Interpreting John 6:41-45: Coming to Christ (V.)

In this final post, Jesus had explicitly offered Himself -- the Bread of God (John 6:33), the Bread of Life (John 6:35) -- to His Jewish audience, and yet they would not believe in Him (John 6:36); they would not "work for . . . the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you" (John 6:27 NASB, and henceforth; cf. John 6:29).

Still, anyone who "comes to" and "believes in" Him will be "given to" Him as a gift from the Father (John 6:35, 37). These people He will raise up on the last day (John 6:39, 40), for He Himself came down from heaven to accomplish the Father's will (John 6:38), and the Father's will is that, "of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day" (John 6:39). How did the Jewish crowd react to Christ's message?

"Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, 'I am the bread that came down out of heaven.' They were saying, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?" (John 6:41-42, emphases added). Their complaint is very telling. I am led to believe that they did not detect any language from Jesus with regard to the doctrine of Unconditional Election, for had they done so, their reaction would have been different.

The Jewish people were considered God's elect people (cf. Deut. 7:7). They had been, corporately, yet individually, called out of the idolatrous nations through Abraham to be God's holy people; He had chosen them "to be a people for His own possession out of all peoples who are on the face of the earth" (Deut. 7:6). God chose to set His love on them (Deut. 7:7); and He did so unconditionally.

However, though the Jewish people as a nation were corporately chosen unconditionally, salvation, so to speak, was still conditioned upon faith in the God of Israel. In other words, none of the Jewish people were saved unconditionally. "For we say, 'Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.' How was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them" (Rom. 4:9-11).

The Jewish people were indeed the elect of God. (The apostle Paul insisted that "the adoption" and other prior blessings still belongs to them, cf. Rom. 9:4-5.) But this Messiah, Jesus, the one claiming to be the Son of God, insisted that the Jewish people needed to come to and believe in Him; and those who did come to and believe in Him were counted as a gift of the Father. But their grumbling was the result, not of Jesus rebuking them for their unbelief (cf. John 6:36), but for insisting that He was the Manna (i.e., bread) that had came down out of heaven. Andreas Köstenberger comments:

There are obvious parallels between Jesus' Jewish opponents and wilderness Israel (cf. Exod. 16:2, 8-9; Num. 11:4-23). Just as the Israelites grumbled about the first giver of bread, Moses, so now they grumbled about the second, Jesus (1 Cor. 10:10); and just as in the wilderness, the Jews' grumbling ultimately is directed against God himself (Moloney 1998: 217).¹

Jesus then commanded His Jewish audience, "Do not grumble among yourselves" (John 6:43). The Greek word for "were grumbling" at John 6:41 (egonguzon) is imperfect active indicative, informing us of a perpetual grumbling or complaining. They did not merely complain once but were continually grumbling and complaining about His message and claim. Their complaint seemed valid to them; after all, they had known Jesus, son of Joseph, since He was a small boy. Robert H. Mounce adds: "From their perspective, the logic was irrefutable. Jesus was either misguided or, even worse, attempting to foist off on them a fraudulent claim of essential superiority."²

Jesus, however, did not believe they had cause for grumbling. Frédéric Louis Godet explains: "In other words: 'A truce to these murmurs; it is not my word that is absurd; it is you who are incapable of comprehending it, and all your 'hows' will serve no purpose, so long as you remain in this moral condition."³ Adam Clarke agrees. The grumbling of the Jewish people was aroused because "the whole of his discourse went to prove that he was infinitely greater than Moses; and that he alone could give present peace and eternal glory to men."⁴

Their grumbling was futile. Jesus continued, "No one [oudeis, not even one person] 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'" (John 6:44-45). The Jews' grumbling about Jesus' identity was getting them nowhere, spiritually speaking. In other words, their grumbling was not drawing them toward Christ but away from Him.

Jesus said, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (John 6:35). Their grumbling against Him was only adding to their spiritual problem -- a spiritual problem inherent in the Jewish people for centuries (cf. Matt. 13:14-15; Isa. 6:9-10). Jesus then emphatically stated their true problem: they were incapable of coming to and believing in Him of their own strength. Again, Köstenberger writes:

Jesus proceeds to underscore the human inability to gain salvation apart from divine enablement. People can come to him only if the Father who sent Jesus draws them. Ultimately, therefore, salvation depends not on human believing [an impossibility], but on the "drawing" action of the Father (presumably by the Holy Spirit) by which God moves a person to faith in Christ (cf. [John 12:32]; see also Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4; see Ridderbos 1997: 232).⁵

Much attention has been granted to both the English and Greek words draw and elkuse respectively (elkuse being the aorist active subjunctive of the verb helkuo). This verb (according to BDAG) may refer 1) "to [moving] an object from one area to another in a pulling motion, draw, with the implication that the object being moved is incapable of propelling itself or in the case of [the person being] unwilling to do so voluntarily, in either case with implication of exertion on the part of the mover"; 2) "to draw a person in the direction of values for inner life, draw, attract, an extended figurative use"; 3) "to appear to be pulled in a certain direction, flow, a . . . figurative use . . . flow along of a river."⁶

Some emphasize the use of helkuo to mean drag, which does find scriptural usage (cf. John 18:10; 21:6, 11; Acts 21:30; James 2:6). Incidentally, BDAG places helkuo in the second categorical use of the word in John 6:44: "to draw a person in the direction of values for inner life, draw, attract." Albert Barnes concludes that God inclines the soul and thus receives all glory, but that the individual "yields without compulsion."⁷ John Peter Lange comments that helkuo denotes "all sorts of drawing, from violence to persuasion or invitation."⁸ Again, Godet explains: "The two divine works external and internal, answer to and complete each other. The happy moment in which they meet in the heart, and in which the will is thus gained, is that of the gift on God's part, of faith on man's part."⁹

R. C. H. Lenski agrees that this drawing, helkuo, is "accomplished by a specific power, one especially designed for the purpose, one that takes hold of the sinner's soul and moves it away from darkness, sin, and death, to Jesus, light, and life. No man can possibly thus draw himself to Jesus. The Father, God himself, must come with his divine power and must do this drawing; else it will never be effected."¹⁰ Lenski continues to defend his thesis that the external drawing "belongs equally to all three Persons" of the Godhead:

The Sender of Jesus is here mentioned because of the unbelieving Galileans; they are to understand that it is God himself who is now dealing with them through Jesus whom he has sent. The power by which these Jews are at this very moment being drawn is the power of divine grace, operative in and through the Word these Jews now hear from the lips of Jesus. While it is power (Rom. 1:16), efficacious to save, it is never irresistible (Matt. 23:37, "and ye would not").¹¹

That is the question most students of Scripture want answered: Is this drawing, helkuo, resistible? Arminians and others answer yes, while Calvinists and others answer no. Arminians and others emphasize persuasion and attracting, while Calvinists and others emphasize dragging (cause and effect).¹²

Jesus continued expounding on the concept of certain ones being drawn to Him, noting that those certain ones have "heard and learned from the Father" (John 6:45). This is directly connected to the previous verse.¹³ We understand that merely hearing the message of the gospel will not save the soul. Jesus said, "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock" (Matt. 7:24). James, the Lord's half brother, wrote, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves" (James 1:22). So it is that those who have "heard and learned from the Father" -- the message of the Father that Christ was presenting (cf. John 7:17) -- these are the ones who "come to" Jesus (John 6:45).

Yet, "coming to" (John 6:35, 37, 45), "believing in" (John 6:29, 35, 40), being "given" and "drawn" to Christ (John 6:37, 39, 44), "hearing and learning" the word (John 6:45; 7:17), are all activities initiated from the gracious internal and external moving of God, the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

__________

¹ Andreas Köstenberger, John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 213.

² Robert H. Mounce, "John," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Luke - Acts, Volume 10, revised edition, eds. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 446.

³ Frédéric Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John with an Historical and Critical Introduction (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers, 1886), 30.

⁴ Adam Clarke, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Volume I. -- Matthew to the Acts (New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1883), 562. Albert Barnes agrees: "This was spoken by Jesus to reprove their murmurings -- 'Murmur not among yourselves.' They objected to his doctrine, or murmured against it, because he claimed to be greater than Moses, and because they supposed him to be a mere man, and that what he said was impossible." See Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: The Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 248.

⁵ Köstenberger, 213. He continues: "Rabbinic sources use the expression 'to bring near to the Torah' with reference to conversion." The parallel is striking, given that Jesus is the Torah of God. In the footnote he writes, "There is a certain affinity between John's teaching on predestination and the Qumran doctrine of the 'two spirits' (1QS 3:14-4:6). The rabbinic view is summed up by a saying attributed to Rabbi Akiba (ca. A.D. 135): 'All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given.' . . ." (213-14)

⁶ A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), third edition, revised and edited by Frederick William Danker (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 318. Strong's gives us, "Metaphorically: to draw, induce to come (Jn 6:44; 12:32)," also noting its relation to aihreomai, "to take for oneself, i.e. to prefer: -- choose." See Strong's Complete Word Study Concordance, expanded edition, ed. Warren Baker (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2004), 2069, 2015.

⁷ Barnes, 248.

⁸ John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical: John, trans. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1871), 220.

⁹ Godet, 30.

¹⁰ R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel (Columbus: Lutheran Book Concern, 1942), 475.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Incidentally, if the word helkuo is to always mean drag, and little else, then why do we have not one English translation which reads, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me drags him; and I will raise him up on the last day"? Even the English translation favored by many Calvinists -- the English Standard Version -- reads, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44 ESV). If the translators are so utterly convinced that helkuo only means drag, then they should translate helkuo as such. The closest English translation to any semblance of necessitarian dragging is God's Word translation: "People cannot come to me unless the Father who sent me brings them to me. I will bring these people back to life on the last day" (John 6:44 God's Word).

¹³ Adam Clarke writes, "This explains the preceding verse. God teaches a man to know himself, that, finding his need of salvation, he may flee to lay hold on the hope which his heavenly Father has set before him in the Gospel. God draws men by his love, and by showing them what his love has done for them. Fear repels, but love attracts. He who is ever preaching the terrors of the law, and representing God as a vindictive judge, will never bring sinners to him. They are afraid of this terrible God: but they love him, who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life. (562)