"I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself." He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die (John 12:32-33).There, see? He draws all people to Himself. Next?
Of course, it's not that simple. There are problems here that need to be addressed.
The Problem of All
If Jesus means "I will draw all people to Myself", what about those that never hear, never know the name of Jesus, never have the slightest draw at all? If Jesus means "I will draw each and every human being to Myself", what about those who preceded Him? What about those who reject Him? If Jesus means, "I will draw all people to Myself", how can all people not come to Him? If He actually draws all people to Himself, why does He fail?
There is another textual problem with "all men". Jesus said in the prior verse, "Now is the judgment of this world" (John 12:31). If the world is being judged, but He knows that all men are drawn to Him, what's the point?
That's one problem.
The Problem of Draw
The suggestion is that all are drawn to Him, but not all come. This is logically a problem because it makes human will out to be superior to the drawing of God. But it is biblically a problem because of the earlier use of the term. Jesus said, "No one can come to Me" (universal negative) "unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). Now, if this is to have any meaning at all, it would require "Not everyone is drawn." "No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him ... but, don't worry, everyone is drawn" makes the universal negative pointless. It would be like, "Well, we're ready to go on a vacation at the lake ... but ... wait ... no man can survive at the lake without oxygen!" "Oh, don't worry, there is oxygen at the lake." "Oh, whew! That was close!" No, it wasn't. If a statement ("I will draw all people to Myself") is universal, then its absence ("No man can come to Me unless the Father draws him") is meaningless. "No man can" refers to no one. "You know ... if a Blavitz fell on you, you'd die." "There's no such thing as a Blavitz." "Good thing, isn't it?" No, not a good thing; a meaningless thing.
The Commentaries
I looked at a lot of commentaries. Without exception, whether the commentator was Arminian or Calvinistic, they universally agreed that "all men" did not mean "each and every individual".
Barnes - "I will incline all kinds of men ..."
Clarke - "I shall attract and illuminate both Jews and Gentiles."
Chrysostom - "All" refers to "all nations, not only Jews".
Gill - "Not just those around Him, but the gathering of the elect"
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown - all types.
Robertson's Word Pictures - "By 'all men' Jesus does not mean every individual man, ... but this is the way that Greeks can and will come to Christ, by the way of the Cross, the only way to the Father.
Comparison with Scripture
It's always good to compare Scripture with Scripture. What else do we read that is similar?
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him (John 1:6-7).We see the "all men" -- the universality -- repeated in these. Do they mean that each and every individual is involved? If so, I would suspect Look at the same concept from Revelation where it does not require "each and every individual".
"I will make you as a light for the nations, that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth" (Isa 49:6).
"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" (Rom 5:18).
"But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone" (Heb 2:9).
"Worthy are You to take the scroll and to open its seals, for You were slain, and by Your blood You ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation" (Rev 5:9).Compare also the context. What was going on when Jesus said it? "Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks" (John 12:20). It was these who were seeking Jesus. When the disciples told Him, He indicated that "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified" (John 12:23), a voice came from heaven confirming Christ (John 12:28), and Jesus said what He said in verse 32 in response to the reaction of the people who heard it. It could rightly be suggested, then, that Jesus was referencing "all types of people -- Jews and Gentiles" when He said "all".
One other textual note. The phrase "all men" or "all people" is not in the text. The text says πᾶς -- pas -- "all". The "men" or "people" is put there by implication, not by the Greek text. Thus, some translate it as "all things". In his commentary, Calvin says it "must be understood to refer to the children of God, who belong to His flock." "All of His own", then.
I would contend that interpreting Jesus's words "I will draw all people to Myself" to mean a universal draw of all people to Him would be difficult given 1) the problems with the logic, 2) the problems with Scripture, 3) the problems with the nature of God (who, apparently, can draw only ineffectually), and 4) the problems with the texts. It would seem, from the host of commentators that they don't believe that it can actually mean "each and every individual" either. Perhaps, comparing Scripture to Scripture, the verse to the context, and "rightly dividing the Word of Truth", we should be more careful about a blithe understanding of that verse.
6 comments:
I am glad that Stan comments on these topics because many would only know out-of-context verses that supported all kinds of theology and most of it unbiblical. At this point they assume their theology is solid based on their pastor’s preaching, never realizing their views are not in line with the context of Scripture (Ex. 2 Peter 3:9). Stan is using Scripture to interpret Scripture. He doesn’t extricate God’s words from their context which opens the door for wild speculation. Our concern is that we should be Biblicist and not worry about becoming Reformed. But if you read the Bible with the intention to draw meaning out of a passage or word instead of forcing meaning in to a passage of Scripture, there is a good chance you might become Reformed.
Couldn't some of those "all's" be in reference to believing in who He says He is? It does say that in the end every one shall view and every tongue confess, but that doesn't mean it is a faith belief. The demons believe more than we do.
Actually, David, I do believe that in the end every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. It won't be a matter of faith; it will be a matter of undeniable fact. They will stand before the King of Kings and admit, "You are the King of Kings." Nothing tricky. And not "saving faith" in the sense that we use it ... because it will be too late for them.
I do believe that many of the "all's" are a reference to a limited group. When Jesus, for instance, is "the Savior of all", I believe it is a reference to "all that are saved", as in "All that are saved are saved by Jesus." But the one in question -- John 12 -- must be a limited "all" if it is to have any reasonable meaning ... and apparently all commentators (even the Arminian ones) agree with me there.
I would like to address your "Problem of the Draw." I would contend that it is not meaningless to state both, "No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him," as well "I will draw all people to Myself."
I will use your analogy of oxygen. It is not meaningless to say "No man could survive on Earth without oxygen," and also state "The Earth is covered in oxygen." The first gives credit to the life that oxygen offers, the second explains why life occurs on Earth. The first statement may be obvious to us, because we have taken 5th grade science, but it would not have been obvious to someone before the discovery of oxygen.
Jesus is talking to Jews who live in a, "I need to fulfill the law to bridge the gap between God and myself" culture. They also live in a, "Jews are the nation of God" culture. Jesus is saying anyone God draws can come to Me, and guess what it isn't just for Jews anymore. Jesus states this, because it isn't obvious to the crowd he is speaking to. They don't understand that God can draw anyone, and in fact is drawing everyone. They still believe it is about what they do, not about what God is doing. He has to make it clear that it is God's work in the drawing, not their work. This is why it is not meaningless to state both.
As I read your argument it raises a question for me. Is it not the same argument to say: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Romans 10:13), but apparently God has already decided who will call on His name and be saved. Isn't this just as meaningless by your logic? Throughout the New Testament we are constantly beckoned to faith, called to believe, called to obey. All of these are pointless commands, if we have been created unable to be drawn.
When it boils down to it, you have a problem with "No man can come unless they are drawn." and "all are drawn." I have a problem with "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" and "only the elect will call on His name"
It makes sense in a vacuum, Josh, but not in context. There is no reason at all to tell His listeners, "No man can come to Me unless the Father draws him" if the Father draws everyone. It is a distinction without a distinction.
Remember the context. Jesus told the Jews He was the bread that came down out of heaven. They didn't like it. "Isn't this Joseph's son? So why is he saying he's bread from heaven?" To which Jesus replies, "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one 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 6:43-45). The question was about the grumblers. Why were they grumbling? They said it was because Joseph's son was making too much of Himself. Jesus disagreed. "You can't figure this out if the Father hasn't drawn you."
It's interesting further because of 1) the universal negative -- "no man can" -- and 2) the universal positive -- "everyone who has heard". The first describes why those who don't come don't come. The second describes the certainty of those who do come. Those whom the Father draws will be raised (no reference to "if they come" -- appears to be a certainty). Those who come have heard and learned from the Father. Again, a certainty. If, on the other hand, we're talking purely about a theoretical "If we lived in a place where the Father didn't draw some ... but we don't", there would be no point in the statement. It explained nothing.
As for your second objection, that doesn't even cause me a moment's hesitation. Regardless of how you view Election, it is a fact. Unavoidable. We may disagree with the mechanism or the timing, but it is sure. The problem is that we're looking at two different perspectives. From God's perspective (at least from the perspective of an Omniscient God), He knows who they are. (The Word says they were chosen before time.) From human perspective we don't know. That's why Peter tells his readers to "be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you" (2 Peter 1:10). I believe it was D.L. Moody who said that the sign over the gates of Heaven read, "Whosoever believes" when you enter them but, looking back, it says, "Chosen from before time". Both are true. Just two different viewpoints. But I see no contradiction between "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" and "Only the elect will call on His name." Now, if you could show me a text where these are offered in a context that requires them to mean something else (like I did above), then perhaps I'd understand the problem you have with it.
Yeah, I'm unclear on the confusion about "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" and "only the elect will call on His name". Those are not exclusive thoughts. If only the elect will call on His name, then everyone (ie the elect) that calls will be saved.
I'm also unclear why giving open parameters is okay (corporate election) but open instructions (choose Christ, only those God chooses will choose Christ) is problem. Either God sets the parameters that must be met for salvation, and then hopes people will choose; or God sets the parameters that must be met for salvation, and then makes sure those parameters are met.
Post a Comment