Understanding God’s election

[studier]

This begins from discussing John12:32. The bold below is my highlighting.

What, in the context of John 12:32, makes it natural to infer that pantas (accusative masculine plural) refers to all nations (ethnE accusative neuter plural) rather than all men (anthropous: accusative masculine plural)?

In Greek pantas ethnE (all nations) is a gender mismatch grammatically. pantas (masculine plural) (ethnE) (neuter plural).

pantas anthrOpous (all men) is a match in terms of gender. pantas (masculine plural) anthrOpous (masculine plural)

If it's so natural, then why isn't the Gr. term for "men" in the manuscripts?

pantas from pas is a Greek adjective. It's frequently used in the text on its own without an accompany noun. Pas is written/spelled in gender specific forms based upon what it is referring to. In John12:32 it's pantas, it's masculine, it's stand-alone, it's plural, "all [men]" is a legitimate translation.

You'll find that some English translations translate "pantas" as "all people" but this for one reason is likely because so many translators have gotten away from the normal use of the masculine used in the original language.

Pas used without a noun can be for a number of reasons.

Also, "pantas" is used in Act 3:25 with the Gr. term "patria" (Strong's 3965) which most translators render "families" or "kindreds" or "peoples".

In Acts3:25 pas is used again but it's not spelled pantas, but pasai. As you note, it is attached to "ai patriai" - "the families" (article + noun) which can trend into being translated other ways. So, "pas - pantas" is not in this verse, but "pas - pasai" is and it's not stand-alone but attached to a noun. Note the matching of the ends of the words "pasai ai patriai" - all three words are parsed the same (nominative feminine neuter) - so as @PaulThomson said, they match in terms of gender (and more).

See also Mat 24:30; Rev 1:7; 5:9; 13:7 in which "pantas" is used with Gr. term "fulai" (Strong's 5443) and the term is also rendered "kindred(s)" or "tribe(s)".

I'm not going to look at all these verses but Matt24:30 is the same issue as Acts3:25 - pasai vs. pantas but as you note ties to "ai fulai" (article + noun) so all the tribes.

Another reason to seriously question the "men" translation is that that term doesn't square with the Abrhamic Covenant. God never promised Abraham that He would make him the father of all men -- but rather the father of many nations or peoples. So, why would God give and draw all men in the distributive sense to his Son when God's promise to Abraham is limited since he is giving nations or peoples to the patriach in the collective sense.

This question seems to be based on your view of the drawing and other factors in the theological tradition you hold to. Others have no problem with "all [men]" being the translation in John12:32 because they don't ascribe to limited atonement and the other things you do. God wills all men (pantas anthropous) to be saved - Jesus draws all [men] (pantas) - those from the group "all [men] who believe are saved...

A third reason, I personally reject the "men" translation is because John frequently used "universal" terms in a narrow sense.

There's no backup info here so it's really not a legitimate argument without proof and proof that's analyzed.

A fourth reason, I reject "men" is because "all" is often used in the NT in a collective (limited) sense.

Same comment. But I will tell you that there could be some merit to this "collective" concept in some of the other uses of "pas" we've been discussing, especially when the neuter gender is used. But it would have to be detailed and proven why it has merit and that takes some work and in the Greek.

Honestly, I would assist and @PaulThomson may also, in these efforts of yours or anybody else's here. This is a Body after all.

 

[studier]

Explain to me, then, how Jesus can lose THINGS? Are THINGS like sheep who can fall away or stray? And how are THINGS raised up on the last day? I'm aware of only the physical resurrection of God's image-bearers.

Picture the neuter as describing a bundle (pas neuter singular - spelled "pan") of things God gives to His Son. Work in the Text to determine as many things as we can that are in that bundle. Jesus simply says He will not lose from it (the bundle containing every thing His Father gives to Him that will come to Him).

Even in English it's not unusual to say you'll get what's coming to you, and it can be a good thing.

And, as I've said, the neuter can be used in many ways as long as it's contextual. But contextual is an abused thing around here.

 

[BillyBob]

35 "The Father loves the Son, and has given all [things] into His hand. (Jn. 3:35 NKJ) (My bracketing)

This is one reason we can't arbitrarily be exchanging neuter for masculine. John is building more than one topic. I think @PaulThomson pointed this out earlier. Why not get in the flow with some accuracy and stop militating against the language?

It seems to me that it is you who is bending the scripture to support your views!
When scripture is clearly in opposition to your views, you bend it to support what you want it to proclaim!

 

[Rufus]

This begins from discussing John12:32. The bold below is my highlighting.






pantas from pas is a Greek adjective. It's frequently used in the text on its own without an accompany noun. Pas is written/spelled in gender specific forms based upon what it is referring to. In John12:32 it's pantas, it's masculine, it's stand-alone, it's plural, "all [men]" is a legitimate translation.

You'll find that some English translations translate "pantas" as "all people" but this for one reason is likely because so many translators have gotten away from the normal use of the masculine used in the original language.

Pas used without a noun can be for a number of reasons.



In Acts3:25 pas is used again but it's not spelled pantas, but pasai. As you note, it is attached to "ai patriai" - "the families" (article + noun) which can trend into being translated other ways. So, "pas - pantas" is not in this verse, but "pas - pasai" is and it's not stand-alone but attached to a noun. Note the matching of the ends of the words "pasai ai patriai" - all three words are parsed the same (nominative feminine neuter) - so as @PaulThomson said, they match in terms of gender (and more).



I'm not going to look at all these verses but Matt24:30 is the same issue as Acts3:25 - pasai vs. pantas but as you note ties to "ai fulai" (article + noun) so all the tribes.



This question seems to be based on your view of the drawing and other factors in the theological tradition you hold to. Others have no problem with "all [men]" being the translation in John12:32 because they don't ascribe to limited atonement and the other things you do. God wills all men (pantas anthropous) to be saved - Jesus draws all [men] (pantas) - those from the group "all [men] who believe are saved...



There's no backup info here so it's really not a legitimate argument without proof and proof that's analyzed.



Same comment. But I will tell you that there could be some merit to this "collective" concept in some of the other uses of "pas" we've been discussing, especially when the neuter gender is used. But it would have to be detailed and proven why it has merit and that takes some work and in the Greek.

Honestly, I would assist and @PaulThomson may also, in these efforts of yours or anybody else's here. This is a Body after all.

Thanks for your response. As far "all" and other "universal" terms, I have posted quite a bit on those terms to show that they are used in a limited sense in the very context of the passage in which they appear, e.g. 1Jn 2:2; 5:19; Jn 3:16, etc., etc.

Also, your explanation re John 6 still doesn't square with the context. And context is what counts the most for me. It has nothing to do with personal presuppositions or adherence to traditions, etc. For example, your explanation of how things "come TO Jesus", doesn't even make sense with all due respect. If the giving by the Father equates with "coming" to the Son, then why the redundancy? Why didn't Jesus just say in v. 35, for example, "all that the Father gives to me I will never drive away"? But yet, twice in this same passage Jesus also said "come to me". And how does the Son drive away "things"? And why would he drive "things" away? Things aren't sinners! Nor do things exercise faith, which is really what the passage is all about since v. 29 establishes the whole purpose subject matter behind the discourse. Nor do "things" eat the flesh or drink the blood of the Son of Man. Nor did "things" eat the mana in the wilderness. (The mana in the wilderness looms as a large backdrop for the feeding of the 5, 000.) Nor do things get raised up to life on the last day. What you say just doesn't fit the context of the passage even remotely!

 

[PaulThomson]

Yeah, I remember that post. You think God doesn't give any human being to his Son -- only "things" right? (Going from memory) What THINGS do you think God gave to Jesus? And do thing THINGS freely exercise faith? And will these THINGS experience the physical resurrection -- many unto life and many others unto contempt? And was it THINGS that followed him over to Capernaum? And was it THINGS Jesus was addressing in his discourse?

Everything includes all people, but much more. Besides giving Jesus people to disciple, God was giving Jesus opportunities to serve by bringing Him sick and broken people and frustrating trials to test what was in His heart by exposing Him to opposition and enmity both human and demonic. These came to Jesus given by the Father, so that He might learn obedience through the things He suffered to finally prove Him the perfectly sinless and faithful Man worthy of reigning over the earth and worthy of judging the rest of humanity. opportunties to serve and trials are things, not people.

 

[PaulThomson]

Recently, I asked the question to which, apparently, there were no takers. I asked: Why did God decree/permit the Fall of Mankind?

I answered, "He didn't." You must have missed that post.

 

[PaulThomson]

Recently, I asked the question to which, apparently, there were no takers. I asked: Why did God decree/permit the Fall of Mankind? I have long pondered this question until someone quoted Augustine's short 'n' sweet answer which was (to paraphrase him): God thought it better for mankind to have the knowledge of good and evil, rather than not to have it.

Then I pondered Augustine's answer with more questions. Why was it better? How was it better? How did it benefit mankind? How did it benefit God? Since the bible is christocentric then I figured the answer must be bound up with the Second Man. Then one day, many moons ago as I was reading Romans, two texts therein jumped off the page at me. Here they are:

Rom 3:25-26
25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
NIV

And,

Rom 5:8
8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
NIV

What both of these passages say to me is that both God's infinite justice (or righteousness) and the depth, height, width and breadth of his eternal love for his people are best demonstrated by the Cross of Christ. If there had been no fall and A&E passed the test they were given, mankind would have, paradoxically, been left in the dark to a great extent with respect to God's qualities, attributes and character. How would mankind know anything about grace? About mercy? About compassion? How would have mankind ever learned that God's love extends to his enemies and not only to his friends? How would have mankind ever learned that God loves his people so much that he was willing to become a man and die for his people so that they could live? If A&E had not sinned, they would have never seen this side to God. Mankind would likely have believed: "Well, God loves us because we're faithful, obedient children just as our Grand Patriarch and Matriarch were." In other words, all mankind would have likely believed that they worthy of God's love!

Or how would have mankind ever found out about the extent of God's righteousness (or justice)? God is so righteous that he cannot allow sin to go unpunished! He cannot extend mercy or grace or compassion at the expense of his righteousness. Because He is infinitely just, then Justice must be served!

Therefore, I think Augustine's answer was wise. As odd as it may seem at first blush, it was better for man to have the knowledge of good and evil, and through the Fall God is even more glorified; for now we know that no one deserves or is worthy of his grace, mercy, compassion and most of all of his love! The Fall of mankind presented the opportunity for all humanity to see a side to God that we would not have been able to see if A&E had remained sinless.

That's a lot of conjecture as to why God did something that the scriptures do not say God did (i.e. decree the fall of man), all the while giving no scripture stating that God did what you accuse Him of doing.

 

[PaulThomson]

So, tell me, sir: How do THINGS come to Jesus? And what THINGS specifically does the Father give to Jesus: The sun, the moon, the starts, the mountains, the valleys, the deserts, the seas, what?

Also, see my 9059 written a week ago wherein I did a word usage study on the Gr. term "pas". There's more than one mismatch of genders in the NT.

The post you are citing shows no examples of a mismatch of genders in the use of pas (m), pasa (f), pan .

Can you point out where you cited such mismatches you are now claiming to have presented in your post 9059 https://christianchat.com/threads/understanding-god’s-election.216907/post-5449483?

That is your assumption that the non-elect were drawn to Christ by the Father. You need to prove that. Scripture clearly teaches that it's God's sovereign will that every single person God gives to the Son and draws to the Son, the Son will never drive away, will never lose but will raise him up on the last day! And this resurrection can only be the resurrection of the righteous since it's contrasted with losing people. The resurrection of the unjust will consist of all those who were always lost, will be lost on the last day when Jesus returns and will stay lost for all eternity. They were lost because Jesus in eternity and time NEVER KNEW these lost people (Mat 7:23). He never entered into any kind of personal, loving, covenantal relationship with such, which stands in very sharp contrast to Rom 8:29; 11:2, etc. How shallow would the promise of resurrection be to God's drawn elect if Jesus was referring to the General Resurrection of the Just and Unjust. Plus v. 51 talks of these drawn people as living forever! The lost do not spiritually LIVE forever. The lost remain DEAD in their trespasses and sins, and will eternally suffer the Second Death

And your argument about the Gr. term "pas" (all) is pathetically weak. Strong's defines "all" (Strong's 3956)

NT:3956

NT:3956 pas (pas); including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:

KJV - all (manner of, means), alway (-s), any (one), daily, ever, every (one, way), as many as, no (-thing), thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

BLB Classic:

πᾶς pâs, pas; including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:—all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), × daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

In addition, BLB goes on to say in its Outline of Biblical Usage:

1. individually
   1. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2. collectively
   1. some of all types

I would think (to go way, way out on the limb here by appealing to CONTEXT ). Jesus wasn't talking about the "things" of Mother Nature being drawn to him. He didn't have on his mind, the trees, the birds, the bees, the oceans, the rivers, mountains, the moon, the stars, etc. Rather he had strictly people in mind, and this Gr. term pas is often used in the NT with respect to people (cf. Mat 1:17; 2:4, 16; 4:24; 5:15, 22, 28; 7:8, etc, etc. ). Numerous more examples abound!

You're going to have to do much better than you have, thus far.

 

[PaulThomson]

It seems to me that it is you who is bending the scripture to support your views!
When scripture is clearly in opposition to your views, you bend it to support what you want it to proclaim!

That something seems to be so to you, is not a reasoned argument likely to persuade anyone that you are correct. What are the contextual reasons that you believe your view is not bending the passage to support what you want it to proclaim? And what are the contextual reasons that you believe @studier's view is bending the passage to support what he want it to proclaim?

 

[GWH]

Recently, I asked the question to which, apparently, there were no takers. I asked: Why did God decree/permit the Fall of Mankind? I have long pondered this question until someone quoted Augustine's short 'n' sweet answer which was (to paraphrase him): God thought it better for mankind to have the knowledge of good and evil, rather than not to have it.

Then I pondered Augustine's answer with more questions. Why was it better? How was it better? How did it benefit mankind? How did it benefit God? Since the bible is christocentric then I figured the answer must be bound up with the Second Man. Then one day, many moons ago as I was reading Romans, two texts therein jumped off the page at me. Here they are:

Rom 3:25-26
25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
NIV

And,

Rom 5:8
8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
NIV

What both of these passages say to me is that both God's infinite justice (or righteousness) and the depth, height, width and breadth of his eternal love for his people are best demonstrated by the Cross of Christ. If there had been no fall and A&E passed the test they were given, mankind would have, paradoxically, been left in the dark to a great extent with respect to God's qualities, attributes and character. How would mankind know anything about grace? About mercy? About compassion? How would have mankind ever learned that God's love extends to his enemies and not only to his friends? How would have mankind ever learned that God loves his people so much that he was willing to become a man and die for his people so that they could live? If A&E had not sinned, they would have never seen this side to God. Mankind would likely have believed: "Well, God loves us because we're faithful, obedient children just as our Grand Patriarch and Matriarch were." In other words, all mankind would have likely believed that they worthy of God's love!

Or how would have mankind ever found out about the extent of God's righteousness (or justice)? God is so righteous that he cannot allow sin to go unpunished! He cannot extend mercy or grace or compassion at the expense of his righteousness. Because He is infinitely just, then Justice must be served!

Therefore, I think Augustine's answer was wise. As odd as it may seem at first blush, it was better for man to have the knowledge of good and evil, and through the Fall God is even more glorified; for now we know that no one deserves or is worthy of his grace, mercy, compassion and most of all of his love! The Fall of mankind presented the opportunity for all humanity to see a side to God that we would not have been able to see if A&E had remained sinless.

Yes, for all beginning with A&E to see the loving salvation side and choose to be saved. Excellent point! :^)

 

[studier]

It seems to me that it is you who is bending the scripture to support your views!
When scripture is clearly in opposition to your views, you bend it to support what you want it to proclaim!

How so?

 

[studier]

Thanks for your response. As far "all" and other "universal" terms, I have posted quite a bit on those terms to show that they are used in a limited sense in the very context of the passage in which they appear, e.g. 1Jn 2:2; 5:19; Jn 3:16, etc., etc.

NKJ 1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

NKJ 1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

NKJ John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Observations: There are no examples of "pas" here. I take it that you mean "whole" is a "universal" term. In the 2 examples "world" is what would have to be understood but I wouldn't limit "whole" since whatever John means by "world" the whole world is being discussed.

I'm not sure what your point is re: John3:16 as there is no modifier for world. So maybe you're saying "world" is not universal. That's another whole discussion and context is key.

So, I don't see your point here.

Also, your explanation re John 6 still doesn't square with the context.

I think it does.

And context is what counts the most for me.

The rules of grammar are part of and at the base of proper exegesis. Context comes later in the process and cannot go against grammar.

It has nothing to do with personal presuppositions or adherence to traditions, etc.

As you essentially said before, there's no shame in presuppositions as we all have them. The checks and balances are Scripture and its grammar, and other interpreters, etc.

This is one of the high points in the rules of grammar and syntax IMO; presuppositions are much more difficult to get away with at this base level. The language says what it says.

For example, your explanation of how things "come TO Jesus", doesn't even make sense with all due respect. If the giving by the Father equates with "coming" to the Son, then why the redundancy? Why didn't Jesus just say in v. 35, for example, "all that the Father gives to me I will never drive away"? But yet, twice in this same passage Jesus also said "come to me". And how does the Son drive away "things"? And why would he drive "things" away? Things aren't sinners! Nor do things exercise faith, which is really what the passage is all about since v. 29 establishes the whole purpose subject matter behind the discourse. Nor do "things" eat the flesh or drink the blood of the Son of Man. Nor did "things" eat the mana in the wilderness. (The mana in the wilderness looms as a large backdrop for the feeding of the 5, 000.) Nor do things get raised up to life on the last day. What you say just doesn't fit the context of the passage even remotely!

The Text can be very difficult to the western mind. We like to see things like sequence, but the Hebrew form has all kinds of different ways of outlining. Then we're moving from a Hebrew way of writing and thinking to the Greek language which is quite different than Hebrew and quite different than English. There is a lot going on here. Many times, when we see redundancy, for example, I immediately look for a chiastic structure. Chiastic parallelism is frequently used in the Text and at times in very complex ways. There are structures within structures in these documents and I'm aware of some interpreters that specialize in locating them.

Look at 6:35-40 just focusing on the "come to[ward Me" part:

35 The [man] who comes to[ward] Me...​

37a every thing the Father gives to Me will come to[ward] Me​

37b The [man] who comes to[ward] Me I will not cast out​

39 from every thing which the [man - Father from parallel 37a] who sent Me, I not lose but raise it​

40 Every man who sees the Son and believes into Him [may] have eternal life, and I will raise him​

​

Note how John has Jesus building His argument providing more and more details as He proceeds.

​

You're correct that things don't [necessarily] eat and drink and believe. If you grasp the above structure, you'll see that John is dealing with more than just men but is absolutely also dealing with men. John has been establishing this dual track (at minimum) from the beginning of GJohn.

As I showed you from Ps2, YHWH will give His Anointed/Messiah/Christ King the earth. Jesus was also given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt28) (so yes to your rhetorical question about the universe and its components). The creation was damaged by sin. Think this when considering what Jesus raising everything can encompass and include.

BTW, I've been letting you work this out and see if we can get to some level of respectful discourse to assist one another, but you really should take me up on doing the work I suggested in relation to the Greek word for "give" and cognates. You're going to like some of what comes out of that work, and it will answer in more detail some of your questions and concerns. As I told you, the neuter "pas" can be doing many things.

 

[Rufus]

I answered, "He didn't." You must have missed that post.

Oh...so the Fall escaped God's omniscience? The Fall of mankind happened in a vacuum? I guess God isn't in control of his creation, then, is he? Who is, since he isn't in your world?

 

[PaulThomson]

Father God elects (chooses) and calls whomever He wishes
Jesus says to the elect, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you ….” (John 16:15).
Surely, here is a strong hint that we should investigate this matter further.
Romans chapter 9 is the most famous proponent of God’s election …
“… that the purpose of election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls.
… So then, it is not of him who wills (to be elected, chosen, and called),
nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” (Romans 9:11-16)
God gives grace to whomever He chooses, but no one deserves grace (unmerited favor)!
God gives justice to whomever He chooses, and everyone deserves justice!
God wishes that all could be saved, but it is not possible because He insists on His justice.
“You love justice and hate evil.” (Hebrews 1”9)
God is not willing that any (of us) should perish, but that all (of us) should repent …
… the “us” referring to His elect, who are promised salvation.
Christians are called to confess and repent of their on-going sins,
and the blood of Jesus will cleanse them of all their unrighteousness (1 John 1:7-9).

Where does Jesus say He chose the twelve for salvation? Matthew says He chose the twelve to be with Him and to send them out to preach. And one of those chosen was Judas, who along with some others, did not believe Jesus was the Messiah until after His resurrection..

Mar 3:14
And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

Jhn 6:70
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Jhn 6:64
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

 

[studier]

Everything includes all people, but much more.

Repeating for all of us.

As I told you, the neuter "pas" can be doing many things.

 

[PaulThomson]

Oh...so the Fall escaped God's omniscience? The Fall of mankind happened in a vacuum? I guess God isn't in control of his creation, then, is he? Who is, since he isn't in your world?

No, God saw every detail of the fall. No detail escaped His observation. He knew everything about the fall as it was becoming fact.

God has the power to control everything. He also has the freedom not to control absolutely everything. He also has sufficient power and wisdom to engineer solutions to problems caused by His creatures choosing and doing stupid things. Some people underrate God's intellect and wisdom and think that the only way God could possibly achieve His goals is to micromanage every atom from beginning to end. That seems to me to be a very low view of Gods abilities.

No one is in micromanaging control of all things. But God is overseeing all things and is able to intervene to achieve all His specific goals despite what other beings do in their attempts to thwart those goals.

 

[Rufus]

NKJ 1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

NKJ 1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

NKJ John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Observations: There are no examples of "pas" here. I take it that you mean "whole" is a "universal" term. In the 2 examples "world" is what would have to be understood but I wouldn't limit "whole" since whatever John means by "world" the whole world is being discussed.

I'm not sure what your point is re: John3:16 as there is no modifier for world. So maybe you're saying "world" is not universal. That's another whole discussion and context is key.

So, I don't see your point here.



I think it does.



The rules of grammar are part of and at the base of proper exegesis. Context comes later in the process and cannot go against grammar.



As you essentially said before, there's no shame in presuppositions as we all have them. The checks and balances are Scripture and its grammar, and other interpreters, etc.

This is one of the high points in the rules of grammar and syntax IMO; presuppositions are much more difficult to get away with at this base level. The language says what it says.



The Text can be very difficult to the western mind. We like to see things like sequence, but the Hebrew form has all kinds of different ways of outlining. Then we're moving from a Hebrew way of writing and thinking to the Greek language which is quite different than Hebrew and quite different than English. There is a lot going on here. Many times, when we see redundancy, for example, I immediately look for a chiastic structure. Chiastic parallelism is frequently used in the Text and at times in very complex ways. There are structures within structures in these documents and I'm aware of some interpreters that specialize in locating them.

Look at 6:35-40 just focusing on the "come to[ward Me" part:

35 The [man] who comes to[ward] Me...​

37a every thing the Father gives to Me will come to[ward] Me​

37b The [man] who comes to[ward] Me I will not cast out​

39 from every thing which the [man - Father from parallel 37a] who sent Me, I not lose but raise it​

40 Every man who sees the Son and believes into Him [may] have eternal life, and I will raise him​

​

Note how John has Jesus building His argument providing more and more details as He proceeds.

​

You're correct that things don't [necessarily] eat and drink and believe. If you grasp the above structure, you'll see that John is dealing with more than just men but is absolutely also dealing with men. John has been establishing this dual track (at minimum) from the beginning of GJohn.

As I showed you from Ps2, YHWH will give His Anointed/Messiah/Christ King the earth. Jesus was also given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt28) (so yes to your rhetorical question about the universe and its components). The creation was damaged by sin. Think this when considering what Jesus raising everything can encompass and include.

BTW, I've been letting you work this out and see if we can get to some level of respectful discourse to assist one another, but you really should take me up on doing the work I suggested in relation to the Greek word for "give" and cognates. You're going to like some of what comes out of that work, and it will answer in more detail some of your questions and concerns. As I told you, the neuter "pas" can be doing many things.

But therein is the crux of the problem; for the warp 'n' woof of the discourse is eating, drinking and BELIEVING, and "things" do not eat the flesh or drink the blood of the Son of Man, nor do plants, trees, shrubs, rivers, oceans, the clouds, the sun, moon or the stars, etc, etc., etc. believe in Him! Furthermore, only entities who are capable of eating, drinking and believing have eternal life within them. I have never read anywhere where animals or trees, or plants or shrubs or the grass, etc. eat, drink and believe and have eternal life.

And just what "things" are enabled to come to Jesus (v. 65)? How are "things" enabled to COME to Christ? You seem to be conflating giving and coming; yet, these are two very different things. And in this verse, why is the personal pronoun "you" used instead of some impersonal pronoun? "This is why I told YOU that NO ONE can come to me..." Shouldn't this text read, in order to be consistent with your interpretation: "This is why I told all things that nothing can come to me..."?

And how come v. 56, instead of beginning with "He" or "Whoever" (which is how most translators render the Gr. term "ho" (Strong's 3588), the language scholars didn't opt for "That" or "Whatever"? And do "things" that eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood "remain in him" and He in those "things"? Jesus actually indwells trees and rivers and such? Is the Christian faith at its core pantheistic in nature?

You're interpretation of John 6 raises far more questions than can be answered intelligently, rationally and coherently.

Also, since you think that all "universal" terms should always be interpreted in the distributive sense, then I take it that since the Father has given to the Son all things in the distributive sense (v. 37), then you must believe (again to be consistent with yourself) that the Father gave to Jesus all the unbelieving Pharisees in John 5 and all the "disciples" in John 6 who deserted him? And since you must in order to be true to yourself, you have unwittingly placed yourself on the horns of no small dilemma; for Jesus clearly taught that ALL that come to him, he will in no wise reject, drive away or cast out and that his Father's will is that he lose NONE but raise up "everything" on the last day. Yet, Jesus did lose many! He lost the majority of Pharisees (and other religious elites) and he lost many of those "disciples" who followed him over to Capernaum. This means Jesus did not obey his Father's will. He did not do his Father's will! Therefore, Jesus is a sinner as a result of his disobedience. He's not the sinless, spotless Lamb of God after all, is He? Now...what are you going to do since you are still dead in your sins?

 

[dougcho]

Where does Jesus say He chose the twelve for salvation? Matthew says He chose the twelve to be with Him and to send them out to preach. And one of those chosen was Judas, who along with some others, did not believe Jesus was the Messiah until after His resurrection..

Mar 3:14
And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

Jhn 6:70
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Jhn 6:64
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

You are correct.
God chooses people for all kinds of reasons.
Some are chosen for salvation, some for different ministries, etc.

 

[Rufus]

No, God saw every detail of the fall. No detail escaped His observation. He knew everything about the fall as it was becoming fact.

God has the power to control everything. He also has the freedom not to control absolutely everything. He also has sufficient power and wisdom to engineer solutions to problems caused by His creatures choosing and doing stupid things. Some people underrate God's intellect and wisdom and think that the only way God could possibly achieve His goals is to micromanage every atom from beginning to end. That seems to me to be a very low view of Gods abilities.

No one is in micromanaging control of all things. But God is overseeing all things and is able to intervene to achieve all His specific goals despite what other beings do in their attempts to thwart those goals.

Which means God is not all-knowing. To be all knowing is possess all knowledge intuitively. What you said in what I bolded implies that God LEARNED about the Fall in time and space "as it was becoming fact". And if this is the case, then I suppose you think Moses embellished the creation account by adding in after-the-fact the first prophecy in scripture (Gen 2:17)? Moses did this to make God look smart? After all, you just said above that God knew all as it was becoming fact -- as the events were unfolding before his very eyes.

Also, if God could learn something, then he's not immutable either! And since he wouldn't be immutable then this further implies that God isn't perfect in his being, since all knowledge residing in him is not as eternal He himself is. If God can change in his character or his attributes, then such change would have to be for the better or even for the worse. And if God can change, that would be very cold comfort to his Redeemed who understand the importance of his immutability and take great delight in it. After all, if God is capable of change, who can say with certainty that he could never change for the worse?

As often discussed, God's will, plan and purposes are never contingent on the will of any of his creatures (Eph 1:11; Rom 11:34; 1Cor 2:16; Isa 40:13-14). He works all things after the counsel of his own will. Since you must deny the answers to the rhetorical questions in Isa 40, then this means that the sons of men actually teach God -- just like A&E obviously taught God something about human nature.

 

[Rufus]

PaulThomson said:


Where does Jesus say He chose the twelve for salvation? Matthew says He chose the twelve to be with Him and to send them out to preach. And one of those chosen was Judas, who along with some others, did not believe Jesus was the Messiah until after His resurrection..

And just who would he choose to preach the eternal Gospel: Seeds of the Serpent? Or perhaps even demons themselves?

And I suppose in your mind, the other 11 could have ended up in hell with Judas, right?

And when Peter denied him three times, didn't Peter repent as Jesus said he would since he interceded on Peter's behalf to the Father? (Wonder how Jesus knew this since he didn't see Peter's denial unfold as it was literally taking place in time and space?)

And when was the last time you read Jesus' High Priestly Prayer to his Father in John 17?