What Does John 6:44 Really Mean?

The verse begins, “No man…” (Gk. οὐδείς).  This is what is called a universal negative, which means that every member of the class is excluded.  What, then, is negated with reference to all humanity?  Well, it is “can” (δύναμαι).  This term denotes ability.  Consider the BDAG definition, the standard of Greek lexicons: “to possess the capability (whether because of personal or external factors) for experiencing or doing something.”  So, what do we have thus far?  You could say it many ways.  But simply put it means that no person has the ability or capability to experience or do something, namely what follows in the verse—“come.”

Therefore, as it is, John 6:44—so far—means that no person (universally) has the capability to come to Jesus.  This seems to lead to a dire circumstance.  Thankfully, there is an exception.

That exception is “except” or “unless” (ἐὰν μή).  This conjunctive particle prepares the way for a condition.  Hence, no person has the capability of coming to Christ, unless...something.  That something is, if and only if the “Father who sent me draws him.”  So, the Father’s drawing is the only condition that excepts humanity’s universal inability to come to Christ. 

The term “draw” (ἕλκω) cannot be reduced, as is often done by Arminians, to mean “woo” or charm or some such thing.  It connotes an external force of power with the passivity of the object.  For example, “Simon Peter went up, and drew (ἕλκω) the net to land full of great fishes” (Jn. 21:11). “Do not rich men oppress you, and draw (ἕλκω) you before the judgment seats?” (Jas. 2:6).  “They caught Paul and Silas, and drew (ἕλκω) them into the marketplace unto the rulers” (Acts 16:19).  “And all the city was moved…and they took Paul, and drew (ἕλκω) him out of the temple” (21:30).  You see, then, it is not by the power of the object of ἕλκω that is intended but its subject, according to biblical usage. 

Therefore, John 6:44 means that no person has the capability of coming to Christ, except or unless the condition of the Father’s drawing occurs.  Who, though, does the Father draw?  According to Jesus in John 6:37, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”  “All” indicates another universal.  In this case, it is a universal affirmative rather than negative, as in v. 44.  All of those given by the Father to the Son will come.  Therefore, to state it negatively, none of those who do not come were given of or drawn by the Father to the Son.  Therefore, all and only those given to the Son by the Father (i.e., the elect) will come to Christ, which God makes possible by doing that which is humanly impossible, giving them the ability to come, thus drawing them.  That is what John 6:44 means, which is exactly what many claim, “No, it does not.” 

Some respond by invoking John 6:45, “It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall be all taught of God.' Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”  In so doing, they want the word “all” to ring in the ear.  This is a citation of Isaiah 53:14, however, which was originally and exclusively spoken to Israel, the elect, which confounds their case.  Moreover, it is begging the question.  What is the antecedent for “they” in v. 45?  It is the “given” ones of v. 37, the “drawn” ones of v. 44.  Therefore, it is fallacious in the highest degree to appeal to v. 45 to tell us who those are in v. 44, since v. 44, according to the most basic principles of grammar and hermeneutics, tells us who those in v. 45 are—the elect.  

Why do we doubt?

O’ majestic Lord,

How wondrous are thy ways,

how wondrous are thy ways?

Every movement of thy providence,

            beckons our endless praise.

Wonders on earth beneath,

signs in heaven above;

Each to thine people thou bequeath,

            as tokens of thy love.

The sparrows enjoy thy care,

            but thine for us cannot compare;

For unto us thy Son was given,

            and unto death him thou did not spare.

Not even the angels receive his help,

            but only do they of the woman’s seed;

to the cross went he for Abraham’s whelp,

            in the cross do they find all that they may need.

Thy presence is real in the bread and cup;

            thou sends us out, going with us always.

On the wings of eagles thou lifts us up,

the promise thou made is nearness all of our days.

           

Why, then, do we doubt?

            And why, then, do we fear?

What cares and worries should count,

            to a people with a God so near?

Give us more grace and forgive us our shame,

            for sin we oft can’t see thine hand.

What more could we need than the pow’r of thy Name,

            when following thee, we walk through this pilgrim’s land?

Election

Steve Galt has published a short but great post on “Objections to the Doctrine of Election.” The following is a paragraph that I found to be quite insightful.

“Many people object to the idea of election. Some object that election is fatalistic. In this they fail to understand the difference between fatalism and determinism. Fatalism is deterministic, but determinism does not have to be fatalistic. The reason for this is that fatalism is inherently meaningless. Determinism need not be meaningless. God’s election is purposeful, not capricious. God is understood to have sovereignly decreed all that will come to pass. This includes the election of some to salvation. But this is not something that is without meaning. God’s purpose in this is His own glory.”

I recommend reading the rest. Steve follows this post up with another great survey of various views of the atonement of Christ’s cross-work.

HABUKKUK AND OTHER NORMAL PEOPLE

I. Is It Proper To Question God As Habakkuk Did?

I believe this question is prompted not so much by scriptural imperatives; “thou shall not question the LORD thy God” but, by a reaction to the impious questions from the unbelieving sector of society. Admittedly, the so-called “problem of suffering and evil” is in fact one of the stronger (yet, not strong enough!) cases against the existence of God; the living, true God who is Self-disclosed in the Old and New Testaments. If God, they say, were (1) all-good (omni-benevolent) and (2) all-powerful (omni-potent) he would both, (1) desire to eliminate suffering and evil and (2) have the necessary ability and power to do so yet, suffering and evil exist in the present reality, therefore (3), the God presented in the Bible cannot exist.

While I am not wishing to address this challenge to the faith at this point, I think it is wise that we recognize that a lion’s share of our fears and inhabitations about questioning the deeper things of the nature of God and his dealings with man flow from our wrongly identifying our own (or Habakkuk’s) “normal” yet, still believing, questions about God with the type of systematic skepticism against God reflected in the above objection to Christianity. The parameters then, in regards to our question’s moral propriety is established by the accent and attitude of the inquirer himself far more than it is by the content of the question. Therefore, Habakkuk’s questions and other like it are not inherently wicked by the mere asking, but, are instead corrupted by the underlying, anti-God presuppositions of antagonistic unbelievers which permeate the whole person’s rationale, thus disqualifying all their thoughts before God, not merely hard questions.

I, for instance, have found that meditating upon hard questions such as the “problem of evil” from a godly perspective can be quite fruitful for my own understanding of who God is, as well as being able to better represent him to those who would challenge the biblical concept of God. Personal reflection upon these tough questions, and seeking biblical answers, enables and emboldens Christians to invite the unbeliever’s “hardest” questions and objections into evangelistic dialogue with the confidence of being ready to offer biblically faithful, Christ honoring rebuttals to their skeptical presuppositions. Unfortunately, because few Christians care to cultivate the intellectual aspect of the Christian life, when attempting to answer the tough objections of unbelievers their response is often tainted with fear and frustration, which sadly makes “speaking the truth in love” nearly impossible. Not only then, does wrestling with questions like those of Habakkuk help to develop a stronger theology but will also have a profound impact upon missions and how we present God in Christ to our neighbors and the nations; both our own and abroad.

I would, however, like to share a couple brief observations about Habakkuk’s experience that I think we would do well to be conscious of and avoid in our own contemplations. They are:

1. Habakkuk improperly concluded that Yahweh’s inactivity in judgment meant Yahweh’s indifference toward wickedness (1:2—4). We ourselves, living in the age of grace, are all the more tempted to deduce similar things. Due to God’s incredible common grace (Mt 5:45) we often can’t help but ask “why do the wicked prosper?” However, we must understand that God’s patience toward us rebels is often intended to be a means to repentance (Rom 2:4), just as is his judgment (Amos 4; Lk 13:1—5). We must remember too that while grace is manifest is its full brilliance this side of the Cross, so too is wrath. The Cross is the most spectacular display of God’s love and mercy toward sinners; it is also the most stunning demonstration of his awful wrath toward sin; wherever it is found. So then, God’s sometimes apparent postponement of justice against evil in our world today is first grounds for rejoicing, as none of us would be here but for his merciful forbearance. Secondly, we too must realize that as God’s grace is clearly seen in his patience, the Cross also teaches us that the stakes of judgment are likewise elevated, making the stakes of both his love and wrath of ultimate concern for sinner and saint alike.

2. Habakkuk errs in thinking that Yahweh is somehow restricted in his available means to execute judgment and purge his people (1:12—13). Yahweh had told Habakkuk that he would not believe, it if he were told him, how it was that Yahweh would restore justice in the land (1:5). Yet, finally Habakkuk makes clear that he understood what it was that Yahweh had determined to do (v.12b), and so raises his second objection in this most frank dialogue between him and his Maker (v.13). Habakkuk’s question, on the face of it, is not altogether unreasonable; how could a holy God use wicked means for his righteous end? Could he not send his Spirit sweeping through the land, raise up a great king or prophet and bring about a national revival? The answer to these questions is, of course, yes; however, that is not what Yahweh had determined to do. Habakkuk had learned to “live by faith” (2:4) in the sovereign Lord of all (2:20).

Today, we are prone to a like mistake. Evangelicalism over the last century has sought so diligently preserve God from charges of being the author of sin that we have erred in another direction by again, overreacting. As offensive to our sensibilities as it may be at times, the God of the scriptures is Lord over all. That includes administering everything from the very hairs of your head to the planting and uprooting of entire kingdoms and dynasties. Nothing is outside his sovereign control. How rarely does one hear today of the trials and sufferings we often face being something from the hand of the Lord God? Instead anything we deem as a challenge to the “good life” is instinctively attributed to the world, the flesh or the Devil; yet never of God. This rationale is so prevalent at times that God is stripped of his right to the title of “Lord of the heavens of the earth” (Mt 11:25); leaving most of what happens in this cursed, fallen world merely up to what God “allows to happen,” and very rarely what he decrees to happen. Hence, at the end of the day, God’s world is really governed by everyone else but him. When, conversely from the scriptures, God’s glory is inextricably bound up in his own counsels, wisdom and decrees concerning his reign over all; and even in his actively judging persons and peoples through base means, whether it was the Babylonians for Habakkuk’s generation or the Muslim terrorist for ours. In the end the answer is the same for all the faithful—live by that faith!!

II. Three Gleanings From Habakkuk’s Experience That Are Worth Repeating.

1. Habakkuk resolved to view the present from the vantage of the future. Regardless of all the short term chastisement or unfair treatment we might receive from the hands of wicked persons, living by faith (not retaliation!) gives us the assurance that a day is coming when God’s perfect justice will be meted out on all (see: 3:16; cf. I Pet 4:17).

2. Habakkuk determined that despite all circumstances surrounding him, he would rejoice in God his Savior all the more (3:17—18).

3. Habakkuk determines to spend his time praising Yahweh during his struggles; not complain about them. All of chapter three is distinct from the frank conversation of chapters one and two; it is a self-contained psalm of praise to Yahweh, his God; the one who makes him to tread, with feet like a deer, over and above the suffering that surrounds him (3:19). This is an all out-call to us from the prophet: suffering can be a sacrifice and certainly grounds of praise (ch.3). These three principles are at the heart of Heb 13:12—16, and are to be internalized and practiced by God’s people throughout their pilgrimage in this age.