John 6: 37-65: Does the Father Draw Judas?

Sandemanian theology allows for someone to be given to the Son by the Father and be drawn by the Father, yet not be raised up on the last day. Does the text of John 6 allow for this? Is this an accurate understanding of the text? My answer is “Absolutely not.” Opponents to the sovereign grace of God have attempted every conceivable means to dodge the plain teaching of this passage, but every single attempt, no matter how genuine it seems at first, collapses in light of fair and consistent exegesis of the passage. Before I respond to Jodie Sawyer’s interpretation of the text, I would like to first present the text myself:

36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

This passage initiates as an explanation of unbelief. We must keep this in our minds as we exegete the passage. Jesus is explaining why, even after what he has said about himself, many do not believe. If any interpretation of this passage does not account for Jesus’ explanation of unbelief, it is an interpretation that turns the text on its head. Jesus, in this explanation of unbelief, distinguishes between the category of believers and the category of unbelievers. But he starts with those who come to Christ. He tells us:

A. The Father gives a number to the Son
B. The number will come to the Son (as a result of the Father’s giving)
C. Coming to the Son (believing in the Son) results in being raised up on the last day

A always leads to B, and B always leads to C. Verse 37 is very crucial: “All that the Father gives me will come to me.” Not only does this verse tell us that all whom the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son, but it also tells us that the coming to the Son is a result of the Father’s giving. Therefore, the Father’s giving determines the coming to the Son, not the other way around. The most ultimate action in this passage is the Father’s giving of the number to the Son. That is the action that determines everything else in the order of this presentation. From the beginning, the notion that the number the Father has given to the Son encompasses the entirety of the human race must be rejected. The number that is given is the very same number that is raised. It is inescapable. No one can be given and yet not be raised, for “All whom the Father gives to me will come to me.”

The text expands upon what is involved in coming to the Father and being raised up on the last day. But it does not abandon what has already been stated. It is only after establishing that the ultimate determining factor for those who come is the giving of the Father that we then read, “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” This gives us the “human side” of v. 37-39. But it has not added any more qualifications that have not already been presented. Looking on the Son and believing in the Son is paralleled to coming to the Son, and it has already been established that all who are given to the Son will come to the Son. Those who behold the Son are only those who are given to the Son by the Father. Therefore, any interpretation that isolates v. 40 from the rest of the text and then eisegetes that interpretation into the preceding verses is absolutely against the thinking of the passage. There is one more thing must be noted from v. 40 that we will later see to be important. There is no disjunction between those who believe and those who are raised. The very one who believes is the very one who is raised. No one denies this. But we must recognize the structure of this verse so that we can recognize it later in v. 44. Here in v. 40, the one who believes is the one who is raised. We continue in the text:

41So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”

Jesus, detecting their unbelief, does not respond with an attempt to “woo” them so that they could choose him out of their own “free will.” Rather, he explicitly proclaims their inability to believe. He states emphatically that there is no reason for these unbelievers to grumble because it is not within their capacity to believe. They have not been drawn. Therefore, they do not believe. Now, at this point in exegesis the opposing side interjects that God draws all men to Christ (and this is where they usually flee to John 12). But this is a simple abandonment of the context. Furthermore, the Greek structure does not allow for a disjunction between those who are drawn and those who are raised:

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, καὶ ἐγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.

The very him who is drawn is the same him who is raised. “…Father draws him, him I will raise…” Moreover, the ending phrase, “And I will raise him up in the last day” is the same ending phrase that is found in v. 40. As surely as there is no disjunction between those who believe and those who are raised, there is no disjunction between those who are drawn and those who are raised. If someone is going to assert that text allows for one to be drawn but not be raised, he must also concede that the text allows for one to believe and not be raised. Nevertheless, the text does not allow for either one.

Jesus starts with, “Do not grumble among yourselves.” His statements are a response to their grumbling and to their unbelief. We must ask why Jesus said this. What was the message He was trying to convey? If all are indeed drawn, then Jesus was basically saying, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him. And the Father has drawn all of you. Therefore, all of you are able to come, but you are unwilling to do so. Why do you not believe, since the Father has drawn you and made you able to believe?” But the context shows us that this isn’t Jesus’ intention at all. He isn’t showing them that they have been drawn and made able to come and yet they still do not believe. Rather, He is explaining their disbelief on the basis that they have not been drawn and are not able to come. We have established that this passage seeks to explain unbelief (verse 36). The phrase “Do not grumble among yourselves” continues this thought. Jesus is answering their unbelief. The fact that they do not believe has been established, and Jesus explains it by the fact that they are unable to do so. Then the passage brings more clarity further on:

64But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Jesus says, “I told you that…” but He hadn’t used those words (“granted him by the Father”) yet. He is obviously alluding to what He earlier told them about being drawn by the Father, that no one is able unless they are drawn (verse 44). Once again the context of this verse is unbelief. “But there are some of you who do not believe.” The “this” in “this is why I told you” is very important. What is the “this” or the “for this reason”? It is because “there are some of you who do not believe.” So what are Jesus’ intentions in telling verse 65? Is it to draw a portrait of ability, saying that the unbelievers are able to believe, and yet they do not? Absolutely not. In fact, the reason Jesus told us that no one can come unless he is made able is because he is explaining unbelief. He tells those who do not believe, very frankly, that the reason they do not is because they are reprobate and cannot. The fact that they do not believe is explained by their inability, so that nothing happens apart from God’s intentions. “This is why I told you. I told you that no one is able unless he is made able. I told you this because even now some do not believe. But remember: it is because they are unable to do so. Because of this reason, because no one is able unless he is made able, you aren’t to be surprised when certain people reject the Gospel. God must grant faith first.” John Calvin, in his commentary on John 6, writing specifically about verse 37 and later verse 44, says this:

Verse 37: To make sure that their unbelief does not take anything away from His teaching, Christ says that the reason for their obstinacy is that they are reprobate and do not belong to God’s flock. So, Christ is here distinguishing between the elect and the reprobate, so that His authoritative teaching is not undermined even though many people do not believe it.

What this statement [verse 44] 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. This is not the kind of drawing that is violent, as if it were compelling men through external force. However, it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit which enables men to be willing to follow Christ, men who had been unwilling and reluctant previously. Therefore, it is a false and ungodly assertion that nobody is drawn unless they are prepared to be drawn, as if a person could make himself obey God through his own efforts. Men’s willingness to follow God has already been given to them by God, who made their hearts to obey Him.

This is clear and consistent exegesis of the passage. It accounts for the context, for Jesus’ interaction with the crowd, for the order of Jesus’ presentation, and for the thought process in the mind of our Lord as he presents these concepts. After having made the text clear, let’s look at the statements of Jodie Sawyer in her comments on this passage (if anyone is wondering why I am responding to Jodie, it must be noted that she was the only person who actually interacted with me concerning this text. Furthermore, she has been an active proponent of the Sandemanian position on my blog lately, and this text destroys her position):

I believe you’re on the shakiest of ground when you treat John 6:44 as if it proves that everyone who is drawn will be raised up. Here’s the immediate context in chap 6:

“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

Here is v 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”

There is no fair argument that the last ‘him’ can only refer to the one who is drawn because it artificially clips off the main criteria in the first statement. [No person] can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day

We note that from the beginning Jodie is the one who is on “the shakiest of ground” because her treatment of v. 44 causes her to abandon the context of the preceding verses. She does not make an argument from the presented order of the passage or the grammatical structure of v. 44, but on mere speculation of what she thinks v. 44 allows for. Jodie’s statements amount to a mere assertion that there is “no fair argument” for my treatment of v. 44. But what is her basis of saying so apart from her own traditions and speculation of the text? She says this “artificially clips off the main criteria in the first statement.” How so? Let’s see where she goes:

The Lord is saying that there is a group of people who come to Him and all persons of that group were drawn by the Father. Each persons who fits in that group, i.e. the person who meets both criteria, will be raised up on the last day. According to this passage, there certainly may be a class of people who were drawn and who never came. John 6:44 does not settle that argument.

Jodie sets up an A + B = C scenario. For her, v. 44 tells us that being drawn (A) + coming (B) = being raised (C). Her thinking is that A, in and of itself, cannot lead to C, and therefore, someone can have A, but if he does not have B, will not get to C. This thinking is not necessarily wrong. What is wrong, however, is that she believes that the text allows for someone to have A but not have B. Verse 37, however, tells us from the beginning that the Father’s action of giving the number to the Son always results in their believing and their being raised up. The text does not give any separate criteria, or allow for someone to meet one criteria and not the other. V. 40, additionally, while establishing a criteria for those who are raised, does not allow for someone to meet the initial criteria and not meet the second criteria. The Father’s giving of the number to the Son is the most ultimate and determining action in this passage. It is the one action that determines the rest. All others necessarily follow it. So as surely as the one who meets the criteria of being given to the Son by the Father will meet the criteria of believing, and as surely as the one who meets the criteria of believing will meet the criteria of being raised, the one who meets the criteria of being drawn will meet the criteria of being raised. This is the knotless thread of the passage.

Furthermore, Jodie’s assertion that “according to this passage, there certainly may be a class of people who were drawn and who never came” turns the text on its head and makes no sense out of Jesus’ explanation of unbelief, his explanation that necessarily assumes that there are those present in the crowd who have in fact not been drawn.

To rephrase the statements, the subject of the first statement can be replaced with proper names. I’ll add the not to keep the negative element of the clause.

Judas can (not) come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Here we have a theological problem, because Judas emphatically did not come to Jesus, but not a tortuous grammatical problem.

Saul can (not) come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Ed Norton can (not) come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

It’s pretty clear that the subject is the antecedent of the ‘him’ following the second verb, which is ‘draws’. And the ‘him’ in the clause after the conjunction ‘and’ is referring to the person who fits both criteria. The idea that it is somehow narrowing in on only the pronoun of the second clause, is absurd. The second clause is a dependent clause, it can’t be separated from ‘he who comes’.

The passage is saying that it is impossible to come to Christ without the drawing ministry of the First Person of the Trinity. It is also assuring us that, due to that glorious ministry, we can come and we will be raised up.

Jodie’s examples ignore the context of the passage. This is not how genuine grammatical exegesis is performed. We don’t force concepts into the mind of the Biblical author that was never in his mind and then conclude whether or not what is actually contained in the text rules out other interpretations. I could do the same exact thing with v. 40, after rewording it to match the structure of v. 44:

“No one can have eternal life without seeing the Son and believing in him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Now with a proper noun:

“Judas can [not] have eternal life without seeing the Son and believing in him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Using the same standard, we must conclude that there is nothing in the text that necessitates that the one believing in the Son will be raised up on the last day. Asserting that Judas is in the category of those who are drawn is just as careless as assuming that Judas is in the category of those who believe. In other words, the text must remain in tact of how it is presented. Judas is not in the group who believes, so it would make no sense to judge the grammatical structure of v. 40 (which necessitates that all who believe are raised) based upon eisegeting his proper noun into the verse. The same rule applies to v. 44 and the group of those who are drawn. The verse, according to how it was actually presented allows for no disjunction between those who are drawn and those who are raised, just as v. 40 allows for no disjunction between those who believe and those who are raised.

Jodie’s incorrect exegesis is displayed in her conclusions about the passage. She concludes, “The passage is saying that it is impossible to come to Christ without the drawing ministry of the First Person of the Trinity. It is also assuring us that, due to that glorious ministry, we can come and we will be raised up.”

Yes, the passage assures us who believe that the Father has given us to the Son and has drawn us, so that we will without fail be raised up on the last day. But what about Jesus’ immediate audience? What about those in unbelief? What about those who grumble? What was Jesus assuring them? The concept that Jesus was giving assurance to those in unbelief is absolutely ridiculous. Can you imagine such a thing? It makes no sense of Jesus’ explanation whatsoever. Jesus is not giving them the assurance that they have been drawn. How would that authenticate his teaching at all? Rather, he is making known there inability to come on the basis that they have not been drawn, so that they have no excuse to grumble. Jesus’ concluding statements are the direct opposite of Jodie’s concluding statements:

64But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Jesus explains unbelief in light of the fact that they are unable to do so because they have not been drawn. His intentions are clear.

Evan May.