44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him
On the one hand the drawing in this passage is not irresistible grace, yet on the other no one can come to Christ without the Father drawing them initially. It is a humbling truth that we cannot come to God by operation bootstraps. Salvation is not entirely at our discretion. People never by themselves seek God; God first takes the initiative with man. God never leaves Himself without a witness.
The Greek does not indicate the nature of the drawing. The figurative idea includes some form of attraction (LXX, Jer 31:3). The point here is that no one can come to Christ without God taking the initiative.
The drawing here is the creating of an inner disposition by God on the soul to respond to Christ. No one will come to Christ unless the Father first draws. Drawing precedes faith. The Father sets up the conditions whereby a person can believe or disbelieve. God always works by means He determines.
PRINCIPLE:
No one can believe without God first taking the initiative.
APPLICATION:
Since the word “draws” connotes to draw toward something without necessarily the notion of force, this drawing is not irresistible grace. However, in the case of the human being, we are not capable of propelling ourselves toward salvation. The drawing by the Father is not irresistible grace but, on the other hand, no one can come to Christ without God first taking the initiative.
Salvation does not rest solely within man. There is no way that anyone can make a decision to come to Christ without divine intervention. Salvation must be initiated by God. People are unable to come to Christ on their own. God must first act on the soul. He does not simply beckon; He “draws” people to Himself. Faith apart from God is impossible.
Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, no one can believe in Christ. No one can come to Christ without the moving of the Holy Spirit on his or her soul (Jn 16:8-11). People cannot come to God by their own strength, reason, or effort. Only the Holy Spirit can convict and draw us to God. God’s drawing opens the individual to the reality of who and what Jesus is. The extent of the Holy Spirit’s work is universal (Jn 16:7-11).
God must draw us to Himself, otherwise we would never come to Him. Salvation is initiated by God, but we must respond to that initiative. We respond to God’s grace as an active agent with free choice. God sovereignly acts on our lives. He does this by concurring with everything in our lives. No event is outside His control. By this He gives us every opportunity to make a decision for Christ.
God’s role is to decide that certain things will take place in creation. That also includes what will take place in our lives. God gives human beings a limited liberty that operates within His sovereignty. Even within the limited liberty of man, God either agrees to or does not agree with a decision we may make. This is what we call the doctrine of concursus. Either God concurs within His sovereignty or He does not. God is the first cause; man operates as a second cause. In His foreknowledge, God decided that certain things will take place in our lives, down to every event or experience we face. The plan of God renders certain that man will act freely within His control.
The best and most detailed bible commentary that I have read on John 6:44. Would you agree that there is some disagreement among “moderate” Calvinists on the nature of God’s drawing? For instance, some would say that this drawing of God is “effectual” always resulting in salvation. While other moderate Calvinists would agree with your position that this drawing is a wooing or an attraction in drawing the sinner to Himself. The Classic Arminian view is a bit different in that they call this drawing “prevenient grace”. They believe that drawing partially regenerates the sinner so that he can make a decision. But this view implies that the lost sinner is not just totally depraved, they also hold to total inability, rejecting “freewill”.
JROCK, I agree that most moderate Calvinists hold to the view that God’s drawing always results in the conversion of souls to Christ.
Some moderate Calvinists also use the term “prevenient grace” for their view (Millard Erickson, for example).
This verse tells us that the “him” who is drawn by the Father is the SAME “him” who will be raised up at the last day (ie. the “him” will receive eternal life). Therefore WHOEVER is drawn by the Father will receive eternal life. So if the Father draws EVERYONE then the result is universalism.
Jonathan, thanks for your comment.
Is the drawing of John 6:44 resistible? Jesus said nothing about the resistibility to the drawing by the Father in this verse. His only point was that the Father’s drawing was necessary for belief to occur. Another verse shows that God’s “draw” can be resisted (Jn 5:40).
It is clear that some people did not believe in the gospel (Jn 5:40). The reason they did not believe was that they were not receptive to God’s Word. It was not because they were non-elect, but because they did not believe in God’s Son. John 6:44 does not speak of individual election to eternal life but that God personally draws people to the possibility of faith. Whether they accept the drawing is up to their volition.
The idea in John 6:44 is that before anyone came to Christ God previous drew them to Himself. This does not annul human choice but refers to the enlightening or impelling influence by the Father. It is the Father role in influencing those who come to Christ. Those who yield to this influence will become Christians.
It is not valid to illegitimately transfer the meaning of “draw” from other passages such as Acts and James to John 6. That is an exegetical fallacy. The usage of a word must be within the greater context of the argument of a book of the Bible and the immediate context. John uses elkuo four times: John 12:32; 18:10; 21:6-7. Use of elkuo with literal inanimate objects is not conclusive to this verse. The meaning in John 6:44 is clearly metaphorical.
John 12:32 says that the Lord will “draw all peoples to Myself.” This is a drawing on the volition of “all peoples” to Jesus. His drawing was universal without exceptions. There is nothing compulsive about this. John 12:32 is the only other figurative or metaphorical use of elkuo in the gospel of John.
The word “draw” is in the subjunctive mood indicating a contingency or possibility at some point (aorist tense). The word “raise” is future tense. The Greek future does not deal in time but logical progression. In other words the idea is this, should a person hypothetically respond (subjunctive mood) to the Father’s drawing then a logical necessity follows from that—he will be raised up. There is no universalism taught here.
It is important to note that those drawn are “taught” by God (Jn 6:45-46). They also “learned” from the Father. Those who are positive volition toward the teaching and learning “come to” Jesus. The issue is divine persuasion from the Bible itself. Only inner illumination that God gives can enable a person to respond to Christ. They need to be “taught” by God (Jn 6:45; a paraphrase of Isa 54:13). Man cannot come to God by his own judgment but must hear and learn from the Father. God always functions in the realm of His concursus. He never concurs with anything outside His plan. He also takes the initiative or, if you please, He always functions within His concursus. As long as man is confident of his own ability, he cannot believe. See this page that deals with the tension between God’s will and man’s will: https://versebyversecommentary.com/articles/doctrine/concursus/gods-decree-and-free-will/
The reason Jesus quoted the Old Testament in the next verses was to establish that universal drawing—“all” will be taught by God Himself. John 6:46-47 indicates that he who rejects the Son also rejects the Father who draws people to Him. Jesus is explaining the way the Father draws people to Himself. He does this by teaching. Both listening and learning require positive volition (John 6:46-47). Those who listen and learn will be taught by God and drawn to Jesus. There is both divine and human roles in coming to faith. Both the drawing of God and reception by faith are interwoven.
Jesus alone had “seen” the Father and so He alone can give this inner illumination (Jn 6:46). He is the true bread that gives eternal life (Jn 6:51). That “bread” had to be eaten to receive eternal life.
By quoting Isaiah 54:13 Jesus claimed that eschatological blessings of the last day would take place in His ministry by those who believe in Him.
It is clear that no one can come to God by operation bootstraps; salvation requires divine initiative. There is no salvation without God’s initiative and an individual’s response to that initiative.
The exegesis you have offered is incorrect. The action of drawing by the Father infallibly results in eternal life to the one who is being drawn. In your view the person who is drawn may or may not have eternal life depending on his/her response or choice made. As if it is possible for the Father to draw someone and that someone ends up not having eternal life. John 6:44 is consistent with what John 6:37 says about all (the elect) that the Father gives to the Son WILL come to Son. Both actions of the giving and drawing of the Father infallibly results in coming to the Son. Coming to the Son never takes place by some cooperative effort by man and God. Jesus said in John 6:36 that they don’t believe and he tells us why in John 6:37. People don’t believe because they will not, cannot AND they are not given by the Father to the Son (also not drawn by the Father).
John 12:32 does say that all men are drawn but that needs to interpreted in context. In John 12:20 there were Greeks coming to see Jesus therefore “all men” means all KINDS of men ie. Greeks and Jews not everyone universally.
Jonathan,
Your interpretations of John 6:37 and 6:44 have some unsupported assumptions. You assume that the drawing in John 6:44 is an efficacious drawing in the sense that people are forced to decide for Christ based on irresistible grace (see my comments above). This passage says no more than God draws (it appears that this is simply conviction or the process of God’s concursus). The onus is on you to establish that the drawing is more than that. In logic, the onus of proof is upon the person who makes the assertion, not the person who makes the denial.
You also assume in 6:37 that those that the Father gave the Son was only the elect. Again, you use your theological system to impose an idea on this passage (the exegetical fallacy of interpolation). The first two words in 6:37 “all that” (πᾶν ὃ) are neuter singular (that which), not masculine plural. The neuter does not exclusively include men; it may also involve power and dominion among other things. What God “gives” is treated as impersonal, en masse; what comes in the last clause, with free will, is masculine singular, not the whole class of the elect. Christ even said that Judas was “given” Him–“Those that you gave Me I have kept; but the son of perdition.”
The “all” of “all that” then is the strongest expression of totality. The neuter is used as being more universal than the masculine and including everything which the Father determines to save from the world’s failure, viewed as a totality. All attraction toward Christ presupposes an affinity given from the Father. The masculine gender is later used of a believer in this verse.
The singular also implies totality—nothing that the Son should receive would ever be left out. Thus, the words “all that” is a general and abstract statement (πᾶν ὅ). We can translate this verse this way: “All which the Father gives to Me shall come to Me, and he that comes to Me I will in no wise cast out.”
Nothing is said in the first phrase whether God will force people by irresistible grace or whether they come of their own choice by God’s persuasion and effectual grace. Nothing is said about Christ dying only for those the Father gave Him. If it did then it could contradict other passages in this gospel that affirms that Christ died for the sins of the world (Jn 1:29, the Holy Spirit convicts the whole world of sin, Jn 16:7-8). It would contradict God’s desire for everyone in the world to become a believer (1 Ti 2:4).
Also, the context indicates that those who come to Christ will believe. It was the Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes on Him will have eternal life (Jn 6:40). God calls all (not just the elect) to believe (Jn 3:16, 36; Ac 16:31; 17:30, etc.). God gives the Son through a combination of divine drawing and human belief or free choice.
Also, you did not respond to my comment about 6:45-46 immediately following 6:44 that indicates the reason people did not respond with their volition to Jesus was that they rejected the Word given them.
The word “gives” is in the present tense. The idea is not that the Father “has given.” The Father is in the process of giving to the Son. It is the Father’s habit to operate in grace. Therefore, this verse does not speak of an eternally past decision but of something going on during the life of Christ.
The second statement gives the concrete and individual realization of God’s giving—“the one coming” (τὸν ἐρχόμενον, singular, present participle). It is not the “ones” coming to Christ, but each separate believer regarded in his personal relation to the Son.
Even if we were to accept your premise that the first clause refers only to the elect, the affirmation would simply mean that all the elect will come to Christ. Nothing is said about how the elect will come or whether Christ died for more than the elect. Nothing is said about irresistible grace or coming by personal volition. To say more than that is interpolation. The context from verse 40 indicates that those who come will come by believing.
Both the divine and human sides are presented in this verse. From the human side those whom the Father gave the Son are those who believe in Him (Jn 1:12-13).
Re your comment on John 12:32. Your reference to “all kinds” of people is not explicitly stated in the verse. It is possible for it to refer to “kinds” of people because a distant context refers to Gentiles, but the more natural interpretation is to take it as a simple statement.