When examining commentaries on John Chapter 17, such as those by figures like John Calvin, a significant focus is placed on the doctrine of election unto salvation. This emphasis is not unique to Calvin but is shared by many who adhere to Calvinistic or Reformed views. However, some critics argue that this strong emphasis on election unto salvation in this chapter is misguided. They contend that viewing the chapter through the lens of election unto salvation is an error that stems from interpreting the prayer out of its proper context.
An instance of dissent comes from the works of Dr. Leighton Flowers. Based on my observations and online exploration, he has emerged as one of the most engaged and well-known bloggers and podcasters challenging Reformed theology. Dr. Flowers has published an article on his website titled "Have You Been Given to Christ by the Father?"
He begins his article with this: [emphasis mine] “Have you individually been given to Christ by the Father, or are you one who believed in Christ through the message of those who were given to Christ by the Father? The Calvinist interprets John 17 to mean that all of us have individually been “given to Christ by the Father” in the same manner that His elect apostles were while Christ was on earth. Let’s look at the text:”
While the article expands to include other texts and objections beyond John 17, I intend to encapsulate his argument specifically concerning John 17.
Firstly, Dr. Flowers contends that Jesus' prayer, in this instance, distinctly separates two categories of people: the first group consists of those who were present with Christ during His earthly ministry and were granted the authority to disseminate His teachings. The second group comprises individuals who will later come to believe in Christ through the teachings conveyed by the Apostles. In essence, Jesus is praying for two distinct groups: the Apostles and those who will embrace Christ through the Apostles' teachings.
Dr. Flowers’ second point revolves around the Calvinist standpoint, suggesting that each believer is presented to Christ in a manner mirroring the elect apostles. He contends that such an interpretation diminishes the unique authority bestowed upon the apostles, who held a specific role as inspired messengers entrusted with conveying God's truth. According to Dr. Flowers, the chapter in question indicates a temporal focus in the initial part of Jesus' prayer, centering on those physically present during His earthly ministry. This group was entrusted with establishing the foundation of the church. The subsequent portion of the prayer, as argued by Dr. Flowers, includes those who will later believe through the teachings of the initial group. Importantly, Dr. Flowers notes that the prayer does not explicitly state that these subsequent believers are "given to Christ by the Father."
In summary, to reiterate succinctly:
1. Differentiate between two sets of individuals in this prayer: the Apostles and those who will subsequently come to believe through the teachings of the Apostles.
2. The phrase "given to Christ by the Father," signifying election, is exclusively attributed to the Apostles.
3. The concept of election, as expressed by this phrase, is not specifically directed towards salvation but rather toward the designation to the office of Apostleship, serving the unique purpose of proclaiming the Word and composing Scripture.
He ends his article with this: Is there any sense in which we too are “given to Christ?” Yes, of course, but not in the same sense intended by the author in that context. That is the point of proper hermeneutics; to answer the question, “What is the intention of the author?” The intention of the author is to point out that these men were entrusted to Christ by the Father for a special purpose, a purpose that you and I are not entrusted with in the same way they were. I haven’t meet Jesus in the flesh, have you? I haven’t walked on water with Jesus, have you? I haven’t touched his nail scared hands, have you? I wasn’t blinded on a road, were you? I didn’t help start the first church, did you? I haven’t written a book of the bible, have you? I haven’t preformed miracles, have you? What makes you distinct from the apostles? That question must be objectively addressed to deal rightly with this passage and the historical context of the entire New Testament.”
As an additional point, it's worth noting that this type of argument is frequently presented by those opposed to Calvinism. This argument is not confined to this particular text but is also invoked in other instances, such as Romans 9. In Romans 9, the contention is that the election mentioned pertains exclusively to the nation of Israel and is not an election unto salvation but rather for a specific ministry or purpose.
So, is Dr. Flowers accurate in his assessment? Are Calvinists at fault for misinterpreting this entire prayer, leading to inaccurate conclusions regarding a doctrine of election unto salvation for all believers?
No.
Firstly, he distorts the Calvinist perspective by claiming that we neglect a differentiation within the prayer involving two groups, which is not the case. Secondly, he is incorrect in asserting that the election mentioned in this chapter does not pertain to salvation.
Let's address these two points.
(1) Initially, Dr. Flowers is accurate in identifying two distinct groups being prayed for in this context, but it's important to clarify that we do not overlook this distinction.
Why do we acknowledge the existence of two groups here? Consider the following:
In verse 6, Jesus declares, "I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word." This pertains to Jesus' personal ministry, aimed specifically at them and not at us.
Observe verse 11: “And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you.” Here, Jesus indicates his imminent departure, a theme already encountered in this Gospel. He is about to leave them. While they will remain in the world, He will depart.
Moving to verse 12: "While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me." Here, Jesus explicitly refers to those he was physically present with. This cannot be applied to you and me, as we have never personally been with Jesus on this earth, a reality spanning almost 2,000 years now.
Consider what Jesus further states about those he was with: "I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." This, of course, alludes to Judas.
“But now,” He says in verse 13, “I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.”
And if that wasn’t clear enough, He then says this in verses 20-21: “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”
Dr. Flowers is accurate on this particular aspect, and it seems to be the sole point where he is correct—Jesus indeed offers prayers for two separate sets of individuals.
He prays for those who were physically present WITH HIM during His earthly ministry, prior to His departure. Additionally, in verse 20 and onwards, He extends His prayer to a second group composed of those who will come to believe in Christ through the WORD proclaimed by the initial group.
This distinction proves to be valuable and insightful for a comprehensive understanding of the prayer's dynamics.
While Dr. Flowers is accurate on this specific point, he is mistaken in asserting that Calvinists overlook it. Curiously, he does not directly quote Calvin in his article, even though a simple consultation of Calvin's commentary on this chapter would have clarified the matter. Commenting on verse 20 which reads, “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,” Calvin writes, “He now gives a wider range to his prayer, which hitherto had included the apostles alone; for he extends it to all the disciples of the Gospel, so long as there shall be any of them to the end of the world.”1
We certainly do not overlook the distinction. In verses 6-19, Jesus is specifically praying for the Apostles, with whom He shared His earthly ministry before His departure to be with the Father. Calvin explicitly expressed this: up to verse 20, Jesus focused solely on the apostles. Beyond verse 20, "he extends it to all the disciples of the Gospel, so long as there shall be any of them to the end of the world."
So, while Dr. Flowers is accurate in pointing out the distinction, he is mistaken in asserting that we disregard it.
(2) Turning to the second point, he is incorrect in proposing that the election mentioned in this chapter is not related to salvation.
It's noteworthy that not only did Dr. Flowers neglect to quote Calvin, but in commencing his analysis of the prayer, he initiated it from verse 6 rather than beginning with verse 1! Why is this significant?
What did Jesus articulate in verses 1-5 as an introductory statement to the prayer?
“When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, 'Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you. Since you have given him authority over all flesh...' Notice that the term 'all flesh' is unqualified, meaning Christ is granted authority over everyone without exception. There is no indication that this 'all' is limited to believers, Israel, or any specific group. Now, why was He given authority over all flesh? 'To give eternal life.' Clearly, this pertains to salvation. Jesus is not discussing bestowing a ministry or an office like Apostleship. He is explicitly addressing eternal life, and when he says 'to all,' this is qualified as 'to all whom you have given him.' And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”
In other words, the precise element that Dr. Flowers contends is absent from this prayer is, in fact, precisely what Jesus explicitly stated in verse 2—an aspect he conveniently overlooked by commencing his analysis from verse 6.
The Son will give eternal life to all whom the Father has given to the Son.
That is the fundamental essence of this prayer—its primary focus. Jesus, in this prayer, advocates on behalf of all the chosen ones, emphasizing their salvation. He initiates with the Apostles and extends his prayer to encompass the rest of us who will believe in Christ through the teachings of the Apostles.
Nevertheless, the distinctive calling and ministry of the Apostles are not disregarded in this prayer; they remain pertinent. This is evident, particularly in verses 18 and 20.
In verse 18, Jesus articulates that He has commissioned them, sending them into the world, mirroring the Father's sending of Himself. Subsequently, in verse 20, He acknowledges that in the future, individuals will come to believe in Him through the proclamation of the Apostles.
However, while recognizing the unique calling of the Apostles, the underlying reality and the primary focus of this prayer, applicable to all of God’s chosen ones, is Jesus interceding for their salvation.
As Jesus speaks about the Apostles, excluding Judas, statements like “I have manifested your name to them,” “they have kept your word,” “they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you,” “they have believed that you sent me,” “keep them in your name that they may be one,” “I have guarded them,” “do not take them out of the world but keep them from the evil one,” and “sanctify them in the truth” are all expressions of Christ's plea for their salvation.
Then, in verse 20, Jesus goes on to say, “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word.” What is the essence of His request? Their salvation.
Commenting on verse 6, Calvin writes, “Here Christ begins to pray to the Father for his disciples, [which Calvin later qualifies as the Apostles] and, with the same warmth of love with which he was immediately to suffer death for them, he now pleads for their salvation.”
And then, in verse 20 and following, Calvin writes, “He began with his apostles, that their salvation, which we know to be certain, might make us more certain of our own salvation; and, therefore, whenever Satan attacks us, let us learn to meet him with this shield, that it is not to no purpose that the Son of God united us with the apostles, so that the salvation of all was bound up, as it were, in the same bundle.”2
Calvin's assessment is entirely accurate. The predominant theme of this prayer, as clearly articulated in Jesus' introduction in verse 2, is precisely as Calvin has pointed out. In his analysis, Dr. Leighton Flowers overlooked this crucial aspect by commencing with verse 6. Dr. Flowers is the one who has overlooked the contextual nuances of this prayer, thereby stripping it of its profound significance and the implications of the doctrine of election unto salvation.
Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Calvin, John, and William Pringle. 2010. Commentary on the Gospel according to John. Vol. 2. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
Ibid
Based on my readings of Leighton Flowers, I'm not even sure if the guy is even a Christian. He hates Calvinism - ok, fine. He hates the doctrines of grace. He's a moloinist, and seems to espouse some kind of Neo-pelagianism. He denies that the fall brought about a change in our nature (denies total depravity and man's sin nature). He denies that Adam's fall has affected all of humanity. He doesn't even hold the Armenian view of prevenant grace, but rather believes that unfallen man has the ability within himself to either choose God or reject Him.