John 6,35-45 is a favorite calvinistic passage to bolster the doctrines of grace. Especially verse 44 along with verse 65 is one of the most frequently cited statements by calvinists. It is used to argue that the submission to the gospel of Jesus Christ is impossible for natural man. Calvinists interpret this verse as saying nobody can believe in Jesus Christ on his own unless he is enabled so by God the father. This is the most frequently used reformed prooftext that faith must be a special gift from God. In this paper the reformed usage of John 6,35-45 is scrutinized.
It can be shown that the reformed interpretation of John 6:37-44 commits three basic exegetical fallacies:
1) It infringes the head-members-principle.
2) It disregards the principle "Scripture interprets Scripture"
3) It lacks support from plausibility and common sense.
This paper however, suggests an alternative interpretation that avoids the above blemishes.
Ancient documents usually lack meta data like disclosed introductions, chapters, conclusions, overviews etc. that we are accustomed to use and to find in modern writings. After all, these meta data alleviate following the author the way he intended to be understood and apprehend the right understanding. The bible authors used to write without punctuation, spaces and any outward structure, resulting in text strings difficult to handle. In particular, there is the problem of determining the author's objective and his writing's overall purpose. A variety of issues might be conveyed in an arbitrary way and coherence hard to find. However, if there is a certain key issue treated in a writing, then the head-members-principle demands that every part of the text is serving this key issue, the head, by contributing information that support the key issue. Thus, the key issue or the principle theme is the writing's "head", which is subdivided into several "members", the particular elaborations, explanations that constitute the text, the body.
A particular thought or theme conveyed in a writing is derived from a superior, preceding subject, which itself might have a predecessor and so on, up to the ultimate head subject. In the final analysis, a certain textual part subsumes or fulfils its subservient parts and ultimately everything is subordinate to the head, and thereby serving the author's goal.
Again, especially in ancient documents it is often difficult to determine whether there is one key issue that dominates the writing, because texts might as well consist of various fragments of information without coherence and so treat of different subjects. But if we are lucky, the author left a hint to his principle theme that is underlying his writing, thereby providing the hook on which the entire text is hung up. This provides the first clue to approach the text.
The text passage under scrutiny is contained in the gospel of John. Now, can we tell whether there is a key issue in the gospel of John, and if so, what is it? Fortunately, John didn't leave his readers uninformed about his overall intention. The key issue is given by verse 20:31:
"These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that by believing you may have life in his name"
The purpose is evangelical and the account's key issue is to provide the necessary teaching about Jesus Christ to convert the readers to the gospel. Therefore, we should expect that everything in John's gospel account serves this goal in one way or another. Now, what about verse 44, what status does it have in the body? The sentence of John 6,44 is embedded in the larger context of the bread of life teaching and seems to be made in passing. Even the repetition in v.65 doesn't change the status of this remark as a passing comment. One might object that the verse should still be more appreciated and this may be granted. But in any case, the notion that "no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him", is a minor matter in between and is settled in the text structure in a way one might sketch like this:
Now, while it is true that every part of the whole text must be compatible with the key issue, this doesn't necessitate that every part in itself actually contributes a real informative profit to the key issue. A writing might contain literary embellishments, comments made in passing or some "by the way"- insertions that don't seem to provide any informative value to the head and thus, are without use to the key issue in and of themselves. Besides, the author can side-step into a relative subject to gather additional information, in order to return to the original subject later with an additional informative avail. This is mustering knowledge from somwhere else. In such a case, the relative subject in itself might be quite alien to the orginal key issue. However, in this case it must still be apparent and traceable in which way this side-step is ultimately beneficial to the key issue and contributing to it. So it might not always be easy to determine in what way a piece of text is necessary or useful or whether it is dismissable.
However, there is one thing that cannot be: There can be no member in the text in opposition to the key issue. It is not allowed to have, say, a minor matter somewhere in between that thwarts the very principle theme, the key issue of the whole writing. Everything must be compatible with the overall issue and it isn't possible for the left little finger to work against the head. Rather all members must constitute a textual body that ultimately buttresses the head. Thus, if a part of the text, a member, suggests something incompatible with the head, then the important hermeneutic
head-members-principle is infringed. In this case, the exegete should by any means seek an understanding that avoids this blemish. And generally spoken, an understanding that aligns with this rule should be preferred over an interpretation that breaks it.
Now, what about John 20,31 and John 6,44? The entire gospel account (the body) is an exhortation to believe in Jesus Christ and to provide the basis for that faith. The readers shall come to faith by this very text. However, if John 6,44 means that nobody can believe on his own and that faith is dependent on divine enablement, then there is a problem. The entire writing would lose its balance. While 20,31 is an exhortation to the addressees, v.44 would override this key issue, by putting the initiative of faith on God. Thereby it would undermine the exhorting and encouraging key issue. If the fulfillment of the key issue (to believe in Christ)
is really out of the readers' hands, then v.44 is lifted up on the rank of the key issue and the whole text structure is out of balance. This is not to say, that we have a logical contradition here. No, that is not the case and this must be very clear. Theoretically, it is still possible that John's originally intended meaning is indeed what the reformed position holds. However this is doubtful, for we would have a severe hermeneutic blemish. The notion, that v.44 suggests that the issue of faith or unbelief is based on God rather than the entire textual body at hand (see 20,31), grossly violates basic hermeneutics. In this case it would be very unlikely that the author would not elaborate on this paradox any further. But there is more. If the calvinistic understanding of v.44 is correct, it is unlikely that the author would have structured his text the way he did, rather we would expect a text structure that contrasts two opposing main subjects and is built around the elaboration on this paradox. The shape of the text would be two-headed, highlighting the thought of John 20,31 on the one hand and the thought of John 6,44 on the other hand.
But of course, the gospel of John is not structured that way. The hierarchy sets v.20,31 above 6,44. To interpret v.44 as conveying natural man's inability to fulfill 20,31 without divine enablement, smells like
fine-print.
In fact, it is turning the textual hierarchy upside down. It is the "real truth" between the lines, which can easily be missed by a casual reading. In the midth of the bread of life discourse, the alert reader would find that with respect to the principal theme, there is a rub in the matter. Yes, it is very improbable that this is John's intended meaning.
Thus, if there is a convincing alternative to the awkward reformed understanding of 6,44 which doesn't deny man's innate ability to obey the gospel, then that interpretation should be preferred. And this alternative shall be delivered in the following, so let's get to the beginning of the passage, and examine it again.
The context of the discourse in John 6 is crucial as well. Calvinists start their argumentation by pointing to v.36 which says: "But I have told you that you have seen me and still do not believe". Now a calvinst commentator said, beginning at verse 37 Jesus explains their unbelief and the following discourse revolves around the explanation why some don't believe anyway. That's an unwarranted assumption. Rather it seems v.36 is a constatation that refers back to the preceding v.35. Jesus remarks that what he just said about the bread of life is of no use to these folks because they don't believe anyway. And this constatation is the point of contact that prompts the continuation of the sermon in a certain direction. It isn't self-evident what the said bread from heaven has to do with the person of Jesus, the speaker of these very words. Thus, beginning at v.37 Jesus continues the teaching about this precious bread from heaven and explains why it is necessary to believe in him with respect to the obtainment of this bread and about the consequence of unbelief. But nothing indicates that v.37ff is a disclosure of the reason why people disbelieve. Notice that explanatory statements are oftentimes introduced by the word "for", which refers to a preceding statement. This makes it clear that a reason is now provided. Yet v.37 isn't phrased as a reason for v.36. Rather v.37 follows v.36 as a deepening of the subject of the bread of life and its background. The motivation for Jesus to proceed his saying with v.37 is the underlying truth that the audience will not receive this bread unless they believe. However, there is no reason to assume that the passage 6,37-44 is a treatment of the mystery of unbelief which is unveiled. Jesus doesn't deal with the question why some folks, upon seeing and hearing the son of God, nevertheless stay in unbelief. This is absolutely important to grasp here, because calvinists make the unwarrented assumption, that the passage under scrutiny is a disclosure of the secret of unbelief.
That brings us to v.37 which is pivotal. It is grammatically noteworthy and its semantics are decisive with regard to the whole remainder of the sermon. The understanding of v.37 will essentially shape the interpretation of the rest of the passage. After all, the verse raises some interesting semantic issues.
First, what do the terms "give" and "come" mean in v. 37?
Second, the sentence structure is noteworthy. There is a double-arrival at Jesus. Does "give" have the meaning of a gift or a promise or a credit? Or does it simply refer to a transfer? Objects are first given to Christ and then come to Christ. There seem to be two ways on which one and the same object arrives at Christ. The giving might denote a promise that is later fulfilled. But this is unwarraned so far.
Third, why is "all" neuter and "whoever" personal in v.37? And again, why is "all", which is given and "it" which is raised up, neuter in v.39? Why not "all those" or "everyone" in v.37 and 39? Is there a deeper meaning behind this use of genders?
So what does it mean for the Father to "give" something to the son?
The following suggestions come to mind:
i)To give anticipates the idea of to draw in v.44. Hence, v.37 says that all who are drawn by the Father will come to Christ.
ii) To give denotes the pre-eternal decree of God where he decided to join a people to Christ. Thus, it denotes a definite decision of God, a promise to the son which is realized in the time of the world, when the individuals of this people actually believe in Christ and become adopted as sons.
What about i)?
It is strange why the meaning of drawing, according to calvinism the enablement to repent and believe in Christ, would be set equal to God's giving to Christ. To give me = To enable him is a weird way to say the same thing. The giving of v.37 indicates a transaction. There is a sender, a recipient and an object of that transaction. The Father is the sender, the giver. The Son the receiver. The one drawn would now be the object given. Such linguistic gymnastics appear somewhat awkward. Besides, the determination of the meaning of to give would be shifted to the determination of what to draw at v.44 means. The smooth reading would at first be interrupted by the ambiguity of what v.37 is actually all about.
What about ii)?
To think of God's actions before the foundation of the world and God's decree here, is quite far-fetched unless there is further support by the passage itself. But there is nothing which would render this interpretation nearby. Furthermore, the present tense of to give doesn't seem to suggest the absolute past tense of the decree of God. Calvinists, who adopt ii) might point out that God's decree is an eternal reality and the Father beyond time and so the usage of the present tense might be plausible. But v.39 uses to give in the present perfect ("has given"). If the giving refers to the eternal decree before the foundation of the world and the present tense at v.37 denotes its timeless nature, why then the present perfect at v.39? Or is the giving in v.39 again something different?--It's highly unlikely that the giving of v.39 refers to something else than the giving at v.37, considering the textual flow and the closeness of the words' positions. Thus, the argument that gives at v.37 is present tense because it denotes the timelessness of the decree, is very weak. Such arguments can only be understood from a precommitment to reformed theology. The present perfect in v.39 seems to be simply underlining the fact that Christ could possibly only lose what has alreday come to him. You cannot lose something you don't have yet.
But what about to come. Is it synonymous with to believe? An argument in favor of the equal meaning of the terms may be based on v.35, where the Lord says whoever comes will never be hungry and whoever believes never be thirsty. The unity of eating the flesh of the son of man and the drinking of his blood suggests that to come is a picture of faith and simply meant as another vocable for to believe. But there are good reasons that there is still a significant difference in meaning and a purpose why two verbs (to come and to believe) are used to express supposedly one and the same thing. Why do both these words occur in the passage, rather than a consequent usage of believe only? It might be just a linguistic device illustrating a believer's faith as an approach to the savior, showing how he escapes from his sinful state into the arms of a welcoming savior. Accepting that reading, the term come in that passage is indeed nothing else than a metaphor of faith. However, it can be shown that there is a convincing reason why Jesus chose to express his teaching that way and why there is a crucial semantic distinction between the words.
With regard to the interpreation of John 6:35-45 we can conclude so far, that since v.37 is grammatically so special and the proper meaning of the words "give" and "come" are unclear so far, we should be careful with our following interpretation.
It is vitally important to get the correct meaning of v.37.
The "bread of life" is only handed down by John. On the other hand, John omits another important concept of the synoptics--the gospel of John is not a gospel of the kingdom of God. Well, of course it is since John doesn't teach another gospel, but the phrase "kingdom of God" which is an absolutely prevalent motif of the synoptics, isn't contained in the entire johannine gospel account. All of Jesus' many sayings about the kingdom aren't narrated by John at all. John puts the truths in other ways. Another characteristic is the absence of parables in John's writing. On the other hand, the bread of life teaching which is the topic of the passage under scrutiny here, doesn't occur in any other gospel account. The evangelist John, who certainly reports about the same Jesus and the same apostles and the very same truths taught by Jesus, uses different traditions to convey the gospel message. It is quite outstanding that John's gospel of the kingdom of God gets by without mentioning that kingdom. The illustrations and imagery used are different.
Why is this observation important? Because sound exegesis is, among other cirteria, based on comparative studies where this is possible. If there are several scriptural witnesses to the same state of affairs then one might use a juxtaposition of these different accounts to develop a coherent interpretation. In such a juxtaposition one and the same truth might be approached from different angles. Thus, if we had another account of the bread of life discourse that portrayed the same issue as in John 6, then we might compare these accounts and perhaps gain deeper insights. After all, this John 6 discourse, including the critical sayings of vs. 37, 44 and 65 is without further support. No other biblical author seems to be confirming these critical verses. While Jesus introduces the last supper and Paul mentions this christian custom as well, a comparable elaboration isn't found elsewhere much less a backing of the pivotal verses 37,44 and 65.
Since John is writing about the same Jesus and the same gospel, the question needs to be asked whether the other gospel accounts contain anything treating of the same subject as John does in this discourse. Does our passage under scrutiny stand in isolation? Or is there another way of teaching the same spiritual realities as the bread of life in the other gospel accounts?
When we consider v.6,15 we see that the crowd that had been fed by the foregoing miracle, wanted to have Jesus as their king. The one who was able to supply bread forever, should be lifted up on the throne. Of course Jesus baffled this plan by withdrawing from them, but wasn't Jesus really sent to become a king? Yes, he was sent to become a king reigning on the throne of David. His kingdom shall outlast the world and his kingship shall last forever. Yes, Jesus was going to become a king. However, He was sent to take the throne of the kingdom of God. In other words, there was already a king who would hand over the kingdom to his son: God. The crowd was trying to make Jesus king by force. But Jesus' enthronement would be a transaction between his father and him. God the Father is king over the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ, the prince, is his successor.
When we consider this with regard to the passage John 6:35ff and the bread of life teaching, is there a relevance anyway? Most assuredly this is most relevant.
What does the teaching about the bread from heaven to do with the kingdom of God? Note, the kingdom of God is described in many ways and with many illustrations one of which is found in Matthew 22,2-14: The parable of the wedding feast.
The kingdom of God is like....The kingdom is compared to a king who organizes the wedding for his son. The son is the prince, the successor. Naturally, this one will be the next to sit on the throne. Now, the parable has an interesting allegory or comparison of the kingdom and its whatabouts. The kingdom of God is like....
What is the plot of the narrative in Matthew 22:2-14?
The father organizes the wedding feast and issues the invitation. He calls the guests that are to come to the person of honor, his son. It is important to notice that the son is not concerned with the preparations of the wedding, but the father is doing that. The king is going to hand over the kingdom to the prince, the father is going to give the kingdom to his son, and this is mirrored by the Father's giving a people of worthy guests to his son's wedding. The kingdom of God is like....
And Jesus' kingship is vastly different than what the unbelieving people of John 6 expected, as will become clear.
Another prevalent NT motif doesn't occur in John: The wedding supper of the lamb of God. Alternatively, John gives us the bread of life teaching. Both elements point to the same spiritual reality. The wedding supper is God's precious gift to the overcomers, the saints. It is agape, the closest communion with God. It is the joy of fellowship with God, of sitting on his rank at his table and the enjoyment of his communion forever. Since God is absolutely self-sufficient and self-sustaining he himself fulfills all needs. Thus, with respect to the wedding dinner there is actually no need for an additional extra "accessoire" that would be the basis for eternal joy, rather the wedding supper is divine in itself -- the flesh and blood of God himself. Thus, the bread of life is another illustration for the wedding supper of the lamb of God. Communion, the eternal and closest union with God. Obviously there is a similarity between the parable of the wedding banquet (see also Luke 14,15ff) and the bread of life discourse in John 6, which we are trying to understand.
If the kingdom of God outlasts this age while the rest of the world is going to be destroyed, then in order for someone to outlast the world he must be an inhabitant of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God shall last forever, overcoming the world, and likewise those who attend Christ's wedding banquet will never perish. Entering the wedding feast and sitting down to sup with God is comparable to entering a saving ark.
"All that the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never cast out."
The king had first called a set of acquaintances (the Jews) who proved unworthy which led the king to the rejection of this group and to issue another invitation (gentile mission). The people chosen now and called by the servants, are those on the crossroads, the pagans out of the nations, "anyone you can find". The king (God the Father) gives "the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame" (Luke 14:21) to the son. He chooses those from the highways and hedges as guests for his son, and compels them to come, without respect of persons.
Not everyone can come. Righteouness required! The king will not admit everyone!
"Good and bad" people are picked up now. This gathering of persons is like a fishing net that is thrown into the water and musters both good and bad fishes. Of course, the fishermen are only interested in the good exemplars.
Why won't Jesus cast anyone out? -- Because he is doing the will of the father: To reign over the kingdom which shall outlast the world. He shall reign without defeat forever. So will all the inhabitants of that kingdom, the guests at the banquet! They will likewise be raised up at the last day.
Why is Jesus saying anyway: "I will never cast out"? What is he referring to in the context of John 6? -- Well, there are actually persons "coming" on their own terms who will not be admitted to the wedding. In fact the father will not allow them entrance.
"When the king came in to see the guests....."
The man without a wedding garment (Matthew 22,11-13) was not honoring the king, nor his son but came on his own terms. He was "drawn" by selfish motives, not by divine motives. He lacked righteousness. Righteousness implies doing the will of God. Many a man in the audience of John 6 that were gathered around Jesus, were expecting to receive the bread of the world from a king of this world and have a happy empire of this world where they could pig-out. They wanted to make Jesus king, but on their own terms. They wanted this king to supply bread forever, but according to their agenda. But as a matter of fact, God the Father would make Jesus king and surrender the kingdom to his son! If anyone wants the desired bread from heaven, they have to come to the kingdom that Jesus would receive. There they would find the bread that you can eat and don't die. Can anyone come to that kingdom? How can you come?
Isaiah speaks of the righteousness of God as “garments of salvation” and “robes of righteousness” (Isa 61:10).
"The wedding garment, made of bright white linen is the righteous deeds of the saints" (Revelation 19,8-9)
No one can come to the wedding banquet without proper attire. No-one can receive the bread of life without the righteousness in the sight of God. The king didn't spare the acquainted guests that engaged in severe iniquity and inteded to have worthy guests in his wedding hall. It is clear that unworthy (unrighteous) persons are not welcome. In fact they are eliminated at the entrance.
The Father doesn't give sinners to Christ, but saints!
An absolutely crucial observation. Yes, exactly right here is the clue! Calvinists interpret John 6:37 as sinners being the objects of the divine transaction here. Dirty Sinners are picked up by the Father and moved to the son, so that the son should in turn cleanse them. It is very doubtful that this is the right perspective to begin with!
We can make the first constatation: The meaning of "to come to Christ". To come to Christ is equal in meaning with the obtainment of the precious bread from heaven. There can be no doubt about that. "Come to me" is synonymous with the receipt of the desired bread of life. Put differently, to come to Christ is in parallel with coming to the kingdom of God which is becoming the kingdom of the son of God. And since the kingdom of God is a picture of heaven, the concept behind "coming to Me" or "coming to Christ" is ultimately the entrance to heaven. But this can be buttressed further. After all, sound exegesis demands a proper understanding of the terms and expressions used and the way expressions are used sometimes is a peculiarity of the particular author. Thus, the question must be asked how the author of an available scripture uses a certain expressions elsewhere. So are there further occurences of the phrase "to come to me" in the johannine gospel account, apart from chapter 6? Yes, there are two more occurences of "coming to Christ": In 3,21 and 5,40.
The first occurence is in the judgment passage:
"But those who live by the truth come into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."
The fact that this verse is in reference to judgment underlines the fact that the phrase "come into the light" is eschatological in meaning. And it presumes righteousness in the sight of God. Those and only those who have good works will come to the light. To come to the light then is in parallel with coming to Christ.
The second verse (5,40) says "But you will not come to me to have life". This seems to carry the meaning of coming to the source of the water of life and Jesus is presenting himself as the fulfillment of the jewish messianic hope. The eschatological connotation shines through here also.
Israel's salvation and the establishment of a messianic reign did not happen as the majority of Jews was expecting. The messianic era (gold) did not replace the old age (brown) in an abrupt break like this:
Rather the new age of God's kingdom (gold) would begin while the old age (brown) continues up until the last day. Then the old world will be destroyed and the kingdom of God continue forever. The result is a parallel co-existence of the visible present age and the yet invisible kingdom of God. They are overlapping and it is vital to enter the kingdom now, that is, to "enter the ark" that will overcome the current age. This crossing to God's kingom is the meaning of "coming to me [Christ]":
This is the right perspective on the relation between the current world and the coming age. The new age began with Christ's mission on earth and is currently invisibly co-existing with the old world (Luke 17,21). It will last forever. So the eschatological sense of "to come to Me [Christ]" fits in the johannine gospel narrative and is probably the intended sense of that phrase. (This temporal double nature of salvation (already/not yet) is also prevalent in the epistle to the Hebrews.)
Above I raised the question why Jesus differentiates between coming and believing in this discourse. Lest misunderstandings arise it should be emphasized here that all believers come and all who come are believers. Believing and coming are interchanging and they are overlapping just as the kingdom of God is overlapping with this current world. The double tension of salvation, that is, the already/not yet-double nature of the messianic kingdom shows this current parallel existence of the old world and the kingdom of God. Thus, the eschatological, future salvation is reaching into the present age.
Now, v.37 says whosoever comes will never be cast out. Faith is a mere mental assent, something personal and invisible. Casting someone out somehow denotes a forceful act. It awakes the association of a physical action. If coming means to believe, that is, a mental activity then how does "casting out" relate to this? Here it seems that the "coming" has an eschatological connotation. It means to come to the kingdom of God, to come to heaven. It doesn't merely denote a person's belief but a consequence of that belief. Furthermore, coming is something only righteous ones can do.
The following is decisive with respect to the interpretation of John 6:35ff:
When speaking of salvation Calvinists often reduce this to the soteriological meaning thereof: The legal delivery of sinners from their sins. In other words, the objects of salvation are sinners, the enemies of God, and these are saved from his wrath by being imputed the righteousness of Christ. This is the soteriological mode of salvation. Yet there is another level of salvation taught throughout the scriptures: The eschatological mode of salvation. The salvation of the saints from the world. Yes, God is ultimately the savior of the righteous. Nothing unclean will enter heaven, nobody who works iniquity will enter the heavenly city and become partaker of God's kingdom. In the final analysis no sinners are saved -- the saints are! This is the eschatological aspect of salvation and it is crucial to see the difference. The picture of coming to Christ's wedding dressed in fine wedding attire is a metapor of the eschatological salvation of the saints. If someone comes in street clothing (as a sinner), he will not be permitted.
One must be righteous before one comes to Christ's meal.
This is the meaning of v. 44. The gospel is both an invitation and a commandment. It is obligatory for the righteous ones to attend. You must be "drawn" by the love for God. Loving God, however is righteousness.
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him". (v. 6,44)
This is, as said above, a sentence that doesn't have another witness in the bible by another author. But the truth that some persons are unable to be saved is pointed out elsewhere too. See Luke 13,23-27:
23 Someone asked him, 'Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?' He said to them, 'Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, “Sir, open the door for us.” 'But he will answer, “I don't know you or where you come from.”'Then you will say, “We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.” 27 'But he will reply, “I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!”(Emphasis added)
The inquiry about salvation in v.23 is eschatological. Israel's ultimate salvation is meant here. Some will not make it through the narrow door. They will be unable. Why? The reason for the inability is given in v.27: iniquity. This is most probably the meaning of John 6:44. Nobody can enter heaven as a sinner. Righteousness is the prerequisite. That's plausible. But if so, how does anyone become righteous so that he may be welcomed to the wedding supper of the lamb of God? How does anyone receive the righteousness of God? -- Read the key issue that subsumes the entire gospel of John (John 20:31) -- it is by faith in Jesus, the son of God. Believe! Here is the reason for the interchanging use of "coming" and "believing" in that discourse.
Verse 64-65 have Jesus remark that not all in the audience believe. If they don't believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God however, they will stay in their sins and if they are sinful, they won't be able to come to Christ. The Father will not grant them access to the royal society. Considering the reformed understanding that coming is synonymous with faith, one might pose the question, why Jesus isn't simply saying that nobody can believe in him unless granted by the Father. Why doesn't the text read: "Some of you don't believe...that's why I told you that no one can BELIEVE in me, unless it is given him by the Father"?
So there are two senses of "salvation". The first sense, the soteriological sense, is along the lines of the question: "How do I get my sins forgiven?". The underlying problem is the lacking righteousness in the sight of God and the suffering of his wrath. The dirty clothes of wicked works, the lacking wedding garment, which is the dress code for heaven are the underlying misery one must be saved from. Hence, this meaning of salvation denotes a legal action.
The second sense, the eschatological sense, is the entrance to the kingdom of God, the passing through the narrow door (Luke 13,22-30), the bride's coming to the wedding supper of the lamb of God, the arrival at the holy city, the coming to Mount Zion, the trespass from the old world to the kingdom of God (even if it is still invisible). This is the ultimate meaning of salvation. And clearly, the objects of ultimate salvation are the righteous not the wicked. The saints, not sinners. And this is also the salvific meaning behind the Lord's words in John 6.
Thus, the calvinistic interpretation of John 6:35ff is based on the wrong perspective. The deeper problem stems from the fact that the meanings of the critical expressions "all", "come", "give" and "draw" are not set per se. Instead, these words are ambiguous. Now, a correct understanding of a text isn't solely determined by its grammar, its logical coherence and its smooth readability, but also by semantics. That means it is determined by the assignment of meanings to the naked expressions used. The interpreter must find the right setting for these vocables and determine their meaning. Thus, the interpretation of John 6:35ff depends decisively on how the meaning of ambiguous expressions is set.
So the error of the reformed understanding of John 6:35ff can be illustrated by the problem of consonant texts. In a consonant text, the skeleton of words is provided, but this of course doesn't determine a word completely much less does it enable the reader to pronounce the word. Rather the vowels must be filled in and that in the right way. Now, compared with the passage John 6:35ff one might say the expressions "give" "come" "all that", "draw", the syntax, the order of sentences etc. are like the consonants. They comprise the necessity and are indisputable. They aren't subject to debate. But in order to understand the passage, one must know some semantics too, which can be compared to the vowels. And this semantic problem is the assignment of meaning to ambiguous words. Calvinism does this by imposing sophistic theological concepts on the words.
--draw = inward address, effectual call, regeneration
--all that = the elect
--give = pre-eternal decretive promise given to Christ
--come = god-given saving faith
Consequently, the calvinists finds 3 of the doctrines of grace in that short passage: Total Depravity (v. 44), Unconditional Election (v.37) and Irresistible Grace (v.37).
But it is far-fetched to read the idea of pre-eternal election into v.37, because of the reasons provided in the beginning of this article. It is also far-fetched to find Total Depravity in the passage, because the idea that natural man is unable to believe the gospel is just outlandish and without any further scriptural support. More, there is a plausible explanation of v.44 which agrees with the NT's overall teaching. And last but not least it is far-fetched to read Irresistible Grace in the reformed sense into v.37 because the meaning of "give" in v.37 is already ambiguous (is it equal to the "drawing" in v.44 or is it the promise given to Christ prior to the foundation of the world?).
It has been shown that John 6,37-44 doesn't stand in isolation without any further biblical witness to bolster the truth conveyed there. Rather the expectation that John's unique bread of life teaching should somehow be treated by the synoptics also, has found confirmation. The truths described in the johannine gospel account align with the kingdom motif which is so prevalent and fundamental that it is nearby to seek parallels to this motif, rather than introduce completely new sophistic concepts into the passage. The latter is what the calvinistic interpretation does. And it is unjustifiable to impose complexity and foreign concepts on a text without a need to do so. Rather, the principle that scripture should interpret scripture should lead us to consider a juxtapositon of gospel accounts in the first place and develop our interpretation in harmony with these scriptures. This should especially be seen as the proper way since the synoptics approach the same truth and the same Jesus Christ from different angles. On the other hand, the calvinistic introduction of three of the "doctrines of grace" into this passage imposes a theological complexity onto the passage that is unnecessary and hence, illegitimate. This is especially true because the notion that faith in the gospel is basically impossible for sinners, betrays common sense. Thus, the reformed usage of John 6 is without a reasonable hermeneutic basis and can only be comprehended by a stubborn precommitment to reformed theology.
Finally, a few more words why the reformed usage of the passage betrays common sense. The notion of sinful man's incapability of faith is bizarre. The exhortation and even commandment to exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the core of the entire NT literature. Are we really to think that an arcane dogma is hidden as fine-print in the midth somewhere? Though it is convincing that natural man is unable to conform to the ten commandments and live a sinless life in the flesh, it is not equally convincing that he should not be able to repent of his sins and embrace the gospel of grace! The new covenant of the gospel (Rom. 3,21ff) has been bestowed in order to successfully save the fallen mankind that couldn't be saved through the old law of works. Thus, it is highly implausible that natural man shall be unable to believe in Jesus Christ. This is especially true in light of the exhortation throughout the whole New Testament to do just that!
To conclude, in light of John's key issue (John 20:30-31), it would require an extraordinarily strong argument for the reformed interpretation of John 6,37-44 to be plausible. This holds especially true for the doctrine of total depravity which calvinists claim to find evidence for in John 6,44. Yet such extraordinarily strong argument in favor of calvinism cannot be made, especially since there is another interpretation which is both in accordance with the rest of the bible and avoids textual imbalance. That interpretation therefore is by far superior to the reformed one.
The passage John 6,37-44 is part of John's unique way of teaching about the communion motif. Communion is the expression of agape, the fellowship with God in the form of supping together. This communion is God's love for the saints, the overcomers of the evil world, those who have washed their clothes and proved worthy. The pivotal difference between this and the reformed interpretation lies in the question of whom the Father gives to the son--saints or sinners? The calvinist assumes that the father joins sinners to Christ. Yet this article has argued why the objects of this divine transaction are by no means sinners, but saints. Far be it from God to give sinners to his son! Likewise, those who are granted to come to Christ and are drawn by the father, are no sinners, but righteous ones. Yet calvinists would have sinners to be the objects of this divine transfer. Though the text is syntactically unambiguous, the calvinistic understanding stems from a neglect of semantics and comparative studies. These are the errors of the calvinistic interpretation of John 6,37-44.
