Is John 6:37-40 “Frankly Predestinarian?”

Dr. Randy White

One of the most problematic passages for non-Calvinists (like myself: a non-Calvinist, non-arminian dispensationalist) is John 6:37-40. These verses seem to almost put the nail in the coffin for unconditional election.“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”” (John 6:37–40, NKJV)It almost seems as if the case is closed, the argument is so solid that unconditional election has become a closed case. And this is the way it is often presented in the commentaries, such as the affirmation of D.A. Carson that, “Jesus’ confidence in the success of his mission is frankly predestinarian.”^{[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=“yes” overflow=“visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=“1_1” background_position=“left top” background_color=“” border_size=“” border_color=“” border_style=“solid” spacing=“yes” background_image=“” background_repeat=“no-repeat” padding=“” margin_top=“0px” margin_bottom=“0px” class=“” id=“” animation_type=“” animation_speed=“0.3” animation_direction=“left” hide_on_mobile=“no” center_content=“no” min_height=“none”][1]}I think this Scripture merits some close scrutiny to see what it really says. Using the solid foundational rules of interpretation that Scripture interprets Scripture and that grammar is taken literally, let’s rethink John 6:37-40.

Who are “All that the Father gives me?”

Remembering that eisegesis is reading into Scripture, and that it is dangerously easy to do, let’s be careful not to make an assumption that we know the identity of this group. A narcissistic eisegesis not only reads into Scripture, but it reads ourselves into Scripture. To read ourselves into “All that the Father gives me,” without some kind of Biblical evidence, would cause us to totally misinterpret the passage.The Bible is pretty clear about who would be given to Jesus: the inheritance of the Father. Psalm 33:12 says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, The people He has chosen as His own inheritance” (NKJV). While this verse is also often the victim of narcissistic eisegesis, the words are not proclaiming the glories of the USA, but the blessings of the Hebrew nation, for “the nation whose God is the Lord” is Israel and its people, the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are “the people He has chosen as His own inheritance.”  Need some more evidence? Consider Deuteronomy 7:6, 14:2, 26:19, Exodus 19:5-6, Psalm 50:5, Jeremiah 2:3, Amos 3:2, Malachi 3:17, and many others. At one point I was able to count over 35 passages of Scripture that point to the Jewish people as being the inheritance that would be given to the Messiah.

Will they all come?

From all appearances of the context of John 6, it is looking like Jesus is going to lose that which He was promised by the Father: His inheritance. The people, hungry for yet another sign, were questioning Him and rejecting Him by the thousands. The appearance of a real crisis is evident: He came unto His own and His own received Him not (John 1:11). Is the mission lost? Will Jesus lose His inheritance? The chapter begins with at least 5,000 and ends with Jesus looking to the 12 and saying, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”In this context, Jesus gives a note of assurance, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” (John 6:37, NKJV). What good news this is! It is the same assurance Paul echoes when he would ask the question about Israel’s future, saying, “…has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew…” (Romans 11:1–2, NKJV). The teaching of John 6 is that, in spite of appearances, God is going to deliver Israel in Salvation, and Jesus will receive His inheritance. (It is no surprise that those who reject this interpretation often reject any future for the Jewish nation, based on the appearances of modern Israel).

What Does the Grammar Say?

Context seems to be an assurance that God gets what is His, even when the appearance is that His inheritance is in the process of rejecting Him. But what about grammar? This is where precise reading of the language, in English or Greek, will really keep you from making a huge theological error.Why does John say, “All that the Father gives me?”  If, as the Calvinist claims, this passage is about individual predestination, proper grammar would be, “All who the Father gives me.” We refer to people as who and whom, and to things as this or that. In fact, the verse continues to say, “… the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” Why does John talk about that and who almost as if they are interchangeable? Is he just a grammar school dropout? Does the Holy Spirit get poor grades in grammar too? Or, is John writing exactly what the Holy Spirit is saying, and they both have perfect grammar?  In fact, let’s consider the this/that – who/whom issues of verses 37-39.

Verse	English word | Greek word	Greek gender
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me – v. 37	That | ὅς	Neuter
the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out – v. 37	The one who comes | ἔρχομαι	Masculine
all that He has given – v. 39 (NASB)	That | ὅς	Neuter
but should raise it up –v. 39	It | αὐτός	Neuter
everyone who sees the Son	who sees | θεωρέω	Masculine

 This analysis shows us that neuter nouns and pronouns are consistently translated with a “this/that” form, and masculine pronouns and nouns are translated with a “who/whom” format. As an example, if you give me a dollar to give to the next person I see, I would say, “I received a dollar with the instruction to give it to the next person whom I see.”  If I said, “I received a dollar with the instruction to give him to the next person I see. When I saw a boy coming, I gave it the dollar,” you would question my use of grammar. Even in English, which does not have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns, we use it/that for things and who/whom for people.So why does this passage have such a mix of that, who and it? If we really believe in verbal inspiration then we believe that the grammar is selected correctly to communicate what is being taught.  Jesus is teaching something both about the national inheritance He has in Israel AND something about the individual in the crowd who would not reject Him but come in faith then and there.  More on this in a moment!Is John consistent in this use of grammar?  When you do a search of ὅς (the word translated as “that” in vv. 37, 39) you find that John uses the term as a relative pronoun in the singular, neuter form 79 times. He never uses it to refer to individuals (because that would be bad grammar). So, if John 6’s “that’s” refer to individuals, John is using bad grammar whereas elsewhere he gets his grammar right. However, ὅς as a relative pronoun in the singular, masculine form John uses 80 times, and always uses this form when referring to individuals. So, he ALWAYS uses the masculine to refer to people, and the neuter to refer to things (like a nation). Furthermore, αὐτός (6:39, “raise IT up”) is used by John in the neuter 59 times, and the only time it is translated in English as a “him” is for the Beast of Revelation, which John refers to as “it” (he uses better grammar than our English translations;). This form of αὐτός is NEVER used to refer to an individual. On the other hand, αὐτός is used by John 796 times in the masculine, and this is the form he uses to refer to “him” or to individuals. Once again, if John means for v. 37 & 39 to refer to individuals, he is being very unusual in his speech and very improper in his grammar.

What does the passage say?

If you take the grammar in this passage literally, believing that his grammar is used consistently and correctly communicates God’s revelation, then it becomes clear that we have a two-fold message. First, even though the nation (God’s inheritance) was rejecting Jesus, that nation would not be lost. Rather, Christ would “raise it up on the last day.” As Paul says, in the end “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26). But what of the individual in Christ’s day who believes? Is this individual going down with the nation? Jesus gives great assurance to that individual also that the one who sees Jesus and believes, “I will not cast out.”It is no mistake that this interpretation goes exactly with what John had said in the introduction to His Gospel– “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:” (John 1:11–12, NKJV)For further resources, see “Calvin’s TULIP” below the commentsTo listen to a broadcast of Ask the Theologian on this topic, use the player below.

[s3bubbleAudioSingle bucket=“AskTheTheologian” track=“Radio+Version%2Fatt-052414+John+6+and+predestination.mp3”]