Reply to Eddy, a gentlemen who kindly commented on my post entitled "John 6:44...an answer to James White's challenge"
Eddy's Comment August 12, 2019 at 2:16 AM
Hey. Nice review (better than most)! I have to
say that I still think the Reformed view has it better, because if the Jews
truly followed the Father, why would he need to draw them? Wasn't he already
drawing them by the miracles?
So you think the drawing mentioned is a
supernatural, inward calling? Based on common sense, I would think it is,
especially since the word enabled is used, which I think would imply that God has
to effectually cause someone to be drawn to Jesus.
Also, heliko probably means dragged, so what
about that? I also think it means dragged in John 12, but that Jesus is talking
about Jews and Gentiles.
My response:
Hi Eddy!
Thank you for your kind feedback and questions. I apologize it has taken
so long for me to respond. Although you’d
never know from the speed of my response, I enjoy engaging with others to
better understand God’s word, esp. on this topic which has caused much
confusion in the church today. We must
all press in to seek understanding of what God truly meant. Thank you for sharing your perspective and
entering into this discussion.
I think you might have misunderstood my point.
The drawing is not some kind of supernatural inward calling. The drawing takes
the form of the words and miracles that the Father has given his Son to speak
and do. John 5:19-20,30, and 36 all attest to this. John 6 continues the same
line of thinking seen in John 5, not something new. And that’s what we find
throughout the Bible. Everything builds on what was earlier written. We have to
consider the context of prior chapters and subsequent chapters to rightly
understand any particular verse. Although we all say we “know” the importance
of this, actually sticking to the context often eludes even prominent Bible
scholars. Or perhaps, even though they
know the context, they are so committed to the “traditional” teaching, that
they willingly ignore it. And before you
defend “tradition” as being more reliable, consider that tradition was the
precise error of the Pharisees and Roman Catholics.
We need to distinguish the parts of God’s
activity in this process called “drawing”.
The object of the Father’s drawing is those who were already
following him before Jesus’ ministry began.
The target of the Father’s drawing is toward his Son whom he has now
sent. The Father is entrusting his
followers to his Son as their new steward. Remember that those Jews who have
already been following the Father are going to recognize and want to follow
anyone he has sent. First, they would
recognize that only God can do miracles because they believe Psalm 77:14, and
they know the history of God’s miracles rendered to liberate them from the
bondage of Egypt which the Egyptian magicians could not replicate. And they
would agree with Nicodemus who said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who
has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were
not with him.” (John 3:2). This
understanding that only God can do miracles is fundamental for understanding
how God authenticates his sent ones and curates his message. Since Jesus is
doing miracles, he is being authenticated by God. It is something that God
expects people to understand intuitively. And it is something that an
individual does understand when they are listening and not hardening their
heart.
And in John 17:6-8, we see Jesus refer back to
this “giving over” of those who were already following the Father to now become
Jesus’ followers because they recognized the Father in his Son. We see that the Father has now entrusted them
into his Son’s stewardship, which was always the plan from the beginning of time. Specifically, he says,
“I have revealed you to those whom you gave
me out of the world. They were
yours; you gave them to me, and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given
me comes from you. For I gave them the
words you gave me and they accepted them.
They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that
you sent me.”
This is essentially a reprise of John 6:44-45. Those who had “heard the Father and learned
from him” did indeed come to Jesus (v.45).
They were indeed “drawn” by the Father to Jesus (v.44) because they first
belonged to the Father. Before the Son
was sent, who were those who followed the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? They had a relationship with God the Father
because they believed him and his word. So
they “belonged to” the Father. They didn’t
belong to the Son yet because the Son had not yet been sent. But after the Son was sent, the Father drew
his followers to his Son so that they would trust Him and follow him even more
intimately than they ever followed the Father.
They would recognize the Father in the Son and learn even more about the
Father through the Son, whose very purpose was to “explain the Father” (in
Greek, literally, exegete the Father, i.e., make him more fully known)
(John 1:18). Furthermore, in John 16:13-15,
we see that Jesus plans to send the Holy Spirit, who, just as the Son received
from the Father what he made known to his disciples, so the Spirit will receive
from the Son what he will also make known to the disciples.
What’s the point in John 6:44 then? It’s the contrast between those who belonged to
the Father and those who didn’t—the Jewish leadership, the religious establishment. The Pharisees and Sadducees did not believe
and know the Father. So the Father couldn’t
give them over to the Son. He couldn’t
draw them to Jesus. They hadn’t heard
from the Father and learned from him. They
had no room in their minds and hearts for God.
They had given their hearts to the world, to love money and power. They pushed their own agenda instead of God’s
and used the synagogue to do so. They
were posers. Jesus describes them in
John 16:1-3, thusly,
“…when anyone who kills you will think they
are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have
not known the Father or me.”
If they had known the Father, they would have
seen him in Jesus and would not do the devil’s work of killing God’s followers.
Now, you think that common sense interpretation
of the word “enable” should lead us to interpret “draw” to mean a supernatural
inward calling. Using “common sense“ is not recommended when interpreting
infrequently used words in the Bible. We would normally look at how they are
being used in context. And study how the word is used by the same author in
other places, then how it’s used by other authors in the Bible.
But let’s try it your way. Let’s assume that
“enable” and “draws” means a supernatural inward calling. How would that fit
with the very next verse? V 45 says, “It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will
all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him
comes to me.”
John 6:45 NIV
https://www.bible.com/111/jhn.6.45.niv
If draw means some inward supernatural
drawing, then why would learning be necessary? If God could supernaturally just
turn their stony heart into a fleshy one, what part would hearing and learning
play? God would just turn on the light bulb in their mind. Instead Jesus uses
“hears and learns” to reflect the process that one follows when they humbly
listen instead of crowding out of their minds everything that doesn’t fit their
preconceived notions. Furthermore, the Father speaks only Truth itself, so anyone
who hears and learns from him, is following Truth. Conversely, those who don’t,
follow lies and the evil father of those lies— the devil. As implied throughout
Jesus’ teaching in this chapter, inherent in the words “hear and learn” carry
the force of individual choice to respond. Just as he said that the work of God
was to believe in the one he sent and that believing in him and eating and
drinking of him imply individual appeal for a response. And when he tells them,
“and still you don’t believe” (6:36), it indicts them for choosing to not
believe in him despite what they have seen him do— miraculous signs.
It is noteworthy that Jesus doesn’t ever refer
to the drawing and enabling as supernatural works. Rather he refers to the
signs, which we should clearly understand to be in themselves supernatural
works. Jesus always points them to the signs he performed as being the
authenticating reason for which they should believe in him. Since a
supernatural work was already done in the sign itself, there should be no need
for an additional supernatural work of drawing or enabling to make someone
believe in Jesus. Jesus never had in mind that a supernatural drawing itself
was needed. And introducing this idea only muddles the exhortation to believe
and indictment for not believing. Why would God need to provide a supernatural
sign to only then have to supernaturally make someone believe in that sign?
And how would it fit with vv. 29,35,40
preceding v. 44? Jesus emphasizes over and over that through believing in him
they would live forever. In saying this, he assumes that they have the ability
to do so and condemns them for not doing so in v. 35: “and still you do not
believe”. If the Father had to supernaturally draw them from within, and he
decided to do selectively for individuals chosen before time began, how would
his emphasis on belief and their failure to believe be so emphasized? Why not
just clearly say that the Father chose a secret group of individuals before
time who couldn’t believe unless he made them?
How would that build on what John has
presented up to this point in his gospel? How would it further the purpose of
his book stated in both John 1:18 (Jesus explained the Father) and 20:31
(Jesus’ signs written so you may believe and have life in his name)? If God has
to give some kind of supernatural enablement that does not involve the actual
words being transmitted and understood, why would it even matter that Jesus
explains the Father and that miracles are recorded in the book in order to help
people believe? If the actual words (which common sense tells us are intended
to convey meaning and convince the hearer) are meaningless to the hearer unless
God turns on the light bulb, then why even use them? Why not just turn the
light bulb on without even using words? And if the signs are useless to
convince the audience unless God turns on the light bulb, then why provide
them? And why do God’s spokesmen treat them as a means of authentication?
I would argue that this is key for
understanding the Gospels and soteriology. The signs and miracles, as attested
by Moses, Jesus and Paul, are proof that God has sent his prophet or apostle
and to listen to them (Deuteronomy 18:18-22, John 10:38, 2Corinthians 12:12).
And this is what distances Christianity from the many false religions.
Mormonism speaks of a “burning in the bosom”,
a subjective emotion-based sensation, for determining truth. Mormonism,
Jehovah’s Witness, and Islam trust in men whom we know to be false prophets.
How do we talk to them about testing their prophets if we believe that God—
apart from a supernatural inward calling— was unable to convince our totally
depraved/disabled minds and hearts before we accepted Jesus? It renders
meaningless all real apologetics. And it renders meaningless the words spoken
by Moses, Jesus and Paul cited above. It also leads pastors to make incorrect
conclusions about so many passages in the New Testament whose true meaning is
hijacked by Calvinistic teaching.
For example, I once heard a sermon by a
visiting alumni at my seminary speak on Paul in Acts 9, and his attempts to
convince the Pharisees every Sabbath. The speaker asserted that this amounted
to Paul’s arguing from his flesh instead of trusting God to convince their
hearts through the Spirit’s work. The lesson? You can’t argue someone into the
kingdom of God. Only when Paul left was there finally fruit (Acts 9:31), he
claimed. But if this is true, where does apologetics come in? And God’s saying,
Come let us reason together? And was Jesus arguing in his flesh when he used
arguments? I say quite the contrary. The argument’s truth is presented to
dispel the lie so that the hearer will be set free from the lie. Calvinism
leads to incorrect teachings that steer us away from the intended meaning God
wants us to act on.
Furthermore, the importance of faith in the
other 90 percent of the book is now relegated to have less importance than
these few scriptures that the Calvinist can interpret based on a couple of
words (give, draw, and enable). If monergism was such an important teaching,
why would God not spend 10 times as much explanation and emphasis on this
process instead of the emphasis on faith vs works? I tell you that Calvinism is
committing grave eisegesis by reading in an idea that men thought up many years
after Christ.
So, I have tried it your way. And hopefully you
will agree with me that the context in John doesn’t allow for your interpretation.
Or at least that it doesn’t offer the best explanation.
First and foremost, we need to take a step
back and look up the Greek word for “enable” in John 6:65. We must ask whether it was translated
correctly. There are times when
translators preferred a certain word over another precisely because of their
doctrinal persuasion. So let’s check the
word: it is dedomenon. It comes from the root verb didomi, which
means “to give”. When we consider that
the use of the Greek verb dedomenon is actually a Perfect Participle in the
Middle or Passive voice, it probably should be rendered, “has been given”.
When we read
all the occurrences of this word in the
New Testament, we find that it almost always is rendered “give”. It’s used 11
times in John 6 alone. In every
instance-- except for this verse (and only by few translations)-- is it
rendered a form of “give”. The NAS
translates it “granted”. It is interesting
to consider that “granted” can actually mean “given” in the sense of
“admit/permit” or “allow”, as in permitting entrance. Whatever the case, “give” is the most basic
meaning of this word, so if we are to use the word “enabled” it should connote
the idea of something being “given” by the Father. The fact that Jesus describes this as a
reprise of what he earlier told them (alluding back to John 6:37,39, and 44)
about the Father “giving” and “drawing” his followers to Jesus, weakens the notion
that God empowered them to follow Jesus through some supernatural means. Rather the force of dedomenon here is that God
had given the understanding to them because they listened to God (cf. v.45).
In other words, the idea of following Jesus as
Messiah didn’t originate from themselves or from Jesus himself; it was a
teaching the Father had given them. So once
again, the origin question: the whole point-- in light of those who denied
Jesus as Messiah-- is that this teaching that Jesus is Messiah came from God. Contrary to the unbelieving Jews who claimed
to know the Father but rejected Jesus (thus disproving their own faith in Father
God), these who followed Jesus proved their faith in Father God by their
belief. This does two things: 1) it
indicts the unbelieving Jews for being more than unbelievers in Jesus—but
unbelievers in God himself; 2) it exonerates those who are following Jesus as
those who are doing the right thing, contrary to the accusations from Jewish
leaders.
Passages that support this idea: John 3:35, 5:27, 10:18, and 17:2-8 supports
John 6 with God’s giving to the Son what was first the Father’s. And in respect
to our passage in John 6, the Father gave those who were His (17:2- “to all
those you have given him”; 17:6- “to those whom you gave me out of the
world. They were yours; you gave
them to me…v7: They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed
that you sent me.” Please notice the
word I underlined. Jesus prays “they
were yours”. This means they were
following and belonging to the Father BEFORE they were given to Jesus. And the key is they recognized that Jesus had
come from him. They recognized Jesus’ origin
because the Father is whom they knew first.
When Jesus spoke and acted, they recognized their Father in Jesus. And when one claims to follow God but doesn’t
believe in Jesus, this is the precise incriminating evidence Jesus points
to. If you don’t believe him, you must
not believe the Father who sent him because Jesus says and does exactly what
the Father says and does. So if you
reject Jesus, you are rejecting the Father himself—self-incriminating disbelief!
Cornelius is an example of how this John 6:44
interpretation applies today. Anyone who fears God and listens to him will be
drawn by the Father to the Son.
Luke 18:17- why would Jesus say: “Truly I tell
you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child
will never enter it.””
Luke 18:17 NIV
https://www.bible.com/111/luk.18.17.niv
To receive it like a little child implies that
a child receives it differently AND that an adult has the ability to receive it
in the same way if he chooses. The phrase, “anyone who will not” implies a
warning to people who could have done otherwise if they chose. When we look to
the verse immediately prior to people bringing babies to Jesus, we find what
the childlike receiving should look like. And I believe this is part of the
context:
““I tell you that this man, rather than the
other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt
themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be
exalted.””
Luke 18:14 NIV
https://www.bible.com/111/luk.18.14.niv
Is the person exalting himself? Is the person
humbling himself? Or is God doing this in the person first? Can a person humble
himself before God? The Calvinist says No, not until God first opens his eyes
and regenerates the person. If this were true and a person could do nothing to
heed Jesus’ warning unless God first acted, then how could Jesus say this to
warn the listeners? Wouldn’t it be better to just ask God to reveal to him
those that were elect and just talk to them? Or better yet, since Jesus knew all
things, wouldn’t he know who the elect were and only tell them? The Calvinist
argues that Christ’s sacrifice was only intended for the elect. If God only
targeted the elect in the expiation, then why not also in the communication of
it? That would be consistent. Therefore, because it isn’t consistent, it’s a
huge red flag for Calvinist theology.
Lastly, whether helkyse means drag. From a logical perspective, as I argued
earlier, it wouldn’t make any sense for it to mean drag if God appeals to
people through their senses, minds and hearts.
Either he does some supernatural inward dragging of their soul, contrary
to what their totally depraved (read: disabled) senses, minds, hearts (to use
the Calvinist meaning) would understand and choose, or else he appeals to those
senses, minds and hearts in order to persuade them. And, as argued earlier, God does appeal
through these means by providing miracles, teaching, and empathy. He is the God who is understandable to any
heart that is open and honestly seeking truth rather than playing games.
Eddy, to address your final point on John 12, helkuso is used with the object “pantas”. It is too strong of a word to mean anything other than “all people” unless the writer qualifies it somehow. I think it means that Jesus’s crucifixion is something he would use to get the world’s attention, and so draw all people to consider his claims of being the Christ. It didn’t mean that he would forcefully drag individuals from all people groups to himself. In fact, this is essentially what he says in the subsequent verses. My paraphrase: “you should follow me while I am here on earth (while you have my light) so that when I am gone, you won’t walk in the darkness.” When Jesus judges everyone at the end of the age, He will draw everyone to the cross and ask, why do you think I died there? What do you say? And how am I alive now? It will be the focus of the judgment. What did you believe about Jesus’ death and resurrection?
