John 6:37

John 6:35-40 (see also John 6:44John 17:2)
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” 

According to Calvinism, the giving, drawing and granting by the Father is of Calvinism’s “dead rebel sinners” and “total haters of God” which regenerates them from haters into lovers. However, the context simply never says that. The reality is that there are two drawings. There is a pre-Calvary drawing by the Father (John 6:44) of the true worshippers of God in Israel (not Calvinism’s “elect” dead rebel sinners), and then there is the post-Calvary drawing by the Son (John 12:32) of “all men.” The purpose of the Father’s pre-Calvary drawing is the Ingathering, whereby all true worshippers of God would follow His Son. So, John 6:44 isn’t about “dead rebel sinners” and “total haters of God.” In fact, it’s the complete opposite. Jesus’ critics claimed that they were disciples of Moses, and being the true worshippers of God, they claimed to know better than to follow Jesus. So, Jesus contradicted their claim by arguing that if they had been true disciples of Moses and had been true worshippers of God, then they would have received Him rather than rejecting Him, and so the very fact of their resistance ultimately proves their alienation from God. So, again, John 6:44 represents the giving, drawing and granting by the Father of the true worshippers of God in Israel, in order to meet and follow Jesus, meaning that the drawing of John 6:44 is well-exemplified in someone like Nathanael of John 1:45-52.

Question: If by “All that the Father gives Me will come Me,” was a cryptic reference to secret Election, how come no one picked up on it? We’re not just talking about the crowds and Pharisees, but the disciples didn’t even pick up on it either, nor did Jesus elaborate by suggesting that the giving and drawing meant a secret, elect group.

Answer: In order to understand this verse, you need to place yourself within the context. Jesus is speaking to the unbelieving Jews. Now if Jesus was delivering the “hard truths” of God, intended only for the “spiritually mature” among God’s people, then why would He be saying this to unbelievers? Would it be to point out their hopeless condition, apart from special Election? Strange, though, isn’t it, that not a single person picked up on that, that is, not the crowds, not the Pharisees and not even any of the disciples, and moreover, Jesus didn’t say that the “giving” referenced a secret election, that is, of an elect caste vs. non-elect caste. So what should we say, that they actually did get it, but that they just didn’t care about it? How funny! Calvinistic secret Election is a raging debate within the Church, but it was of absolutely no interest to those who heard John 6:37 spoken? Therefore, I think that you, at least, must consider the possibility that the Calvinist interpretation of John 6:37 is erroneous. So instead, try to put yourself in the shoes of the audience, the unbelieving Jews, and see how they might have understood Jesus’ words: “Yeah, He keeps talking about how God is His Father. Well, guess what? God is our Father too. We’re the sons of Abraham. We’ve kept the Law from our youth. Who does He think that He is? We know God! We are of Him! And now He says that we can’t receive His witness unless God “gives” us to Him. Really! I’ll tell you what, when He talks about how God is His father, He’s making Himself out to be GOD!” Honestly, though, that wasn’t a big deal. Jesus could have declared Himself to be “God in the flesh,” and the people would have thrown their arms around Him, if only Jesus had done one thing: Tell them how good they were, and that they were right with God. But God made sure that Jesus said the opposite. He told them that they were lost. That’s why they didn’t like His message, and that’s why they wanted to poke holes in it. If Jesus had merely praised them for their goodness, then they would have been the ones to venerate the miracle-worker, and crowned Him, “King of Israel,” and would have declared Him, “God in the flesh.” But Jesus actually refused to be made king, and that was because Jesus wanted for them to understand why He came in the first place, that is, to realize their utter disconnect with God, and desperate need for salvation. They didn’t need another king to fight off enemies (enemies, by the way, God had been sending, in order to reprove them and bring them back to God). They needed a Savior. They needed to get out of the hopeless cycle of sin and rebellion, and experience a lasting reconciliation with God, which could only be brought about through the blood of Calvary, to cleanse them of all of their sins, once and for all. But they were too proud to see themselves as sinners, and hence, they wanted no part of a ministry of repentance. So you see, this passage has nothing to do with Calvinism.

​Coming to the Son was because they were the Father’s 
to give, being in covenant relationship with Him, 
evidenced by participation in John the Baptist’s baptism. 
The reason why many did not believe in the Son was 
because they did not believe in the Father either, having 
either rejected John the Baptist openly, or simply were 
causally indifferent to his baptismal ministry of 
repentance. God spread out His hands all day long to 
Israel (Isaiah 65:2), and they spurned His grace just as 
often. However, if they had believed in the Father, and 
thus belonged to Him, they would have believed in His 
Son, and upon beholding the Son, would have 
recognized that the Father was in Him, and would have 
naturally received Him, just like, for instance, Nathanael. 
(John 1:49)

There is no mystery at John 6:37. Where the Calvinists have gone wrong at John 6:37 and John 6:44 is that this was not the giving and drawing of UNBELIEVERS, but the giving and drawing of BELIEVERS, that is, those who were in covenant relationship with the Father, and yes, there were plenty in Israel who longed for the reconciliation of Israel, and plenty who submitted to the baptism of John the Baptist, and these rejoiced over the coming of Jesus. The concept of the Father turning His own, over to His Son, is essentially the same thing as when Jesus turned His own over to the Holy Spirit upon His ascension. (John 16:13-15) When Jesus said that He was the “Bread of Life” (John 6:35), the Jews who claimed to be right with God (but were not) were offended by these words and left (John 6:66), but those whose hearts were right with God, stayed (John 6:67), so that the prophecy of Isaiah 6:10 may be fulfilled, in that those whose hearts were not right with God, may be a trap and a snare unto themselves, and not come to the Son so that they may be healed. This is why true believers do not turn away from Jesus over these words, but receive them, while the lost simply finds yet another excuse to reject God. The Calvinists, on the other hand, insist that even if the Arminians are correct, and that this passage is about the giving and drawing of those who were in covenant relationship with the Father to His Son, it must nevertheless be a “remnant by grace,” which is a Calvinist buzz word for Irresistible Grace. But why should we assume that? The Calvinist answers, “Because that’s the only way anyone comes to the Son (Jon 6:37),” and thus the Circular Logic of the Calvinist is exposed.

​Question: What was the reason for the constant emphasis on “the Father”?

Answer: To show the Jews that they had become alienated from the Father, and in fact, hated Him, evidenced by John 15:23-24: “He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well.” (John 15:23-24) Jesus stated: “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.” (John 8:42) [i.e. you would be given, drawn and come.]

​Question: What does “comes to Me” mean?

Answer: From v.35, “comes to Me” is equated with “believes in Me,” since “he who comes to Me will not hunger,” reasonably means the same thing as “believes in Me will never thirst.” Therefore, substituting v.35 into v.37’s “come to Me” results in: “All that the Father gives Me will [neither hunger, nor thirst].”

​Question: Who is it that the Father “gives” to His Son?

Answer: Jesus answers that at John 6:45: “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father.” These are the ones who are given, drawn and come to believe in Christ.

​Question:  How did the Father give these people to His Son?

Answer: Since they were the Father’s, they had already made their choice, and now coming to His Son was an extension of that choice.

Calvinist, James White: “If the overall discourse is ignored, an improper interpretation of individual texts can be offered. This is one of the most oft-missed elements of correct exegesis, normally due to the presence of traditions in the reader’s thinking.” (Scripture Alone, p.87, emphasis mine)

That is the fundamental problem of the Calvinist interpretation for this passage. 

Former Calvinist, Steven Hitchcock: “It strikes me as ironic that Calvinists of such high caliber, possessing extensive abilities of intellect, and who are widely esteemed for their skill in the exegesis of the Scriptures, can be so reckless and unwilling to examine these texts carefully. Has it occurred to anyone that we should seek to understand the context in which these texts are found as they are only in the Gospel of John and fairly close to one another in proximity?” (Recanting Calvinism, p.187, emphasis mine)

Agreed. It may also be a factor of Confirmation Bias, as Calvinists only see what confirms their already established presuppositions. The other irony is the fact that James White devoted so much effort into labeling his opposition as being glued to “tradition,” and yet it was his own tradition that foiled him.

James White: “Those who are not Christ’s sheep cannot hear the voice of the Shepherd.” (Debating Calvinism, p.85, emphasis mine)

And yet, what does Jesus do? He encourages them to consider the evidence of the miracles: “...though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:37-38) Why do this, if they cannot consider it? The problem for many of them, was that due to their unrepentance, they could not bear to hear the words of God, which is common for those in sin.

James White: “The text shows that the work of the Spirit and our faith in God’s truth are the result of that eternal choice.” (Debating Calvinism, p.110, emphasis mine)

But the passage doesn’t make mention of an eternal choice. Calvinists begin with their presuppositions, and don’t even realize the mistake that they are making in their interpretation.

James White: “Despite seeing Him and hearing His preaching, these men stand before Christ in unbelief: They refuse to truly come to Him in faith. Why?” (Debating Calvinism, p.118, emphasis mine)

Because they hadn’t heard and learned from the Father, as per Jesus’ explanation at John 6:45; they were unbelievers. They didn’t know the Father; they rejected the Father, and consequently were outside of a covenant relationship that the Father, in which otherwise, God would have drawn them to His Son.

James White: “All who are given come. Not some, not most, but all. How can this be if, in fact, the coming is conditional upon human effort, desire, or choice?” (Debating Calvinism, p.118, emphasis mine)

(Seeing a Calvinist emphatically using the word “all” is pure irony.) The answer is because these were already covenant believers with the Father. Again, those who had heard and learned from the Father (i.e. covenant believers) were the ones coming to the Son, unlike these unbelievers that Jesus was talking to, and hence Jesus was diagnosing their fundamental problem: they weren’t right with God, and that’s why they weren’t coming to Him. It’s pretty simple and straight-forward, and I perceive the problem is that Calvinists are viewing the text as a matter of the Father drawing elect-unbelievers to faith, rather than God drawing covenant-believers to His Son, in order to follow Him.

James White: “The drawing of the Father is in fact limited to the elect, those who are given by the Father to the Son.” (Debating Calvinism, pp.294-295, emphasis mine)

The error of the Calvinists is regarding the subjects of the text. This passage does not introduce a Calvinistically elect class vs. eternally Unconditional Reprobates.

James White: “One might ask, ‘How is this relevant to explaining the unbelief of the Jews who were listening?’ Their unbelief is explained with reference to the fact that God must graciously give a person to the Son.” (Debating Calvinism, p.120, emphasis mine)

Jesus says nothing of the kind. True believers came to Christ; these did not. Thus the math shows that these were not true believers. Nowhere is Jesus saying that God is giving unbelievers so that they can believe. Instead, this is the giving of believers. We know that from John 6:45.

James White: “The Jews grumble about the claims Jesus makes for Himself, for they can see that His teaching implies His divine origin and status.” (Debating Calvinism, p.121, emphasis mine)

James White: “There is no reason for these unbelievers to grumble. Why? Because it is not within their capacity to come to Him in faith: As condemned sinners, they are dependent upon the grace of God for that.” (Debating Calvinism, p.122, emphasis mine)

James White: “The words of the Lord Jesus in John 6 are clear and compelling. The plethora of failed explanations of the passage produced by the those who oppose the message that offended so many in the synagogue in Capernaum (and evidently continues to offend today) is testimony to the force of the teaching and the clarity of the text.” (Debating Calvinism, p.141, emphasis mine)

This raises a point that reveals an even greater flaw in the Calvinist interpretation. What did, in fact, the Jews grumble about? Did they grumble about anything related to a Calvinistic Election vs. Reprobation? No. Moreover, the disciples didn’t take it that way either. Additionally, Jesus didn’t elaborate upon any kind of Calvinistic interpretation. If Jesus had taught anything resembling to Calvinism, you can be rest assured that the disciples would have inquired about it. We know that because of Matthew 19:27. Jesus made a point of how difficult it was for the rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven, and that drew the following inquiry from Peter: “Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?” Jesus could have easily explained that Peter was part of an eternal draft, but Jesus gave no such explanation. Calvinism is nowhere to be found here.

​Question: On what account were the unbelieving Jews 
offended” and on what account did the unbelieving Jews 

Answer:  No one grumbled over anything Calvinistic
which therefore represents a significant Red Flag against 
the Calvinistic interpretation. When people had given 
push-back against Jesus’ teachings, the text often states 
what the issue was, such as at John 5:18 and John 10:33. 
But there is nothing in the context of John 6, which 
indicates that the people grumbled about anything 
pertaining to Calvinism. The real push-back at John 
chapter 6 was regarding Jesus’ claim about Himself, in 
terms of being likened to the Passover Lamb. See for 
yourself at John 6:42 and John 6:52 what the actual 
things were that the people grumbled about.

In fact, if the unbelieving Jews had taken a Calvinistic understanding of an Unconditional Election, they hardly would have protested, because they saw themselves (on account of being Jews) as exactly that! There would have been no complaints from them, as that is precisely what they already believed about themselves. But what they didn’t like was the idea that Jesus, whom they rejected, was the Son of the God, so that by not having been given and drawn to Him, implies that they were not right with God.

James White: “We must let this passage teach what it teaches, no matter what our preconceptions might be.” (Debating Calvinism, p.123, emphasis mine)

Again, White fails to take his own advice.

James White: “Preaching this truth is never popular. The result of Jesus’ sermon was the founding of the Church Shrinkage Movement: He started with five thousand; He ended with a small, confused group.” (Debating Calvinism, p.124, emphasis mine)

James White: “Despite the negative response it garnered, He kept pressing this truth upon His listeners. And their response? The next verse says they walked away. They no longer followed after Him. But those who truly were given to Him, like Peter, confessed that He had the words of eternal life. What about us? Will we walk away from hard truths, or will we speak as Peter, knowing that Jesus has the words of eternal life? May God grant us grace to hear and obey His Word.” (Debating Calvinism, p.124, emphasis mine)

Now this is a concern, as James White links a denial of Calvinism to walking away from Christ, which is a very cultic perspective, on White’s part. In essence, he’s taken a concept that is foreign to the text, and made a denial of that foreign concept, into a denial of Christ. That’s brazen. 

​The Jehovah’s Witnesses use the same text to liken a rejection of the Watchtower Society to walking away from Christ. So how could White complain against their teaching, when he appropriates the same understanding to his own theology? 

So, in other words, not believing in Calvinism = walking away from Christ. All that White has accomplished is to show that he has a cultic mentality. Calvinism is the Gospel; reject Calvinism, and you’ve rejected the Gospel. That’s the train of thought here. He could back peddle from it, but you can clearly see what his perspective is. Also notice the matter of the “hard truths.” That is a psychological trick at work. What it does is that it attempts to measure one’s faith and sincerity to God by how dark of a matter that a person is willing to accept about God. In other words, the more awful a thing is, the greater amount of faith demonstrated. The psychological trick is in using people’s devotion to God against them. Here is a fantastic article on that very issue.

James White: “Jesus begins where Christian salvation begins (and ends!), with the Father. The Father gives a particular people to the Son.” (Debating Calvinism, p.118, emphasis mine)

James White: “If this giving does not involve sovereign predestination, what does it involve? Jesus Himself says it results in eternal life. If that is not election unto salvation, what is?” (Debating Calvinism, p.137, emphasis mine)

James White: “I just also believe the undisputed and unrefuted fact that I come to Christ daily because the Father, on the sole basis of His mercy and grace, gave me to the Son in eternity past.”  (Debating Calvinism, p.306, emphasis mine)

This is pure eisegesis. 

John Calvin: “In the first place, Christ says, ‘All that the Father gives me will come to me.’ By this Christ means that faith is not dependent on man’s will, as if this man or that man may believe indiscriminately, as if by chance, because he elects those people he gives, as it were, to his Son.”  (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, pp.160-161, emphasis mine)

That is just proof-texting, and has nothing to do with the context.

John Calvin: “For the word ‘gives’ has the same meaning as if Christ had said, ‘People whom the Father has chosen he regenerates and gives to me, so that they may obey the Gospel.’” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.161, emphasis mine)

Same problem. The passage mentions nothing about regeneration. Calvinists simply begin with their presuppositions, and the interpretation develops from there.