John 6:44
Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
Calvinist, William MacDonald, explains: “Such words are an attack on the pride of man, who thinks that he can earn or merit salvation. The Lord Jesus told men that even the power to come to Him can only be received from God the Father.” (Believer’s Bible Commentary, p.1507, emphasis)
This passage has nothing to do with Calvinism. It’s a dialogue between Jesus and the unbelieving Jews. The Jews insisted that they were right with God, and Jesus declared the opposite: “I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves.” (John 5:42) “He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know.” (John 7:28) “You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also.” (John 8:19) “You are from below.” “You are of this world.” (John 8:23) “You will die in your sins.” (John 8:24) “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham.” (John 8:39) “You are of your father the devil.” (John 8:44) “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” (John 8:47) “You have not come to know Him.” (John 8:55) Jesus diagnosed their problem: They rejected Him because they rejected the Father. Jesus stated: “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me.” (John 5:43) So that’s the “reason” why they rejected the Son. Had they received the Father, they would have received His Son, and all of the prophets whom the Father had sent to them, being indicative of what Jesus stated: “It cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem.” (Luke 13:33) That’s why Jesus repeatedly invoked the Father in His dialogue with them. At John 5:19, He pointed out that His message was exclusively the Father’s, and that if indeed they had heard and learned from the Father, then they would have come to Him. (John 6:45) At John 7:17, Jesus pointed out that if indeed they really did wish to do the Father’s will, then they would know whether His message was from God. At John 8:42, Jesus pointed out that if indeed God was their Father, as they had proclaimed (John 8:41), then they would have loved the Son, whom they instead tried to kill. (John 8:59) At John 10:26, Jesus pointed out that the only reason why they rejected Him, was because they were not of His sheep, and He and the Father were One. (John 10:30) They were not of His sheep, because they were not of the Father’s sheep, either. If they were of the Father’s sheep, then the Father would have gladly given (John 6:37) and drawn them to His Son. (John 6:44) This passage has nothing to do with Calvinism.
Chad from oldtruth.com points out: “Christ has told us how it goes at all times in John 6:44. The only way anyone can come to Christ, pre or post Calvary is that if the Father Draws him. I do not accept the ‘sheep transfer’ idea.” (Examining Calvinism, emphasis mine)
Jim from oldtruth.com adds: “When we read things like ‘no one can come unless’ - it would seem to apply to mankind in general, but you insist on restricting the scope of this entire John 6 passage to a certain set of Jews.
Then why are there two distinct drawings, the other being John 12:32? If you wish to quote John 6:44, “no one can come to Me,” in support of Total Inability, when yet it is specifically addressed to those whom God hardened (Isaiah 6:9-10; Romans 11:25), and then apply it to those who have not been hardened, namely, mankind in general, then you have to expect that people will call you out on it, and charge you with making an acontextual citation.
Walls and Dongell comment: “But the Calvinist reading likewise fails to account fully for the context. Jesus is locked in strenuous debate with religious leaders who claim special knowledge of and standing with God. From this priviledged position, they seek to discredit Jesus completely. Their implied charge essentially involves an attempt to sever Jesus from God, affirming the latter while rejecting the former. In doing this, they wish to establish the right to claim, ‘We know God intimately, but you are utterly alien to us! We stand in right relationship to God, but we completely reject you.’ Jesus’ countercharge strikes directly at the root of their authority: the presumption that they knew God in the first place! ‘You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwelling in you’ (Jn 5:37-38). Far from knowing God, then, Jesus’ opponents had already rejected not only the testimony of John the Baptist but also of Moses: ‘If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?’ (Jn 5:46). In this question posed by Jesus we discover the key principle: rejecting God’s first offerings of truth will utterly block further illumination. God will not offer more truth or manifest his full flory (the eternal Son) while light at hand is being spurrned. In other words, we can’t actively reject the Father and at the same time have any chance of accepting the Son.” (Why I am Not a Calvinist, pp.74-75, emphasis mine)
Jesus was pointing out that to the Jews that they were not right with God, and that if they were right with God, then they would see clearly enough to come to His Son, who is carrying the Father’s message, just as Jesus confirmed: “If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.” (John 7:17) This is the context of John 6:44 that the Calvinists are not telling you about.
Laurence Vance explains: “…we have here the separation of the Jewish sheep from the goats and the drawing of them to the Messiah. The ones given are Jewish disciples. They are said to be his sheep. (John 10:27). John baptized that Christ should be manifest to Israel (John 1:31). Although Israel as a whole received him not (John 1:11), he was known of his sheep (John 10:14), the epitome of which can be seen in Simeon, who was ‘just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him’ (Luke 2:25). … The error of the Calvinists on John 6:44 is two-fold. First and foremost is the misapplication of a verse with a decidedly Jewish context as a doctrinal statement on salvation in this age. And secondly, in a spiritual sense, there is the fallacy of making the drawing of God irresistible and equating it with salvation.” (The Other Side of Calvinism, pp.510, 511, emphasis mine)
Walls and Dongell explain: “Had they received Moses fully, thereby coming to know the Father to the degree possible at that time, they would have belonged to the Father’s flock, and the Father would have drawn them to the Son. But in rejecting Jesus, they demonstrated that they never surrendered to God in the first place, that they had set their faces like flint against all of his continued overtures. Since they did not belong to the Father’s own flock, they wouldn’t be part of the transfer of sheep already trusting the Father into the fold of the Son (Jn 6:37, 39).” (Why I am Not a Calvinist, p.75, emphasis mine)
John Goodwin writes: “They are said to have been the Father’s i.e. as it were, the Father’s disciples, or persons ‘taught by the Father,’ John vi. 45, and so, after a sort, appropriable unto the Father, (as those that believe and are taught of Christ are said to be Christ’s, or to belong to Christ) before they became Christ’s apostles, or were chosen by him upon this account; and are said to have been given unto him out of the world by the Father, because they were peculiarly qualified, and as it were, characterized and marked out by the Father to be formed into apostles by his Son.” (Redemption Redeemed, p.80)
Robert Hamilton comments: “The crux of my argument will be that the set of individuals who are said by Jesus to ‘belong’ to God as Christ’s ‘sheep,’ to ‘listen to the Father and learn from him,’ and to be ‘given’ by the Father to the Son, refers not to a pretemporally determined set of elect persons as conceived of in the Calvinist Reformed view, but instead primarily to the faithful sons of Abraham who were God’s children under the covenant as it was revealed in the Old Testament, and who were already prepared by their voluntary faith and repentance to embrace the promised Messiah at the time of his long-awaited appearance to the nation of Israel. These included the ones whom God had nurtured to repentance under the ministry of John the Baptist, who was appointed to ‘prepare the way for the Lord’ (Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:3).” (The Order of Faith and Election in John's Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep)
As I read John 5 through John 10, it seems to me that much of it is an ongoing dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees. I’m not saying that the teachings therein do not have a wider application, but I do feel that much of the dialogue is audience-specific. For instance, along the lines of John 6:37 and John 6:44, in terms of coming to Jesus, John 5:37-40 similarly states: “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” That’s is why I feel that John 6:37, 44 should be understood with this dialogue in mind. At the same time, I believe that the wider application of this dialogue, is that both God the Father and the Scriptures bear witness that Jesus is the Messiah, and that by believing in Him, there is life in His name.
Jim from oldtruth.com writes: “To answer your previous question, yes I do believe that the John 6:44 drawing goes all the way back to Genesis, as does Christ’s role as savior span backwards to Genesis as well.” (ExaminingCalvinism, emphasis mine)
That opinion is consistent with what other prominent Calvinists have stated:
Calvinist, James White, writes: “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)
White adds: “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)
Calvinists have read eternal decrees into John chapter 6, despite the fact that there is no mention of it. Additionally, they read preemptive, Regenerative Grace into John chapter 6, and here’s an example:
John Calvin writes: “Every one who has heard and learned of My Father comes to Me. In this He teaches the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, that God inwardly addresses His disciples by His Spirit, so that He may deliver them into the possession of Christ.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.73, emphasis mine)
“Inwardly addresses”? What?
Calvin adds: “When therefore the Father is inwardly heard, He takes away the stony heart and gives the heart of flesh. Thus He makes sons of promise and vessels of mercy prepared for glory.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.74, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: “‘...he says that people are ‘drawn’ when their minds are enlightened by God and when their hearts bend in obedience to Christ.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.164, emphasis mine)
Calvin adds: “What this statement amounts to is this: we should not be surprised if many people refuse to embrace the Gospel, since no one is ever able of himself to come to Christ unless God first comes to him by his Spirit. So it follows from this that not everyone is drawn, but that God gives this grace to those whom he has elected.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.164, emphasis mine)
Here you can clearly see that Calvinists believe that the Father is the One still doing the drawing.
Those who were drawn were those who belonged to the Father, as His true disciples, having literally heard and learned from Him.
Calvinist, James White, asks: “Why must the Father draw men to Christ if they are able in and of themselves to come to Christ?” (Debating Calvinism, p.296)
Why must you think that the Father is the One still doing the drawing when Jesus said that since the cross, He is the One doing the drawing? (John 12:32)
Calvinist, William MacDonald, comments: “We have the choice of accepting the Lord Jesus or refusing Him. But we never would have had the desire in the first place if God had not spoken to our hearts.” (Believer’s Bible Commentary, p.1504, emphasis mine)
And who is the One who speaks to our hearts? Jesus is the One knocking (Revelation 3:20), and Jesus is the One who is seeking (Luke 19:10), which is perfectly consistent with John 12:32.
Calvin writes: “Christ certainly counts none among His own, unless he be given by the Father; and He declares those to be given who before were the Father’s….” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.147, emphasis mine)
Indeed, and how exactly were they the Father’s? And here comes the presumption of an eternal decree. Well guess what? There is no mention whatsoever of any kind of eternal decree at John chapter 6. Now don’t you think that’s a little strange if it’s supposed to be teaching regeneration via eternal election?
Here is a link to a discussion that is currently taking place on this passage. Special thanks goes to Chad, Scott and Jim from oldtruth.com and their diligence in asking the tough questions that will help Calvinists to understand the basis for the Arminian interpretation.
Jim from oldtruth.com writes: “My first question to you is this. It should be a pretty short answer (‘yes’ or ‘no’ would do nicely). John 6:44a says: ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws HIM.’ So we see that there is a group of people within humanity that is drawn by the Father. John 6:44b (the second half of that verse) says: ‘And I will raise HIM up on the last day.’ And we see in this second part of the verse that there is a group of people that are raised on the last day. Do you agree that all those HIM’s in verse 44a end up being 44b raised HIM’s on the last day?”
Jim from oldtruth.com writes: “Allow me to ask you this question, when you read the Sermon on The Mount, do you use this same restriction there as well? In other words, do you tell yourself that Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on The Mount was just for certain Jews of that time period of whom He was addressing, or do you believe that Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on The Mount is also for you today? If you believe that it’s also applicable for you today, why do you not restrict the scope to ‘audience only’ (or the people of that time) there, but over here in John 6 you insist that Jesus is only talking about people in that time period?”
The Sermon on The Mount is for all men, for all time. I’m merely suggesting that the basis for why “no one” can come to Him, according to John 6:44, is rooted in Isaiah 6:10, and therefore caution ought to be shown when seeking to apply it to whomever else that the hardening of Isaiah 6:9-10 may not apply. My interpretation is that Jesus was explaining to the Jews why they were not believing in Him, because the Father did not draw them to Him, and He did not draw them because they were not His to give, despite their claims to the contrary. I feel that Jesus was telling them that they were not right with God, though they had thought that they were. I feel that this also explains John 10:26. Jesus stated: “You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also.” (John 8:19)
Jim from oldtruth.com writes: “When Jesus says ‘All that the Father gives me will come to me’, which action is first in the temporal order? The ‘giving’ or the ‘coming’ (believing)?”
The giving of these to His Son precedes their coming to His Son. The basis for the Father giving these to His Son, is because they were His to give, namely those who had “heard and learned” from Him. (John 6:45)
Jim from oldtruth.com writes: “Or are you going to say that ‘all drawn are raised’ is only for John 6 but not John 12?”
Jim from oldtruth.com writes: “How are people which match the description given in John 8:40-47 supposed to MAKE God their Father, when in fact - it says they can’t hear and they can’t understand? So let me get this straight Richard: In passages like that, you believe that some people were able to ‘snap out of it’ (break out of a hardened state that God put on them), and make God their Father? Then if they do, afterwards God draws them in John 6:44? Am I getting that right?”
Jim from oldtruth.com concludes: “I would appeal to the readers on the basis of the simplicity of the text in John 6, and ask, which side is allowing John 6 to speak for itself, and which side is presenting a highly complicated explanation that has literally taken us on a tour of the bible, in order to explain. Let’s face it, anyone can import scriptures into the context of just about any passage in the bible in order to change the meaning of the passage. I have a friend who claims that there will be nobody in Hell (including the devil) one day. How does he get away with this belief? By starting off with a problem (ie: “I don’t like Hell”) and then forcing other texts about God’s love into the hell passages of the bible, and thereby changing the meaning of them. I submit to the reader that this is what Richard is doing with John 6. He doesn’t like the idea of God electing humans to salvation, so he contaminates that doctrine (and John 6) in order to eliminate it. The position that I espouse lets John 6 speak for itself, and if Richard had not taken us around to all of these other verses in the bible, I would have stayed within John 6 in order to present my case. My position does not need to journey outside the context.” (emphasis mine)
Actually, portions of John chapter’s 5 through 12 have a very similar context, in terms of Jesus’ interactions with His Jewish detractors who sought to kill Him, and how He responded their unbelief. Nevertheless, taking a verse and divorcing it from its general context, in order to arrive at a simple answer, hardly assures us of its accuracy. Moreover, on the basis of John 3:16, I could argue that Jim “doesn’t like” the fact that God so loves the world, so he “contaminates” the verse in order to “eliminate it.” However, such generalizations make for better rhetoric than exegesis.
Jim from oldtruth.com writes: “Richard limits John 6 to a select few Jews and says that the drawing and enabling and giving in this passage are ‘not for today’. His reason for this is that the drawing of all men in John 12:32 cancels-out the John 6 drawing. But I ask the readers, does John 12 really do this? Is there something in John 12 that stands up and shouts ‘John 6 does not relate to you now’.” (emphasis mine)
Rather than saying that the one drawing “cancels-out” the other drawing, I would say that there was a distinct purpose in the two different drawings.
Jim from oldtruth.com writes: “Richard believes that John 12 conveys a drawing to every last human on earth following the cross. This includes (for example) the people in China in 40AD. He admits that this drawing isn’t effectual like the John 6 drawing is. He also admits that the word ‘ALL’ in the New Testament does not always mean ‘humanity in it’s entirety’ but can relate to a more limited scope than that. I ask the reader to read the first 31 verses of John 12 (the context) and ask yourself - what does Jesus mean? I think if you will do this, you will see that Jesus simply means that ‘salvation is not for the Jews only’. Does that mean that every last human receives some kind of drawing to salvation then? No. The end effect is what we see in Revelation 5:7-10 where it says: ‘by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.’ In other words, the ALL in John 12:32 means ‘all without distinction’ and not (as Richard wants) ‘all without exception’.”
If Jesus draws all men without distinction, then He must have died for all men, without distinction. Otherwise, exactly what would He be drawing them to? Nevertheless, I do believe that Jesus draws all men indiscriminately, even those who crucified Him, according to Acts 2:36-39.
Jim from oldtruth.com writes: “Richard has been challenged to produce some commentaries that prove that others in church history have believed as he does on this passage. The best he seems to be able or willing to do is give us the name a modern paperback book on Arminianism, and some citations from Vance’s contemporary ‘shoot Calvinism down at any cost’ smear book. Nothing from church history on John 6. Calvinists can produce example after example of both classic and modern commentary works, going back centuries, giving the same basic explanations of John 6 that you’ve seen from me.”
Suggesting that Vance’s book was an attempt to “smear,” suggests a significant lack of objectivity. Nevertheless, I have offered a commentary that dates back to a contemporary of Arminius, the Puritan John Goodwin, cited above, in addition to modern works. However, would citing the works of “church history” be an authoritative argument, if such works also taught Infant Baptism? The point is that proof is found in the text, and not in the numbers of those who agree.
Jim from oldtruth.com concludes: “Richard has taken the ‘teaching’ in John 6:45 and made it a cause for the ‘drawing’ in the previous verse. I’ve explained above how this disrupts the temporal order of the passage, and I demonstrated how the teaching flows out from the drawing (which is opposite of what Richard says). Did Richard give an adequate response to my pointing that out (teaching, drawing)?”
Although Calvinists frequently quote John 6:37 and John 6:44, they hardly ever quote John 6:45, which states: “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.” Rather than inferring an inward hearing and learned by irresistible regeneration, I inferred a literal hearing and learning, through the Scriptures, spoken by the prophets. Moreover, rather than the Gentiles, it was the Jews who had heard and learned from the Father, and not all Jews but only a remnant of true Israel who were faithful, whom the Father, on that account, drew to His Son in order to follow Him. Yet, the Jews who were unfaithful, even those who crucified Jesus, did get a second opportunity to be drawn to the Son, which is found at Acts 2:36-39. So my point is that the two drawings each have a distinct purpose.
Jim from oldtruth.com concludes: “Richard reads into passages like John 8:32 by insisting that some people can ‘MAKE God’ their Father, when in fact - none of the texts that he brings up teach that at all. This is eisegesis on his part.”
Chad from oldtruth.com asks: “You correctly stated that Christ was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel but let me test you then with this question. Who drew the Syrophoenician Woman in Mark 7:24-30? The Father or the Son? She is a Gentile and this event takes place somewhere between the end of John 6 and the beginning of John 7.”
Jesus drew both she and the Samaritans as well, according to John chapter 4. However, He did not begin His full scale ministry to the whole world, throughout Asia, by means of His apostles, until after Calvary. The point of John 12:32 wasn’t to make a point about who had drawn, but who He will draw, and that being all men, everywhere, as Jesus reaches out beyond the borders of Israel and Samaria.
Scott from oldtruth.com points out: “The attempt to show a transfer of sheep between the Father and Son based on John 3:30 is tenuous at best. The context of this verse is not to show that those that are being baptized by John the Baptist are being transferred but to address the jealousy that some of his followers felt of Jesus having greater crowds. ...there is no transfer of sheep between John the Baptist to Jesus because John the Baptist has no ownership (or what you now call custodianship) of the sheep. They belong to the Triune God. This in no way diminishes the Father’s role in drawing his sheep to himself and turning them over to the Son per Joh 6:37 & 44.”
If you had lived in the day of John the Baptist, would you have been baptized by him? Jesus did, and called it “fitting.” (Matthew 3:15) That means, through John the Baptist, you would have been baptized, purified, taught, trained, pointed to Christ and left him to follow Jesus. (John 1:35-37) But by your rules, I’m not allowed to consider that a custodial capacity. Think of it this way: Your pastor may have baptized you, taught you, trained you, and he may be called the guardian of your soul. (Hebrews 13:17) Similarly, Paul called himself the father of the Corinthians (1st Corinthians 4:15), but I am not allowed to consider John the Baptist as the guardian, shepherd, pastor or father of the Old Testament faithful, whom he baptized and turned over to Christ. In the most plain terms, John the Baptist was at least a Shepherd of the Father’s flock, though more appropriately called a Prophet. Nevertheless, he pastored the Father’s flock in every reasonable sense of the term, until the time came when he turned these over to the Son (John 1:35-37), and hence: “He must increase; I must decrease.” (John 3:30)
Here is a link to James White, in his radio program, The Dividing Line, commenting on the Arminian interpretation of John 6:44 (contained in the second half of the radio program).
James White explains: “What they will do, is they will make a statement and they will jump around the text, and follow their citations. Almost always they’ll go to 40, 45, and read it back into 37. They’ll be reversing the actual order because they’re not actually concerned about what the text says. They’re concerned about defending their position, and so they’ll jump down to 45 and ‘see these people learned from the Father, and therefore since they learned from the Father, they put themselves in the Father’s flock and that’s why the Father gives them to them,’ completely missing the fact that John 6:45 is a restatement of John 6:44, and that learning there is not ‘well they chose to learn, the Father was just teaching everybody, He taught everybody equally and these are the ones who chose to learn.’ That is such a gross misreading of John 6:45, that it’s sad to me to actually see those who claim to have some kind of exegetical capacity, making that kind of statement, but it’s the kind of statement that they make all the time. 6:45 is actually a repetition of the same concept in 6:44, and the teaching there is divine in nature. It is in fact, the very mechanism, the way that Jesus expresses, a restatement of that drawing, is that the Father teaches, He reveals, He is the source, this is a divine action. It’s not something where God is just throwing this out, and we chose whether we are going to accept it or reject it, or something along those lines. He quotes from the prophets, ‘It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God.’ Who is the ‘they’? The ‘they’ is those who’ve been given by the Father to the Son. We turn that around and say, ‘They are the ones who chose to be in the Father’s flock.’ It’s just amazing. Everyone who has heard and learned from the the Father comes to Me. Well who is that? Those who are drawn by the Father to the Son in the preceding verse.” (The Dividing Line, emphasis mine)
How do you know that John 6:44 is a “restatement” or “repetition” of John 6:45? Why assume that?
- “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” (John 6:44)
- “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.” (John 6:45)
- “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” (John 6:65)
45 is not a restatement of 44. These are truths about those who “come” to Jesus. They are given (37). They are drawn. (6:44) They are granted permission. (6:65) And, yes, those who had come to Jesus were those who had “heard and learned from the Father.” (6:45) Calvinists run into trouble is when they try to explain what it means to have “heard and learned” from the Father. There, Calvin invents an “inward address,” whereby the hearing and learning is actually symbolic for an alleged, preemptive placement in Christ, prior to being sealed in Christ, as per Ephesians 1:13. When White refers to the hearing and learning as a “divine action,” he similarly tosses out any literal interpretation of hearing and learning, and essentially endorses Calvin’s “inward address,” via an alleged, Preemptive Regeneration. If you want to see the Calvinist squirm, gently ask them to elaborate on what it means when these had heard and learned from the Father. White tries: “The Father teaches, He reveals, He is the source, this is a divine action.” White is trying to explain a Preemptive Regeneration, without explicitly saying so. Just follow up: How does the Father teach? How does the Father reveal? White will shrink right back into claiming that it’s the draw, in a desperate attempt to overwrite John 6:45 with John 6:44.
Question: Who did the Father “draw” to His Son?
Answer: Those who were the Father’s to give. Jesus clearly explains this: “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.” (John 6:45) What does it mean that they had “heard and learned” from the Father except that they had been admonished “by Your Spirit through Your prophets” (Nehemiah 9:30), most recently being John the Baptist, with the result that they now follow Jesus.
Question: How did the Father “draw” them to His Son?
Answer: Those who were the Father’s true sheep, that is, true Israel, who had submitted to John the Baptist, the Father simply presented to His Son. But of false Israel, Jesus states: “You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also.” (John 8:19) “‘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 8:32) Jesus said: “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.” (John 5:38) Those whom the Father did give (v.37) and did draw to His Son (v.44), were the remnant of true Israel, and thus were His to give, and naturally when they saw Jesus, they recognized the Father in Him. Jesus’ point was that the reason why false Israel had rejected Him, was because they had rejected the Father who sent Him, whom they falsely claimed to serve, even claiming that they were the disciples of Moses. (John 8:41; 9:28) For if they had truly loved the Father, then they would have loved His Son. This is confirmed at 1st John 5:1, which states: “Whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.” Thus, the interpretation of John 6:44 is that Jesus was telling the unbelieving Jews why they were not believing in Him: The Father, whom they claimed to serve, did not draw them to Him because they were not His sheep to give (John 10:26), despite their protests to the contrary. They did not believe in the Son because they did not believe in the Father either. However, had they believed in the Father, then they most certainly would have believed in the Son, and recognized the Father in Him.
Question: Do all who are “drawn,” according to John 6:44, become “raised”?
Answer: Yes. The HIM’s of 44a end up being 44b HIM’s on the last day. However, these are not the only one’s ever raised, because this is not the only drawing. Those who respond to the John 12:32 drawing are raised as well, or else what would be the point of that drawing, if those who respond are not ultimately raised? Whereas John 6:44 is the Father’s drawing of true Israel under the Old Covenant, John 12:32 is the Son’s drawing of all who missed the first drawing. That’s why Jesus went on to say to these Jews, “I have other sheep [presumably Gentiles]...I must bring them also…become one flock [raised, adding to the Jewish group of 44b Him’s].” (John 10:16)
Summary:
I contend that those whom the Father gave (v.37) and drew (v.44) to His Son (i.e. John the Baptist, Nathaniel, Simeon, Zacharias, ect.), that is, those whom God was their Father, being His true disciples, who had “heard and learned from the Father” (John 6:45) through “Moses and the Prophets” (Luke 16:31), were brought into His Son’s flock in a transfer of sheep (John 1:35-37; 3:26), just as John the Baptist had stated, “He must increase; I must decrease” (John 3:30), and that God had done so to completion. John the Baptist did not own the sheep, but was a Pastor of sorts to the Old Testament faithful, to whom He preached and baptized, in preparing the way for the Lord. (Malachi 3:1)
In other words, the drawing of John 6:44 was the Drawing of the Saved, to the extent that the OT Patriarchs like like Moses, David, Abraham, John the Baptist, Simeon, Joseph, Mary, Elizabeth, Zacharias, ect., could be saved, which is actually more like a protective custody in Abraham’s Bosom. (Luke 16:22, 25) Obviously, I’m not comparing them to NT believers in Christ. But my point is that the drawing of 6:44 is the drawing of those who had made “God” their Father, having “heard and learned from the Father” (John 6:45) through “Moses and the Prophets.” (Luke 16:31)
In terms of John 6:44, since Israel had been hardened and dulled (Isaiah 6:9-10; John 12:37-41), none of them can come to Christ until the Hardener (the Father) draws them.
Pre-Calvary: Jesus states: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) However, He did make a local visit to the Samaritans. This is not the world-wide drawing of John 12:32.
Post Calvary: Jesus states: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” This represents a world-wide ministry (Matthew 28:19) by His apostles throughout Asia, calling all men unto Himself. (Acts 2:39; John 20:28; Acts 9:15)
Question: Why could no one come to the Son apart from the Father drawing them?
Answer: In v.65, Jesus clarifies: “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” According to Isaiah 6:9-10, John 12:37-41 and Mark 4:10-12, God hardened their hearts and dulled their eyes (in a “partial hardening” until the fullness of the time of the Gentiles. (Romans 11:25) They could not come to Christ until the Hardener (the Father) drew them. For some, this didn’t occur until after Calvary. (Acts 2:37) Nevertheless, this “partial hardening” dealt specifically with Israel, and was not a secret. Surely the Jews were well aware of Isaiah 6:9-10, which is referenced at John 12:37-41. So John 6:44 is connected to a hardening which neither had anything to do with the Samaritans then, nor the Gentiles today. (However, some may read John 6:43-45 this way: No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and [him who does come to Me] I will raise him up on the last day. In this way, both him’s are the same, but with the implied contingency that he is drawn and comes.)
As discussed in John 6:37, the Father drew His sheep to His Son in order that they may belong to Him. This is partly why John the Baptist stated: “He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30) It’s a matter of sheep changing hands, from the Father’s to His Son’s, as they left John to follow Jesus. (John 1:35-37) People actually left John in order to follow Jesus, which may rightly be deemed a transfer of one to the other.
Question: How do you know that having “heard and learned from the Father,” according to John 6:45, simply means literally hearing and literally learning from the Father through the Scriptures by the Prophets, such as John the Baptist?
Answer: Calvin interprets it as an unconscious regeneration whereby God takes out their old heart and gives them a new heart in order to believe in His Son. However, “heard and learned” means simply that. Challenge the Calvinists to believe in the Bible exactly as it is written. These had literally, not merely spiritually, heard and learned of the Father, the God of Israel, through the teachers and prophets of Israel. Being His followers, they were then drawn to His Son. Consider a similar statement by the apostle Paul: “The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.” (Philippians 4:9) Now do you suppose Paul had in mind an “inward address,” or do you suppose that Paul is referring to people who had literally heard and learned from him?
Question: When did the Father “give” and “draw” people to His Son?
Answer: Matthew 3:17 states: “And behold, a voice out of the heavens said, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.’” During the ministry of Christ, the Father began to draw true Israelites to His Son. (John 1:47) However, Calvinists teach that the Father’s drawing to His Son, started in Genesis and continues today.
Question: How do you distinguish the Father’s draw of John 6:44 with the Son’s draw at John 12:32?
Answer: The drawing of John 6:44 was the Father’s drawing of the saved Jews, to the extent that the Old Testament patriarchs such as Moses, David, Abraham, John the Baptist, Simeon, Joseph, Mary, Elizabeth, Zacharias, ect., could be saved, which is actually more like a protective custody in Abraham’s Bosom. (Luke 16:22, 25) The remnant of true Israel, under the custody of the Law and the Prophets, was being drawn to the Son, in order to follow Him, and would ultimately, all be raised. Conversely, the draw of John 12:32 is the Son’s drawing of all of the unsaved, Jew and Gentiles alike, so that they too may become saved, and ultimately raised.
Question: How do you know which passages deal with the Jews and which deal with Jews and Gentiles alike?
Answer: Some passages are meant for general application, such as the Sermon on the Mount, and some passages exclusively involve God’s dealings with Israel, and not with the Gentiles, such as John 12:36-43, in which the Prophet Isaiah is quoted, concerning the hardening of Israel according to Isaiah 6:9-10. Would you like to apply that passage to the Gentiles? Why not? Are you suggesting that John 12:36-43 had a unique, Jewish application, but not John 6:37-45? So who is the one being selective now? While it’s true that a passage may be directed to one specific group, and yet also contain statements within, that have a broader application, it’s mutually agreed upon that the context is the determining factor for how it is to be interpreted.
Question: What happened to those who missed the draw of John 6:44?
Answer: No. Those of John 8:40-47 had missed the draw of John 6:44, or otherwise they would have already believed in the Son. Their next draw would be by the Son, according to John 12:32, and Acts 2:37 gives a good picture of how God had later, after the crucifixion, pierced their hearts of guilt, so that many of those who had crucified Christ, asked Peter what to do: “‘Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified.’ Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brethren, what shall we do?’ Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.’” (Acts 2:36-39) This was the 2nd draw by the Son.
Question: Why would Jesus have lectured the unbelieving Jews for having failed to make God their Father, if they had been given no opportunity to do so?
Answer: The fact is that God had reached out to them, and not just once or twice. Isaiah 65:2 states: “I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts, a people who continually provoke Me to My face.” Wouldn’t the suggestion that they never had any opportunity to make God their Father, make God’s spread hands into alligator arms? Recall from Jeremiah 18:12-13 that God loathed Israel’s ‘depravity excuse’ as a basis to remaining unrepentant: “But they will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’ Therefore thus says the LORD, ‘Ask now among the nations, Who ever heard the like of this? The virgin of Israel Has done a most appalling thing.’”
Question: What is being described in this passage?
Answer: This is actually one of two different drawings, the other being John 12:32. In this case, you have the Father’s drawing of the faithful remnant of Israel, who in truth, could say that God was their Father, whom the Father had now drawn to His Son, in order to follow Him. In that sense, those who were drawn by the Father were those who belonged to the Father, and on that account, were the Father’s to give, and in coming to the Son, they believed in the Son, and all who believe in the Son, will on the last day, be raised up to a Resurrection of Life.
Question: Does the context support this view?
Answer: Absolutely! John 6:45 states: “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.” The true disciples of the Father are those who had heard and learned from Him, which He then drew to His Son. That’s why Jesus explained at John 7:17 that if they would do God’s will, they would recognize His message as having come from the Father. That’s why Jesus explained at John 8:42 that those who have made God their Father, will love the Son. When they hear Jesus speak, they will recall what they had heard and learned from the Father, if they had truly heard and learned from the Father, which obviously they had not.
