the Son. However, this is clearly not what Jesus means. Those who

are given by the Father are the same as those who are drawn or granted to come. In the narrative

element of John 6, we see clearly that the crowd and many of His own disciples did not believe Jesus,

but instead turned away. Jesus' explanation as to why they did not believe would be rendered

meaningless if in fact the Father really draws everyone. Jesus explained that the reason they did not

believe was because no one is able to believe or to come unless the Father draws them or grants them to

come. They did not believe because the Father had not granted them the grace to do so. It was not

that the Father gave them all “prevenient grace” that enabled them to believe and they all simply

refused by an autonomous movement of the will. None of them were at any moment able to come

unless the Father drew them, which He had not done—hence they turned away in disbelief.

What makes this such a contentious issue is that from the Arminian perspective, when the



“power of contrary choice” is removed from the equation of human choice, all men are effectively made

into robots and any human responsibility is eliminated. If, when a person rejects Christ, he could not

have done otherwise, they cannot really be held responsible. If those Jews at Capernaum could not

believe without the Father's grace, then their unbelief, from the Arminian perspective, is not their fault.

Similarly, to suggest that a person who is drawn or given by the Father to the Son will come –to suggestthat he or she cannot possibly refuse to come or cannot at some point fall away—is again to make that

person a mindless robot and remove any responsibility. This is why the Arminian must read into Jesus'

words the concept of prevenient grace, by which the Father draws everyone without exception in such a

way that they are enabled to come (by an autonomous movement of their will) and believe in Christ.

That is, such a person has the ability to come, but will not necessarily cometo Christ; he or she can just as

easily reject Christ as receive Him.

Words like “whoever” or “everyone” or “anyone” strongly imply—or perhaps make explicit—tothe Arminian ability. That is, if Jesus says in 6:40 “ everyonewho looks on the Son and believes in him

should have eternal life,” then it follows—from the Arminian perspective—that everyone has the ability

to believe in the Son unto eternal life. Yet a few verses later (v. 44), Jesus denies that everyone has this

ability, and in fact states clearly that no one is able to believe unless the Father draws him. All men are

commanded to obey the gospel and everyone ought to believe in Christ; however, no one is ableto do so

unless the Father grants them—and the Father does not grant everyone to come (or else everyone would

come; v. 37).The thought that the Father does not draw everyone, that He would in fact deny anyone grace

(i.e. the “opportunity” to believe), is repugnant to the Arminian. Arminian theology is adamant, based

on verses such as 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, that it is God's will and desire that everyone (without

exception) repent and be saved. Therefore, God must draw everyone and enable them to receive or

reject the gospel. In other words, God must give everyone a “window of opportunity” where by an

autonomous movement of the will they either turn to Christ or turn away. However, it is impossible

from Jesus' discourse to say that the Father draws everyone. The Arminian must jump to other passages

to impose on John 6 a doctrine of prevenient grace. Yet this again creates the issue of unnecessary

paradoxes or outright contradictions.

The Reformed tradition, however, does not deny that a movement of the will is involved in

either the faithful reception of Christ or the sinful response of rejecting Christ. The gospel commands a

response just as much as the law. In the case of either the law or the gospel, a failure to obey the Word



of the Lord has severe consequences. Thus the writer to the Hebrews warned, “Therefore we must pay

much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared

by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how

shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was

attested to us by those who heard” (Heb. 2:1-3 ESV). The “message declared by angels” refers to thelaw given to Moses and the “what we have heard” is a reference to the gospel that was once proclaimed

to the writer and his audience. If “every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution” under

the old covenant law, how much less will anyone be able to escape “just retribution” for transgressing

the message “declared at first by the Lord” of “such a great salvation?” If the proper response to the law

(“declared by angels”) is obedience, then the proper response to the gospel (declared by the Lord

himself) is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. However, based on Jesus' words, it is the Reformed position

that the only way anyone gives the proper response is by a work of grace, namely the sovereign andeffectual drawing of the Father. Apart from this work of grace, the only response anyone gives is

rebellion.

Reformed theology is not so concerned with reconciling divine sovereignty and human

responsibility. There is really no need for reconciliation between the two. Simply put, human beings

are responsible because God is sovereign. Whether anyone recognizes it or not, God is the Creator of

all men. Paul, preaching to the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers in Athens said,

“Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver orstone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.30 The times of ignorance God overlooked,

but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,31 because he has fixed a day on which he will

judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to

all by raising him from the dead.”(Acts 17:29-31 ESV)

In times past, Yahweh may have overlooked the ignorance of the Gentiles, but now “he commands all

people everywhere to repent” having fixed a day when He will judge the world “by a man he has

appointed” (i.e. Jesus Christ). Jesus Christ is Lord of all without exception. When Jesus preached “the

kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15 ESV), He was not making a

request. He commands repentance and faith; to believe is to obey the gospel.

The question may be asked: if no one is capable of believing apart from grace, then how can God

command everyone to repent and believe(if He does not in fact give everyone the grace to believe)?

Consider Jesus' statement in John 3.



“God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world

might be saved through him.18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe

is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.19 And this is

the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light

because their works were evil.20

For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not cometo the light, lest his works should be exposed.21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so

that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”(John 3:17-21 ESV)

Jesus in essence reveals the verdict of the last judgment, albeit in general terms. Jesus, in His first

advent, did not come to judge the world. He did not come to condemn the world because in fact it was

already condemned. He had come to save the world by giving His life on behalf of “everyone who

believes” These will be saved and inherit eternal life. Those who do not believe in His name, however,

are “condemned already.” Here is Jesus' verdict: “the light has come into the world, and people loved thedarkness rather than the light because their works were evil.” This is yet another element of the Jewish

crowd's unbelief. The reason why those not drawn by the Father are unable to believe in Jesus is

because they “loved the darkness” and because “their works were evil.” In other words, the fault for

their unbelief lay, not in the Father's denying them the grace to believe, but in their own love of their

own sin. The crowd knew their works were evil and they loved their sin, so they would not believe.

The could not believe because they would not believe; they would not believe because they loved the

darkness. The Father was not forcing them against their will to remain in darkness; they wanted toremain in darkness because they loved the darkness.

Here we also may recall the words from John's prologue: “The light shines in the darkness, and

the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5 ESV). While the ESV renders the Greek word kate,laben

(katelaben) “overcome,” it may perhaps better be translated “comprehend” (NASB) or “understood”

(NIV). Indeed, the one who is in darkness cannot “comprehend” or “understand” Jesus' words and so

does not receive them. We see then a connection between John's prologue, Jesus' verdict in John 3, and

the pattern of unbelief from the parables and “hard sayings” of Jesus exemplified in John 6. Jesus, who isthe light, shines in the darkness (i.e. the world) but the darkness does not comprehend the light. In the

narrative of John 6, this is seen as Jesus announces the gospel (in this case the Bread of Life Discourse)

but the crowd of Jews (who loved the darkness rather than the light) was unable to comprehend or

accept Jesus' words.



The Doctrine of ElectionWhen we look at a passage like John 6:37-70, we might consider whether the doctrine of

election & predestination may in fact be discerned or established from the text. The Bread of Life

Discourse does occur in the context of historical narrative. This certainly warrants caution when

considering a point of doctrine from the passage, since strictly speaking, doctrine is not to be established

from narrative; we establish doctrine from the didactic (i.e. teaching & instruction) portions of

Scripture. However, it may also be pointed out that, while the discourse occurs within the narrative of

John's Gospel, this particular portion is didactic. In the discourse of Jesus, recorded in John narrative,

propositional statement are made throughout. When Jesus said, “I am the bread of life,” for instance,

He is making a proposition about himself. He is the bread of life. Jesus spends much of His discourse

teaching the crowd and His disciples what it means for Him to say that He is the bread of life. Our

concern is of course, whether or not Jesus in His discourse teaches anything about election &

predestination. Do we find this doctrine in Jesus' teaching in John 6?

To answer this question we look specifically at verse 37. “All that the Father gives to me will

come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” The Arminian may well cling to verse 40

that says “everyone” who looks and believes on the Son will have eternal life, but one cannot ignore

verse 37. Neither should either verse be pitted against the other. We've already looked at this verse in

our exegesis above, but here we will unpack it a bit more.

All. In the perpetual debate between Reformed theology and Arminianism, the word “all” is

certainly a word that Arminians love to emphasize. When Calvinists insist that all does not always

mean all “without exception,” this typically confounds Arminians. After all, how can one say “all”

when he does really mean “all.” This become especially contentious when taken to verses such as 2

Peter 3:9 where it seems pretty irrefutable that God “does not wish for any to perish but for all to come

to repentance.” Here the Arminian would assert emphatically that “all” means “all without exception.”

Again, the idea being that God wants to save everyone without exception.

Yet in John 6:37, we have an instance where the Calvinist heartily believes that “all” means “all

without exception.” All, without exception, that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him and each

and every one of them, without exception, He will never cast out but will preserve. Of course in this

instance, as we have pointed out above, for the Arminian to say that “all” means “all without

exception” he must then become a universalist, which he most likely does not want to do. But what of

2 Peter 3:9 if all the Father gives to Jesus come to Him but not everyone is given? We will deal verses



like 2 Peter 3:9 in another chapter, but it will suffice for now to say that I think that John 6:37 and 2

Peter 3:9 are in fact compatible with one another.

That the Father gives. The phrase, “All that the Father gives me” is the delimiting factor of this

discourse. Not just anyone can come to Jesus of their own autonomy. Jesus does not say “The Father

gives Me all” nor does He say “All can come to Me.” The “All” that come to Jesus in verse 37 is “Allthat the Father gives Me.” It is instructive to note also that it is the Father who gives and not those

who come who give themselves. Indeed, it is not we who give ourselves to Christ, but it is the Father

who gives us to His beloved Son. This is at the very heart of the doctrine of election: the Father giving

a peculiar people to the Son, a people chosen by grace.

Will come to me. Jesus is certain that all that the Father gives to Him will come to Him. All

the elect will come to Jesus in faith. “All” is the subject of the verb “will come” just as “Father” is the

subject of the verb “gives.” It is the Father who gives, yet it is the “all” that comes to Jesus. Yet apartfrom the giving by the Father, they would not come (nor could they; v. 44). However all the ones the

Father gives willcome. That is, the giving of the Father does not merely make their coming a possibility,

but makes it a certainty. This is certainly part of the doctrine of election: those the Father has chosen

to give to the Son will—with absolute certainty—come to Christ.

Whoever comes to Me. This phrase may appear to soften the “predestinarian strain” of verse

37. Indeed, the Arminian would like to point to the word “whoever” and cry, “See! No election!”

However, the underlying Greek may also be rendered “the one who” (NASB, NET, NKJV, HCSB) or“him who” (RSV). Literally, when coupled with the verb, it reads, “ the one coming .” The word

“whoever” in the ESV is in fact the Greek article in accusative form (i.e. direct object). The Greek

article may act as a pronoun, in this instance a masculine singular pronoun. However, whatever English

term or phrase is used to render the article, it stands from the context that Jesus is not meaning to say

in one clause that all the Father gives to Him will come to Him and in the very next to say that anyone

has the capacity to come to Him. Whether we say “whoever comes” or “the one coming,” Jesus still has

“all that the Father gives” in view. Whereas He spoke of them collectively in the term “all,” in the

second half of the verse He speaks of them individually—the one coming to Him will never be cast out.

I will never cast out. As we observed in the exegesis above, Jesus is using a figure of speech

wherein He is affirming one thing by negating its opposite. By denying that He will ever cast out the

one who comes to Him, Jesus is affirming that He will keep or preserve the one who comes to Him. In

other words, the Father does not give anyone to the Son that the Son will not keep. Jesus Himself



stated it this way “this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given

me, but raise it up on the last day” (v. 39). The very people that the Father gives to the Son will not be

lost. Again, this is another important element of the doctrine of election: all the elect (those given by

the Father to the Son) will come to Him (will respond in faith to the gospel) and will never fall away

(will be kept and preserved by the Son).The doctrine of election is clearly expressed in this verse alone. The ones who come to Christ

are the ones that the Father gives to Him. They do indeed come willingly, but their coming is preceded

by the Father's choosing them and giving them to the Son. The very heart of the doctrine of election is

that the Father gives a particular people to the Son. In other words, the core purpose of election is the

glorification of God. The Spirit of God glorifies the Son and the Father by being the agent by which the

Father draws men and women to Christ; the Father gives these men and women (whom He has chosen)

to the Son for the Son's glory; the Son glorifies the Father by revealing the Father's love for His peoplein the giving of the Son on their behalf in order to forgive their sins and gives to them eternal life.

Election & ForeknowledgeJohn, in 6:64 makes the parenthetical note that Jesus “knew from the beginning” who would

not believe and who would betray Him. In Arminian theology, God's election is based on

foreknowledge. This is known as the prescient or foreknowledge view of election. God knows in

advance—by passively taking in knowledge of future events and decisions—who will believe and who

will not believe in Christ. Those who He knows will believe are chosen on the basis of God's

foreknowledge of their faith. In 6:64 Jesus is said to know from the beginning who would not believe.

Does this verse favor the foreknowledge view? If Jesus knew who would not believe, did He not also

know who would believe?

We will not get into a detailed discussion of foreknowledge here except to observe the fact that

that anyone believes owes to the Father's grace in drawing those whom He gives to the Son. In other

words, the Father's choosing of anyone is based sheer grace and out of His unconditional love for His

people and not based on any faith He foreknew in them; He foreknew them in their sin and not their

faith and according to His own good pleasure was merciful to them. Those who do not believe and who

are not given by the Father, are condemned by their own fault. They love the darkness and so refuse to

come into the light.

god's free mercy: all the father gives me (chp. 1)

Documents