A Thought on John 6:44

[John Mullally]

The phrase "everyone who has heard and learned" in verse 45 describes the nature of the drawing in verse 44, not conditions for it. Hearing and learning are not prerequisites for the Father's drawing; they are the outcomes of that drawing. This is evident in John's use of the genitive phrase διδακτοὶ θεοῦ ("taught of God"). Διδακτοὶ is a predicate adjective, emphasizing the reception of divine instruction. The term is never used of a "teaching" offered to people. Rather, it conveys the idea of individuals being "God-taught" or "God-instructed," with God imparting knowledge to them. The divine instruction has been engraved upon their hearts; its reception is not conditioned upon anything other than the One giving it.

Your argument had been that the nature of the drawing is that only those being drawn by the Father will come to Jesus (verse 44). In what sense does the nature of the drawing also describe the underlined portion in verse 45 (see below)? That would seem to be tangential to what Jesus is saying in verse 44. It makes far more sense that the the underlined portion is describing the prerequisites for the Father's drawing as those are things that His audience (OT Jews) could have participated in long before being drawn to Jesus. John 5:46 and John 7:17 also touch on who will come to Jesus.

I am not saying you assert this, but to be clear,John 6:45 does not describe the process of the Father's drawing. The underlined portion of verse 45 shows actions people participate in such as hearing and learning - and we all choose who we listen to and learn from.

John 6: 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.​

​

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

There is no grammatical contradiction.

"Hearing and learning" from the Father describes a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ (as distinct from the crowd's worldly reception of Jesus), highlighted by the mentioning that this posture always results in coming (vs. 45). If "hearing and learning" from the Father is therefore a condition for being drawn by Him, then you're introducing a distinction between the ability to have a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ, and the ability to come to Christ.

S --> D (If one has a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ, the Father draws him.)
D --> A (If the Father draws him, he is able to come.)

This works logically, but it is not contextually coherent. Jesus is addressing a crowd of Jews who do not believe in Him (vs. 36). Immediately following the mention of this, He states that everyone given to Him by the Father will come to Him and never be cast out, emphasizing His purpose in securing their salvation as the reason why He came down from heaven (vv. 37-40).

What is the explanatory value of these statements (vv. 37-40) in the context of this crowd's unbelief? Is it not the natural implication here that these ones have not been "given" by the Father, hence why they don't believe? Why make these statements in this context, unless to explain their unbelief? The reason these people do not believe, despite seeing Jesus with their own eyes, is because it has not been given to them to believe (vs. 65).

This pattern recurs when the Jews struggle with Jesus' words in vv. 41-42, prompting Him to tell them to quit their grumbling. If it was His intention, this would have been a perfect opportunity for Jesus to try and help these people to understand what they are missing about the spiritual significance of His words. They are clearly confused. They're hung up on His claim that He "came down from heaven" because they know His earthly parents. It would have been quite easy to respond with a straightforward correction of their misconception. But that does not appear to be Jesus' concern. Instead, He tells them to knock it off. Μὴ γογγύζετε. Stop it. Quit your grumbling. Why? Why not try to help them understand what they are missing? That would be the natural question. So is there not an implied "because" here, almost as if to anticipate the question? --> "[It's not worth it for you to grumble about this, because] no one can come to me unless..."

The apparent implication of this is that the condition for the ability to come has not been fulfilled in the case of these individuals. Once again, Jesus' focus is on explaining the reason for the crowd's unbelief, and that reason points specifically to the lack of the Father's action in giving/drawing them. Hence, the attempt to reason with them would be futile. This inability is, indeed, a spiritual inability. It is an incapacity, rendering any effort to reason with them worthless, unless the inability is removed.

Now, here's the issue. You've alluded to the possibility of a distinction between the ability to have a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ, and the ability to come to Christ. The problem is that Jesus is addressing people who do not have a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ. That's kind of the point. They do have a worldly receptive posture -- they followed him around the sea wanting to see more miracles -- but not a spiritual one. "Hearing and learning" (vs. 45) clearly refers to the latter, however, given that it always results in coming, which has been identified throughout the passage with true belief.

So, the crowd Jesus is speaking with do not have a spiritually receptive posture toward Him. And yet it is the revelation of this fact that prompts His words in vv. 44-45. Thus, the explanatory value of vs. 44ff. in context is to explain why some do not have a spiritually receptive posture toward Jesus (not why people with that posture cannot yet come to Him). And the reason given is that they have not been drawn. Jesus isn't addressing people who have "heard and learned" but can't come. He's addressing people who can't hear and learn. They can't even understand.

Given this, how would it make sense to say that having a spiritually receptive posture is necessary in order to be drawn, if contextually the reason given as to why they do not have that posture is because they haven't been drawn?

It follows that there is no meaningful distinction between S and A, returning to the above logical expressions. And without a meaningful distinction, the fact that D --> A is explicitly stated in verse 44 implies that S --> D is not a correct understanding of the latter half of verse 45. There's the "contradiction." A logical contradiction? No. Contextually incoherent? Yes.

It is therefore much better to take "hearing and learning" as descriptive of the human element in view in what the drawing of the Father accomplishes. This is further emphasized by the argument presented in earlier posts that the Father's drawing does not merely enable one to come, but effectually ensures that they will do so.

Thus, verses 44-45 continue a pattern seen in vv. 37-40, with the juxtaposition of the Father's grounding sovereign work, and subsequent human action. The human element is every bit as necessary to salvation, but is nevertheless grounded in and motivated by divine action:

Note the interplay of divine grounding action and human response (illustrating the concurrence of primary and secondary causes):

• Verse 37a - The Father gives a people to the Son, and on the basis of this giving, it is promised that they will come.
• Verse 37b - The focus shifts into the human element, highlighting the concurrent action of secondary causes, stating that those who come will never be cast out. The human response is emphasized, and yet it has also just been grounded in the Father's giving.
  • God works in (primary cause; gives man) and through (secondary cause; man is moved to come) a thing to accomplish His will.
  • We can't introduce a human action (i.e. a spiritually receptive posture) as a condition for the giving, as it would completely go against the flow of thought being presented. What prompts Jesus' words here is the lack of a spiritually receptive posture in His audience.
• Verse 38 - We get the reason for Jesus' promise; He has come to earth to fulfill the will of His Father. So the emphasis here is on what Jesus is doing to accomplish a divine plan. We then get a two-fold statement of that plan, first concerning the divine element, then concerning the human element:
• Verse 39 - The will which Jesus has come to fulfill is this: That He should lose nothing of all that is given to Him. He will secure the salvation of the given ones. That is His mission on earth, concerned principally. But then the focus shifts once more into the human element:
• Verse 40- The will which Jesus has come to fulfill is this: That all who look on the Son and believe in Him should have everlasting life.
  • This is one and the same purpose as what we have in verse 39 (having already established a necessary relationship between being given and coming), only considered from the human side of things.
  • Belief is absolutely necessary for salvation; yet that belief is God-wrought (vv. 37, 39), as Jesus' purpose in coming to earth is to accomplish the Father's will (vs. 38) in securing the redemption of these given ones.
• Verse 44a - However, man naturally is unable to dispose himself toward Christ. Given the above discussion, it is most plausible to understand this "inability" as a spiritual inability to mobilize within oneself a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ.
  • Here again the emphasis is on human action, but it's going to be grounded in divine action:
• Verse 44b-c - The drawing of the Father fulfills the condition necessary to obtain the ability to develop a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ, leading to faith.
  • This drawing not only grants the ability to come, but ensures that one will do so, as the final clause ("I will raise him up") assumes not simply the understood theological fact that he has come, but more directly the fulfillment of the stated condition; namely, that "he" (the one being raised) has been drawn. In other words, it is all drawn ones who are raised up.
  • This once again emphasizes Christ's purpose in coming to earth - to fulfill the will of His Father in perfectly accomplishing and securing the redemption of all the given/drawn ones.
  • This purpose is the driving impetus of Jesus' mission (vs. 38), and the human response is grounded in the actions the Triune God takes in accomplishing it. God so works in the hearts of individuals as to instill the desires and receptive posture necessary to bring about this redemptive purpose.
• Verse 45a - Jesus quotes from Isaiah to justify His claims, highlighting to the unbelieving crowd that their own Scriptures verify what He is saying. The predicate adjective διδακτοί, unlike the far more common verb διδάσκω, describes the subject (when referring to persons) as having received the educational effect of the teaching, much like the sentence "the glass will be etched by the engraver" describes the subject as having received the engraving effect of the etching. This is sovereign action. It is descriptive of the drawing.
  • Isaiah 54 is a very monergistic text, emphasizing God's sovereign action in the provision, protection, and distilling of an educational effect upon His people.
  • But then, continuing with the pattern of the passage, we get the human layer as an additional descriptor of this giving/drawing/teaching act of God:
• Verse 45b - The spiritually receptive posture is here described as "hearing and learning" from the Father. It is best to take this as descriptive of what the giving/drawing/teaching of the Father brings about, with respect to its secondary/proximate causes.

In sum, we can't introduce a human action (i.e. a spiritually receptive posture) as a condition for being drawn, as it would completely go against the flow of thought being presented. What prompts Jesus' words in vv. 44-45 is the lack of a spiritually receptive posture in His audience.

A final note on verse 65:

It's worth pointing out that this verse identifies a paradigmatic-syntagmatic relationship between δίδωμι and ἑλκύω in the chapter. Jesus quotes verse 44 almost verbatim, except ἑλκύω is replaced with δίδωμι from verse 37, identifying the giving and the drawing of the Father as the same action. They are effectively interchangeable in this context.

Thus, "no one can come to me unless the Father has given/drawn him," and yet "all that the Father gives/draws will come to me." Humanity consists of those who (1) do not have the ability to cultivate a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ, and those who (2) are not only granted the ability, but infallibly exercise it. Why? Because Jesus has promised that He "should lose nothing of all that [the Father] has given/drawn to [Him]," so the work of the Triune God in redemptive history must direct the hearts of the given/drawn ones to the accomplishment of that will.

Your argument had been that the nature of the drawing is that only those being drawn by the Father will come to Jesus (verse 44). In what sense does the nature of the drawing also describe the underlined portion in verse 45 (see below)? That would seem to be tangential to what Jesus is saying in verse 44. It makes far more sense that the the underlined portion is describing the prerequisites for the Father's drawing as those are things that His audience (OT Jews) could have participated in long before being drawn to Jesus. John 5:46 and John 7:17 also touch on who will come to Jesus.

I am not saying you assert this, but to be clear,John 6:45 does not describe the process of the Father's drawing. The underlined portion of verse 45 shows actions people participate in such as hearing and learning - and we all choose who we listen to and learn from.

John 6: 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.​

​

See my comments above.

 

[tall73]

"Hearing and learning" from the Father describes a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ (as distinct from the crowd's worldly reception of Jesus), highlighted by the mentioning that this posture always results in coming (vs. 45). If "hearing and learning" from the Father is therefore a condition for being drawn by Him, then you're introducing a distinction between the ability to have a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ, and the ability to come to Christ.

S --> D (If one has a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ, the Father draws him.)
D --> A (If the Father draws him, he is able to come.)

This works logically, but it is not contextually coherent. Jesus is addressing a crowd of Jews who do not believe in Him (vs. 36). Immediately following the mention of this, He states that everyone given to Him by the Father will come to Him and never be cast out, emphasizing His purpose in securing their salvation as the reason why He came down from heaven (vv. 37-40).

What is the explanatory value of these statements (vv. 37-40) in the context of this crowd's unbelief? Is it not the natural implication here that these ones have not been "given" by the Father, hence why they don't believe? Why make these statements in this context, unless to explain their unbelief? The reason these people do not believe, despite seeing Jesus with their own eyes, is because it has not been given to them to believe (vs. 65).

This pattern recurs when the Jews struggle with Jesus' words in vv. 41-42, prompting Him to tell them to quit their grumbling. If it was His intention, this would have been a perfect opportunity for Jesus to try and help these people to understand what they are missing about the spiritual significance of His words. They are clearly confused. They're hung up on His claim that He "came down from heaven" because they know His earthly parents. It would have been quite easy to respond with a straightforward correction of their misconception. But that does not appear to be Jesus' concern. Instead, He tells them to knock it off. Μὴ γογγύζετε. Stop it. Quit your grumbling. Why? Why not try to help them understand what they are missing? That would be the natural question. So is there not an implied "because" here, almost as if to anticipate the question? --> "[It's not worth it for you to grumble about this, because] no one can come to me unless..."

The apparent implication of this is that the condition for the ability to come has not been fulfilled in the case of these individuals. Once again, Jesus' focus is on explaining the reason for the crowd's unbelief, and that reason points specifically to the lack of the Father's action in giving/drawing them. Hence, the attempt to reason with them would be futile. This inability is, indeed, a spiritual inability. It is an incapacity, rendering any effort to reason with them worthless, unless the inability is removed.

Now, here's the issue. You've alluded to the possibility of a distinction between the ability to have a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ, and the ability to come to Christ. The problem is that Jesus is addressing people who do not have a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ. That's kind of the point. They do have a worldly receptive posture -- they followed him around the sea wanting to see more miracles -- but not a spiritual one. "Hearing and learning" (vs. 45) clearly refers to the latter, however, given that it always results in coming, which has been identified throughout the passage with true belief.

So, the crowd Jesus is speaking with do not have a spiritually receptive posture toward Him. And yet it is the revelation of this fact that prompts His words in vv. 44-45. Thus, the explanatory value of vs. 44ff. in context is to explain why some do not have a spiritually receptive posture toward Jesus (not why people with that posture cannot yet come to Him). And the reason given is that they have not been drawn. Jesus isn't addressing people who have "heard and learned" but can't come. He's addressing people who can't hear and learn. They can't even understand.

Given this, how would it make sense to say that having a spiritually receptive posture is necessary in order to be drawn, if contextually the reason given as to why they do not have that posture is because they haven't been drawn?

It follows that there is no meaningful distinction between S and A, returning to the above logical expressions. And without a meaningful distinction, the fact that D --> A is explicitly stated in verse 44 implies that S --> D is not a correct understanding of the latter half of verse 45. There's the "contradiction." A logical contradiction? No. Contextually incoherent? Yes.

It is therefore much better to take "hearing and learning" as descriptive of the human element in view in what the drawing of the Father accomplishes. This is further emphasized by the argument presented in earlier posts that the Father's drawing does not merely enable one to come, but effectually ensures that they will do so.

Thus, verses 44-45 continue a pattern seen in vv. 37-40, with the juxtaposition of the Father's grounding sovereign work, and subsequent human action. The human element is every bit as necessary to salvation, but is nevertheless grounded in and motivated by divine action:

Note the interplay of divine grounding action and human response (illustrating the concurrence of primary and secondary causes):

• Verse 37a - The Father gives a people to the Son, and on the basis of this giving, it is promised that they will come.
• Verse 37b - The focus shifts into the human element, highlighting the concurrent action of secondary causes, stating that those who come will never be cast out. The human response is emphasized, and yet it has also just been grounded in the Father's giving.
  • God works in (primary cause; gives man) and through (secondary cause; man is moved to come) a thing to accomplish His will.
  • We can't introduce a human action (i.e. a spiritually receptive posture) as a condition for the giving, as it would completely go against the flow of thought being presented. What prompts Jesus' words here is the lack of a spiritually receptive posture in His audience.
• Verse 38 - We get the reason for Jesus' promise; He has come to earth to fulfill the will of His Father. So the emphasis here is on what Jesus is doing to accomplish a divine plan. We then get a two-fold statement of that plan, first concerning the divine element, then concerning the human element:
• Verse 39 - The will which Jesus has come to fulfill is this: That He should lose nothing of all that is given to Him. He will secure the salvation of the given ones. That is His mission on earth, concerned principally. But then the focus shifts once more into the human element:
• Verse 40- The will which Jesus has come to fulfill is this: That all who look on the Son and believe in Him should have everlasting life.
  • This is one and the same purpose as what we have in verse 39 (having already established a necessary relationship between being given and coming), only considered from the human side of things.
  • Belief is absolutely necessary for salvation; yet that belief is God-wrought (vv. 37, 39), as Jesus' purpose in coming to earth is to accomplish the Father's will (vs. 38) in securing the redemption of these given ones.
• Verse 44a - However, man naturally is unable to dispose himself toward Christ. Given the above discussion, it is most plausible to understand this "inability" as a spiritual inability to mobilize within oneself a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ.
  • Here again the emphasis is on human action, but it's going to be grounded in divine action:
• Verse 44b-c - The drawing of the Father fulfills the condition necessary to obtain the ability to develop a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ, leading to faith.
  • This drawing not only grants the ability to come, but ensures that one will do so, as the final clause ("I will raise him up") assumes not simply the understood theological fact that he has come, but more directly the fulfillment of the stated condition; namely, that "he" (the one being raised) has been drawn. In other words, it is all drawn ones who are raised up.
  • This once again emphasizes Christ's purpose in coming to earth - to fulfill the will of His Father in perfectly accomplishing and securing the redemption of all the given/drawn ones.
  • This purpose is the driving impetus of Jesus' mission (vs. 38), and the human response is grounded in the actions the Triune God takes in accomplishing it. God so works in the hearts of individuals as to instill the desires and receptive posture necessary to bring about this redemptive purpose.
• Verse 45a - Jesus quotes from Isaiah to justify His claims, highlighting to the unbelieving crowd that their own Scriptures verify what He is saying. The predicate adjective διδακτοί, unlike the far more common verb διδάσκω, describes the subject (when referring to persons) as having received the educational effect of the teaching, much like the sentence "the glass will be etched by the engraver" describes the subject as having received the engraving effect of the etching. This is sovereign action. It is descriptive of the drawing.
  • Isaiah 54 is a very monergistic text, emphasizing God's sovereign action in the provision, protection, and distilling of an educational effect upon His people.
  • But then, continuing with the pattern of the passage, we get the human layer as an additional descriptor of this giving/drawing/teaching act of God:
• Verse 45b - The spiritually receptive posture is here described as "hearing and learning" from the Father. It is best to take this as descriptive of what the giving/drawing/teaching of the Father brings about, with respect to its secondary/proximate causes.

In sum, we can't introduce a human action (i.e. a spiritually receptive posture) as a condition for being drawn, as it would completely go against the flow of thought being presented. What prompts Jesus' words in vv. 44-45 is the lack of a spiritually receptive posture in His audience.

A final note on verse 65:

It's worth pointing out that this verse identifies a paradigmatic-syntagmatic relationship between δίδωμι and ἑλκύω in the chapter. Jesus quotes verse 44 almost verbatim, except ἑλκύω is replaced with δίδωμι from verse 37, identifying the giving and the drawing of the Father as the same action. They are effectively interchangeable in this context.

Thus, "no one can come to me unless the Father has given/drawn him," and yet "all that the Father gives/draws will come to me." Humanity consists of those who (1) do not have the ability to cultivate a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ, and those who (2) are not only granted the ability, but infallibly exercise it. Why? Because Jesus has promised that He "should lose nothing of all that [the Father] has given/drawn to [Him]," so the work of the Triune God in redemptive history must direct the hearts of the given/drawn ones to the accomplishment of that will.

I think on a few points we are speaking past each other, so I am going to start by noting the aspects where we agree.

- The issue is not one of logic, or grammar, but of context.
- He is addressing those who do not believe. He is explaining their unbelief. They are unable to come to Him, because they have not met the condition.
- As I mentioned in my previous post, the drawing of the Father in v.44 is equivalent to the giving of the Father in vs. 37. Those who are drawn/given come to Jesus. You further point out, and I agree, verse 65 again references the same.

 

[tall73]

"Hearing and learning" from the Father describes a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ

Hearing and learning from the Father describes a spiritually receptive posture towards...the Father.

It results in a spiritually receptive posture towards Christ because the Father gives/draws to Christ.

I mentioned we agree that the issue is not primarily logical, but is an issue of context and interpretation. But the part where we are talking past each other is related to the above. It is the relation to the Father, who they claimed to already know and follow, that is the issue for the unbelieving hearers. The ministry of Jesus, and the claims He is making are new to them. They are expressing doubts about who Jesus is. While they are following Jesus, they are not coming to Him or putting faith in Him. But Jesus points out the issue is that they don't believe the One who sent Him, and have not learned of Him.

If asked they would say they hear and learn from the Father. Jesus states that is not the case. And that is the reason they cannot be drawn/given to Him by the Father. They are not His. They are not hearing or learning of Him.

This idea that those who honor, hear, learn of the Father will therefore honor, hear, learn of the Son is a repeated theme in John.


John 5:18-23
18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. 19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (NKJV)

The one who doesn't honor the Son doesn't honor the Father who sent the Son.

John 5:36-47
36 But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? (NKJV)

The Father sent the Son, and testifies of Him, but they do not have the word of the Father abiding in them, as evidenced by them not believing in the Son Whom the Father sent.

John 7:16-17
16 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. (NKJV)

If someone wills to do the will of the Father, they will know whether Jesus speaks on His own authority, or that of the One who sent Him.

John 7:28-29
28 Then Jesus cried out, as He taught in the temple, saying, “You both know Me, and you know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. 29 But I know Him, for I am from Him, and He sent Me.” (NKJV)

Jesus is sent by the Father, but they do not know the Father. Therefore, they do not accept Jesus.

John 8:13-19
13 The Pharisees therefore said to Him, “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true.”
14 Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16 And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. 17 It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”
19 Then they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?”
Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.” (NKJV)

Had they known the Son, they would have known the Father also.


John 8:37-47
37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.”
39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”
Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 You do the deeds of your father.”
Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.” (NKJV)

They do not hear the Son because they are not of God.


John 8:54-55
54 Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. 55 Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. ”(NKJV)

They claimed that the Father was their God, but did not know Him.

John 12:44-45
44 Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. (NKJV)

The one who believes in the Son believes in the Father who sent Him.


John 15:20-25
20 Remember the word that I said to you, A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. 25 But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, They hated Me without a cause.’ (NKJV)

The ones who do not know the One who sent the Son will persecute the disciples. They have no excuse for their sin, because they have heard the words of Jesus, and seen the works, but they hated both the Son and the Father.

John 16:2-3
2 They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. 3 And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me. (NKJV)

They will put out of synagogues, and kill disciples because they have not known the Father or the Son.

If "hearing and learning" from the Father is therefore a condition for being drawn by Him, then you're introducing a distinction between the ability to have a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ, and the ability to come to Christ.

I am stating that those who were already responsive to the Father would be drawn by the Father to Christ. Those who knew the Father would also know the Son Whom He sent.

What is the explanatory value of these statements (vv. 37-40) in the context of this crowd's unbelief? Is it not the natural implication here that these ones have not been "given" by the Father, hence why they don't believe? Why make these statements in this context, unless to explain their unbelief? The reason these people do not believe, despite seeing Jesus with their own eyes, is because it has not been given to them to believe (vs. 65).

It has not been given to them by the Father....because they don't know, hear, honor, learn of, the Father.

This pattern recurs when the Jews struggle with Jesus' words in vv. 41-42, prompting Him to tell them to quit their grumbling. If it was His intention, this would have been a perfect opportunity for Jesus to try and help these people to understand what they are missing about the spiritual significance of His words. They are clearly confused. They're hung up on His claim that He "came down from heaven" because they know His earthly parents. It would have been quite easy to respond with a straightforward correction of their misconception. But that does not appear to be Jesus' concern. Instead, He tells them to knock it off. Μὴ γογγύζετε. Stop it. Quit your grumbling. Why? Why not try to help them understand what they are missing? That would be the natural question. So is there not an implied "because" here, almost as if to anticipate the question? --> "[It's not worth it for you to grumble about this, because] no one can come to me unless..."

They are disputing that He is from the Father, because they don't know the Father.

Yes, it is impossible for them to come to Jesus when they do not know the Father, are not of Him, and are not, therefore, given to the Son by the Father.

Now, here's the issue. You've alluded to the possibility of a distinction between the ability to have a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ, and the ability to come to Christ. The problem is that Jesus is addressing people who do not have a spiritually receptive posture toward Christ. That's kind of the point.

No, I have not alluded to the possibility of a distinction between the ability to have a spiritually receptive posture towards Christ, and the ability to come to Christ.

Contextually, I have noted that the ones who come to Christ are those who have heard and learned of The FATHER.

Those who had a receptive spiritual posture to the Father, in many cases before Jesus' earthly ministry even started, are drawn to the Son, because the Father sent the Son.

They do have a worldly receptive posture -- they followed him around the sea wanting to see more miracles -- but not a spiritual one.

Agreed, they wanted the food.

"Hearing and learning" (vs. 45) clearly refers to the latter, however, given that it always results in coming, which has been identified throughout the passage with true belief.

So, the crowd Jesus is speaking with do not have a spiritually receptive posture toward Him. And yet it is the revelation of this fact that prompts His words in vv. 44-45. Thus, the explanatory value of vs. 44ff. in context is to explain why some do not have a spiritually receptive posture toward Jesus (not why people with that posture cannot yet come to Him). And the reason given is that they have not been drawn.

They did not have a spiritually receptive posture towards the Father. So they, of course, do not have a spiritually receptive posture towards the Son. And they are not given by the Father to the Son because they do not belong to the Father.

Jesus isn't addressing people who have "heard and learned" but can't come.

Agreed. Those who have heard and learned of the Father can, and will, be drawn to Jesus, and come, because they hear the Father's testimony about His Son.

Those who have not heard and learned of the Father are not drawn, and cannot come to the Son.

He's addressing people who can't hear and learn. They can't even understand.

They cannot hear the Son while rejecting the Father. We can discuss that point in the next back and forth.

Given this, how would it make sense to say that having a spiritually receptive posture is necessary in order to be drawn, if contextually the reason given as to why they do not have that posture is because they haven't been drawn?

Because the hearing and learning relate to the hearing and learning of the Father, who these have rejected prior to now, and the current inability to come to the Son is because they are not of the Father, and are not drawn by Him.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

(Part 1 of 2)

@tall73 , thanks for your thoughtful comments, and I apologize for the delay. The last few weeks have been pretty crazy. Not only am I currently in the process of moving, but my wife had a medical emergency last week, and I lost this entire post when my computer decided to install Windows updates while we were at the hospital. *sigh* (This is a re-write…). Needless to say, it has taken me some time to find the motivation to get back around to this.

That being said, I have a lot to say in response to your last reply, so this post will be lengthy (the forum is forcing me to split it into two parts). Please take your time with it; I’m in no hurry.

If I can begin by summarizing briefly what I elaborate on below, I simply fail to see the exegetical warrant for your position. While your explanation posits a logical viewpoint (i.e. the idea that hearing/learning is a precondition for drawing/giving does not pose a logical contradiction), what’s relevant, of course, is whether the author actually intended to communicate this. Yet I don’t see any exegetical evidence for this at all, which underscores some hermeneutical concerns regarding your interpretation. Moreover, I think your references in John fail to substantiate the view that hearing the Father is a prerequisite to hearing the Son, and therefore they fail to offer evidence for the view that hearing precedes being drawn/given. Additionally, critical aspects of my previous response were left unaddressed in your reply. This further complicates the exegetical evidence for your interpretation. I’ll elaborate on all of this below.

- He is addressing those who do not believe. He is explaining their unbelief. They are unable to come to Him, because they have not met the condition.

I’m not convinced we mean the same thing by “explaining their unbelief.” What I mean is that Jesus’ mention of the Father’s giving and drawing plays the contextual role of identifying why it is they do not understand. These people neither know the Son nor the Father, and Jesus is explaining why that is. Knowledge of the Father cannot meaningfully be separated from belief in the Son, for the Son is the only mediator of true knowledge of the Father (1 Tim. 2:5; cf. John 5:37; 6:46).

If hears/learns precedes gives/draws, this implies that the core issue lies in the lack of hearing/learning rather than specifically not being given/drawn. If this were the case, discussing the need to be given/drawn would seem irrelevant. Why focus on the necessity of being drawn to believe if the fundamental problem is that they haven’t met the prerequisite for being drawn in the first place? What’s the point of discussing their inability to believe if they have the ability to hear/learn from the Father but the real issue is they simply haven’t taken advantage of it? Is a discussion of the consequence of that failure to hear/learn really the best way to approach their need? Would it not have made more sense to address their failure to hear/learn head-on and attempt to encourage them to do so? Having the ability to hear/learn implies that they can be reasoned with. Yet, this does not interest Jesus. What he actually does is he consistently overlooks their questioning and grumbling and instead talks about their lack of being given/drawn, suggesting that this lack explains an inability that renders attempts to reason with them futile. This goes beyond merely being unable to believe the Son; it touches on their inability to hear or understand anything spiritual, indicating the necessity of giving/drawing before one can be spiritually receptive toward either the Father or the Son.

Consequently…

Hearing and learning from the Father describes a spiritually receptive posture towards...the Father.

…this is a moot point. You have not offered specific exegetical evidence suggesting that the drawing of the Father is the result, and not the cause, of having a spiritually receptive posture toward him. Without that evidence, there can be no substantive objection to the idea that hearing and learning from the Father describes a spiritually receptive posture toward both the Father and the Son. The mere fact that Scripture makes a distinction (bearing in mind that a distinction does not in and of itself imply separation) between such a posture toward the Son and the Father does not itself serve as evidence that one precedes the drawing and the other follows. More on this below, when I review your Scripture citations in John.

It results in a spiritually receptive posture towards Christ because the Father gives/draws to Christ.

But what is your argument for this? Again, the mere fact that the Father draws to Christ does not pose a contradiction with the idea that this drawing precedes a spiritually receptive posture toward the Father as well. So we actually need an exegetical argument for this claim.

But Jesus points out the issue is that they don't believe the One who sent Him, and have not learned of Him.

But why is that? You’re asserting your interpretation without providing evidence for it. How do you substantiate the claim that this learning is a prerequisite to drawing? There is no contradiction implied in the idea that the drawing itself accounts for the hearing and learning that results in coming, and the exegetical evidence I’ve offered for this interpretation remains unchallenged (I elaborate further on it below).

This idea that those who honor, hear, learn of the Father will therefore honor, hear, learn of the Son is a repeated theme in John.

(Emphasis added.) This conclusion doesn’t follow from the passages you cited. Consider them again:

John 5:18-23
...
The one who doesn't honor the Son doesn't honor the Father who sent the Son.

This merely states a negative correlation. It does not necessarily imply a “therefore” relationship. All it says is that the absence of honoring the Son implies the absence of honoring the Father. Logical implication does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship.

For example, if we had the statement (and we’re assuming it’s true for the sake of argument), “if there is a high homeless population, then there is a high crime rate,” this does not necessarily mean that the crime rate is the result of the high homeless population. Rather, this could simply be an observation of a correlation between the two. It could be that the two are correlated because they are both equally affected by a third variable which guarantees the simultaneous truth of both. Similarly, “the one who doesn’t honor the Son doesn’t honor the Father” no more entails that honoring the Son is the result of honoring the Father than it does the possibility that both are the result of the Father’s drawing (i.e. a third variable explaining an observable correlation).

Moreover, even when a causal relationship may be present, that doesn’t necessarily mean that a statement’s contrapositive is going to clearly retain that relationship (unless you change the verb tenses to do so). For instance, if we had the statement, “the one who doesn’t have money doesn’t eat” (~P → ~Q), with the implication being that money is necessary to buy food, it is equally true to say that “the one who eats has money” (Q → P). Yet it clearly does not follow from this that eating is a prerequisite to having money. One’s having money, rather, is more likely the prerequisite of one’s eating, if there is any causal relationship at all.

So the error in your statement, “those who honor … the Father will therefore honor … the Son” (Q → P), is that it attempts a contrapositive expression of “the one who doesn’t honor the Son doesn’t honor the Father” (~P → ~Q), but forces a causal relationship where one is not necessarily present. This suggests you’re unwittingly assuming what you’re wanting to prove. It would be like taking the statement, “the one who doesn’t have money doesn’t eat,” and interpreting its contrapositive to mean, “the one who eats therefore has money,” meaning, their eating is a prerequisite to their having money, as opposed to a mere implication of the fact that a monetary transaction was made.

Therefore, “the one who doesn’t honor the Son doesn’t honor the Father” does not in itself entail that honoring the Father is a prerequisite to honoring the Son. All it tells us is that there is a logical relationship between the two, such that if one is true, the truth of the other is also guaranteed. But this can be explained by correlation, where a third variable (e.g. drawing) affects both outcomes equally, or even by a causal relationship going the other way.

John 5:36-47
...
The Father sent the Son, and testifies of Him, but they do not have the word of the Father abiding in them, as evidenced by them not believing in the Son Whom the Father sent.

“His voice you have not heard, his form you have never seen” (v. 37b). Why not? “For/because (ὅτι) you do not believe the one whom he has sent” (v. 38b). It’s interesting that you cite this text in support of your claim that “those who honor … the Father will therefore honor … the Son,” when it would appear to be stating the opposite (if any causal relationship is intended at all). Ὅτι introduces a causal subordinate clause, and believing the Son is identified as that cause, not the result, of hearing the Father.

My own position is that the overall witness of Scripture is that the two are mutually entailing (i.e. correlated realities equally affected by a third variable, that being the Father’s drawing). Ὅτι can both provide the cause and the evidence of hearing from the Father. It is not strictly a causal identifier. However, what it can’t do here is suggest that hearing the Father is the cause of believing the Son. The grammar simply doesn’t allow that interpretation in this case. But it could be taken to mean either that believing the Son is the cause of hearing the Father, or that both truths are correlated and mutually entailing, being the common result of some other mutual variable. Those who do not believe in Christ have not heard the Father (because they haven’t been drawn to), and those who have not heard the Father do not believe in Christ (because they haven’t been drawn to). The Father bears witness to the Son, but it is the Son who reveals the Father. Those the Father draws will therefore hear the voice of the Father in Jesus. They will receive the abiding word of the Father from Jesus. The Son is the only mediator between God and man.

But in either case (i.e. whether believing the Son is the cause of hearing the Father, or if both are correlated realities), here is what is important: Believing the Son and hearing the Father cannot be separated by an intervening act of drawing. The drawing must either precede or follow both the hearing of the Father and the believing in the Son, for these actions are either correlated, or the causal sequence goes the other way, given that John 5:37-38 arguably actually contains a causal subordinate clause (as opposed to a mere statement of correlation) and yet it is the Son, not the Father, who is view there. Furthermore, since John 6:44 makes it plain that the drawing of the Father gives rise to belief in the Son, this would logically place drawing at the front of the causal chain, not the middle.

Compare the following:

John 5:37-38: Belief in the Son is the cause of hearing the Father’s voice: B → H
John 6:37, 44: The Father’s drawing/giving is the cause of belief: D → B

From B → H and D → B we get D → B → H. This reads, “if the Father draws him, then he believes; if he believes, then he hears the Father.” However, the expressions in 5:23 and 6:45 present the inverse (~B → ~H) and converse (H → B) of 5:37-38, respectively. When a conditional expression is equivalent to its inverse and converse, both sides of the conditional are demonstrated to be logically equivalent. Thus, we have Scriptural proof of a correlative, not causal, relationship. The teaching of Scripture regarding belief and hearing is B <--> H, which reads, “one believes if and only if one hears,” and entails both “if one hears then he believes” (H → B; John 6:45) and “if one believes then he hears” (B → H; John 5:37-38), yet does not strictly indicate a causal relationship between the two. In fact, what the equivalence argues for is that both are the correlated, mutual result of some common variable, that being the Father’s giving/drawing (6:37, 44).

Logical equivalence between B and H, (B <--> H), implies that when one is true, the other will always be true also. Thus, when bringing drawing into the equation, we can represent this logical relationship with “and”:

D → (H ^ B)

This reads, “if the Father gives/draws him, then he hears the Father (by virtue of the Son's revelation) and believes the Son.” This is the natural, and I contend unavoidable conclusion we arrive at when taking all the statements in John 5:23, 37-38, 6:37, and 44-45 together.

I don’t think it’s necessary to address your other citations in John at this point, as my comments would only be repetitive. Rather, let’s return to John 6:45:

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

(Part 2 of 2 ... please don't miss my above reply)

John 6:45: ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις· Καὶ ἔσονται πάντες διδακτοὶ θεοῦ· πᾶς ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθὼν ἔρχεται πρὸς ἐμὲ.

“It is written in the Prophets,” Jesus says, most likely referring to Isaiah 54:13 (but probably Jeremiah 31:33 as well):

“All your children shall be taught by the Lord (διδακτοὺς θεοῦ, LXX), and great shall be the peace of your children.” (Isaiah 54:13)

Why quote this verse? What purpose does it serve in the discourse? The quotation follows on the heels of Jesus’ statement that one must be drawn by the Father in order to be able to believe. This giving/drawing of the Father serves as bookends summarizing the message of vv. 37-44, given the positive counterpart to v. 44 in v 37. In other words, it has been Jesus’ point to highlight God’s sovereignty in the process of spiritual enlightenment and renewal of his people, and now, in response to the grumbling of the Jews, he quotes from a prophetic passage in the Old Testament to demonstrate the point that their own Scriptures teach this.

Isaiah 54 discusses the restoration and redemption of Israel. Verses 1-12 describe God’s everlasting love and covenant faithfulness toward his people, promising to restore them despite their past afflictions and desolation. In verse 13, Isaiah prophesies about the future state of Israel, envisioning a time when all the children of God’s people will be taught directly by the Lord himself. This also brings into view Jeremiah 31:33:

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:33)

Just like the Isaiah passage, Jeremiah 31 discusses the promise of restoration and renewal for the people of Israel. Jeremiah speaks of God’s plans to gather his people from exile, promising to establish a new covenant with them that surpasses the old covenant made at Sinai. Then in verse 33, he articulates the nature of this new covenant, describing God’s relationship with his people and his direct involvement in transforming their hearts.

Both of these texts emphasize God’s sovereign illumination and instruction of his people, an instruction characterized by internal transformation and motivated by his own initiative. God actively imprints his truths onto the hearts of his people, and there is no hint in either of these passages of there being a condition in man’s activity upon which his decision to do this is based. Quite the contrary, in fact. In Isaiah 54, God is the subject throughout the whole chapter; the whole text is about what he is doing to sovereignly bring about a relationship with his people. Likewise, in Jeremiah 31:33 it is the establishment of the new covenant itself that is characterized by sovereign, internal transformation. That is, God’s relationship with his people is initiated by his own sovereign act in imprinting his law on their hearts.

So the purpose of this quotation in John 6:45 is to provide the Old Testament background to this concept of the Father’s drawing, and it is a background that is monergistic. Jesus’ point is that to be “taught by God” is synonymous with being “drawn” or “given” by the Father. In its original context, the phrase in Isaiah 54:13 describes this same kind of drawing/illumination/transforming activity that sovereignly brings about an intended result. This is why Jesus quotes from that text. He’s pointing to the Scriptural basis for his claim in verse 44.

But this point isn’t only made by the context; it’s also suggested in the grammar itself. It is not insignificant that the far less common adjective, διδακτοί, is chosen here over the verb, διδάσκω. There’s a point being made with that word choice. The adjective form, when used of persons, describes those persons as having received the educational effect of the teaching. Compare to the LXX translation of 1 Macc. 4:7, διδακτοἰ πολέμου, “experts of war.” This is referring to war veterans; men described as battle-hardened. It is not that men are training for battle, or that they may or may not choose to have the right posture toward a training offered. Rather, the phrase is simply descriptive of an effect received by some external act or experience, much the same way that “etched” is descriptive of a subject that has received the engraving effect of the etching.

Διδακτοὶ θεοῦ is a genitive expression with a substantivized predicate adjective. All such expressions convey this sort of meaning. That is, they designate the agent with a passive action. Compare ἁγαπητοῖς θεοῦ in Romans 1:7, “loved by God,” and τοῖς ἁγαπητοῖς ἡμῶν in Acts 15:25, “our beloved.” One’s acceptance or rejection of another’s love does not determine whether or not it is the case that they are loved by them. They simply are, or are not, loved by the other, on no condition of whether or not the recipient of that love asked for it. See also γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν in Matt. 11:11, “those born of women.” No one accepts or rejects being born. It is simply an experience that happens to you. Likewise, διδακτοὶ θεοῦ in John 6:45, “taught by God,” describes the “they all” as persons who are passively affected by the action (“taught”) in a way that is not conditioned on their acceptance or rejection. This is descriptive of an illumination of divine origin. To echo Jeremiah 31:33, a writing upon one’s heart.

We see the same idea in Scripture when a noun is prefixed to a verbal adjective, as in the case of θεοδίδακτοὶ (“taught by God”) in 1 Thess. 4:9. That is, these prefixed nouns designate the agent of a passive act. Compare πατροπαραδότου in 1 Pet. 1:18, “inherited from forefathers,” σητόβρωτα in James 5:2, “moth-eaten,” and ποταμοφόρητον in Rev. 12:15, “sweep away with a flood.” Inheritance, eaten, swept away, these are actions which characterize the subject in a passively descriptive manner, and the prefix designates the agent of that passive action. Forefather-inherited (πατροπαραδότου), moth-eaten (σητόβρωτα), flood-swept (ποταμοφόρητον), God-taught (θεοδίδακτοὶ).

So the teaching in John 6:45 is not referring to a teaching offered by the Father, which may or may not be heard and learned from. This is a descriptive term that is characterizing these individuals as “the taught ones,” the ones having been imparted with a knowledge which God has written on their hearts (Jer. 31:33).

Given, drawn, and taught, are all therefore synonymous ways of referring to the same act of divine agency in the internal transformation of one’s heart. The need for this transformation is what the “inability” in John 6:44 refers to. It is not merely an inability to believe the Son, on account of having squandered an ability to hear and learn from the Father. Compare Romans 8:7-8. In that passage Paul distinguishes between the sarkic (flesh) and pneumic (spirit) “walks,” or way of living (περιπατοῦσιν, v 4). This is a dichotomy. If one’s life is not characterized by one walk, it is characterized by the other. In verse 7, he says τὸ φρὸνημα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν, “the flesh mindset is at enmity to God.” To not be of the pneumic walk, which is characterized as being in Christ (v. 1), i.e. a saved believer, is necessarily to be of the sarkic walk, which is characterized by hostility toward God. There is no middle or neutral ground. Thus, he goes on to say that this τὸ φρὸνημα τῆς σαρκὸς, this fleshly mindset, is not able to submit to God’s law (v. 7); in fact, it is not able to do anything whatsoever that is pleasing to God (v. 8).

Is hearing and learning from the Father pleasing to God? If so, is one able to do this while existing in a state that is characterized as being at enmity with God? For that is the only alternative to being in Christ. So how does one who has not yet believed in Jesus - indeed, one who isn’t even able to! - go about pleasing the Father by hearing and learning from him? If one has not yet come to Christ, then they are in the flesh, and thereby cannot please God. But if they cannot please God, then surely they cannot hear and learn from the Father. So it is necessary to be transformed from the sarkic to pneumic mindset in order for one to hear and learn (or better put, hearing and learning is the experiential picture painted by that transformation), and yet that transformation is descriptive of redemption in Christ.

Returning to John 6:45, the verse is one sentence, so it should all be thought of as one unit of thought. “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father” is descriptive, therefore, of what it means to be “taught by God.” “They all” who are characterized as God-taught are the same “all” who are said to have heard and learned. But again, given, drawn, and taught, are all synonymous ways of referring to the same action. Both the grammar and context point to this. So how can hearing/learning be a prerequisite to given/drawn, if given/drawn refer to the same thing as taught, and hearing/learning also refer to the same thing as taught? To "hear and learn" from the Father are descriptive terms which paint the picture of what "taught of God" (and consequently being given/drawn) look like in terms of one's life experience.

Moreover, in the very next verse (v. 46) Jesus alludes to the fact that the Son is the only mediator of the Father (cf. John 1:18; 5:37; 12:45). The point is that hearing and learning from the Father isn’t possible apart from the revelation given in Jesus. If having a receptive posture toward the Father came logically prior to having a receptive posture toward the Son, this would imply that men can theoretically have a mystical knowledge of God apart from revelation. Since all revelation is mediated through the Son (cf. John 1:1), if any knowledge of God could be obtained apart from the Son's mediation, it is by definition mystical and not revelational.

Thus, just as it is true that hearing and learning from the Father entails belief in the Son (v. 45), it is equally true that hearing and believing the Son is the means by which they hear and learn from the Father (v. 46). Two corollary, mutually-entailing actions which stem from a common variable: the giving/drawing/teaching of the Father, a sovereignly initiated, internal transformation of an individual’s dead heart, affecting a change of position from a sarkic mindset to a pneumic mindset.

As a concluding thought, I’d again like to reiterate that Jesus’ approach to the discourse simply doesn’t make sense if hearing/learning are prerequisites to being given/drawn. In the larger context (especially verses 35-45), Jesus does not focus his efforts toward helping the crowd to grasp the spiritual significance of his signs and words. Instead, he emphasizes the necessity of being drawn by the Father in order to be able to believe. This decision implies that attempting to reason with these individuals would prove futile, suggesting an inability not only to believe in him as the Messiah, but to hear and understand spiritual truth in general. It stands to reason that if these people had the ability to hear and learn, Jesus would have focused his efforts on encouraging them to do so. What’s the relevance of discussing the need to be drawn at all, if the real issue is that they haven’t done something that they are capable of doing?

If you don’t buy a ticket (re: hear/learn), then the gate will not open (re: given/drawn), and if the gate does not open, then you are unable to enter the venue (re: come). If that’s the order of actions, then is it not redundant to talk about the gate being closed? It would be even more effective to just say, “if you don’t buy a ticket, then you are unable to enter the venue,” as this would stress the need to take advantage of an ability one has to remedy the situation. Likewise, it seems strange for Jesus to focus his point on the lack of the Father’s giving/drawing if all he’s really saying is, “if you don’t hear/learn from the Father, then you are unable to come to me.” It actually seems to detract from the message.

Based on all of the above -- (1) my critique of your interpretation of the other John texts you cited, (2) the evidence offered in favor of viewing a spiritually receptive posture toward the Father and Son as corollary actions grounded in the common variable of the Father’s drawing, (3) the exegetical insights offered regarding John 6:45-46, Isaiah 54:13, Jeremiah 31:33, and Romans 8:7-8, (4) the problematic contextual implications posed by your claim that hearing/learning are prerequisites to being given/drawn, and (5) the lack of any actual exegetical evidence offered in support of that claim - I contend that the claim is rather thoroughly refuted. There is simply no exegetical basis for distinguishing between the ability to hear/learn from the Father and the ability to come to the Son. On the contrary, there is every reason to see the hearing/learning as descriptive of what the giving/drawing of the Father produces in one's life experience.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

@John Mullally , I want to respond to your comments specifically, though much of this is reiterated from what I argue above:

Your argument had been that the nature of the drawing is that only those being drawn by the Father will come to Jesus (verse 44). In what sense does the nature of the drawing also describe the underlined portion in verse 45 (see below)?

"Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father" is descriptive of what "taught by God" means. It's all part of the same sentence: "And they will all be taught by God; [that is] everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." The hearing and learning paints the picture of what the teaching of the Father looks like in terms of human experience. This teaching and the drawing of the Father, however, are the same action. I argue this in my lengthier response to tall73 above. Here's a summarized version of that argument:

It is not that the Father offers a teaching to people, and they either choose to hear and learn from it, or not. That decidedly does not fit the meaning of the expression διδακτοὶ θεοῠ. As I argue above, this is a genitive expression with a substantivized predicate adjective. Such expressions designate the agent of a passive action; in this case, God is the agent, and taught is the passive action which affects the subject. Compare similar expressions in Matt. 11:11 (γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν, "born of women") and Romans 1:7 (ἁγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, "loved by God"). Being born, or being the recipient of another's love, is simply the reality, whether one asks for it or not. The point is such phrases are descriptive of a subject in a way that designates them as the passive recipient of an external action. To be "God-taught" is a descriptive phrase emphasizing the internal transformation and illumination of God, upon his own initiative.

Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 54:13 in John 6:45, likely also with Jeremiah 31:33 in mind. Why? What's the relevance of these texts to the present discourse? Those passages discuss the future restoration and redemption of God's people, and they do so in a way that highlights the sovereign actions of God in instilling his teaching upon the hearts of these individuals. Jesus introduces these texts to the present discourse in John 6:45 to provide Scriptural support for the claims he is making. What is the central claim that he is making? That the giving/drawing of the Father is necessary in order for one to come to Jesus. Verses 37 and 44 serve as bookends to this section of the discourse (the latter being the negative counterpart to the former, and thus both making the same point). Verse 45 then offers the Scriptural justification for this claim.

So the giving/drawing/teaching of the Father are all referring to the same general idea. Jesus is simply pointing to the Old Testament to show that what he describes as giving/drawing here is there described in terms of teaching/enlightenment.

By nature, no one is capable of possessing a spiritually receptive posture toward God at all, be it the Father or the Son (Rom. 8:7-8). To counter this inability, one must be drawn by the Father (John 6:44) / given by the Father (John 6:37) / taught by God (John 6:45). These are synonymous expressions. The grammar and context indicate this. But notice that because Jesus is quoting from the OT in verse 45a, that quotation does not bring into the discourse the same grammatical similarities that exist between vv. 37 and 44. However, v. 45b does. "Everyone who has heard and learned" follows up the quote in a way that clarifies the similarity by picking back up on the grammar of vv. 37 and 44. Notice:

Verse 37: "All that [the Father gives me] will come to me"
Verse 44: "No one can come to me unless [the Father draws him]
Verse 45: "Everyone who [has heard and learned] comes to me"

We've already seen that given/drawn/taught are synonymous in this context. But the expressions in which "given/drawn" are found share grammatical similarities that the expression in which "taught" is found does not (it being a quotation). The purpose of the follow-up expression at 45b is to bring that grammatical similarity into view with regard to the Father's teaching, clarifying further the synonymous relationship between given/drawn/taught. "Has heard and learned," in other words, is equal to "taught." It is descriptive of διδακτοὶ.

Thus, hearing and learning from the Father cannot be a prerequisite to being drawn/given, because hearing and learning from the Father is a description of what being "taught by God" means, and being "taught by God" is being "given/drawn" by God.

It makes far more sense that the the underlined portion is describing the prerequisites for the Father's drawing as those are things that His audience (OT Jews) could have participated in long before being drawn to Jesus.

I know you posted before I included my above replies where I argue the contrary, but you're begging the question in suggesting that Jesus' audience has the ability to participate in hearing/learning from the Father. The question of this claim's truth is the focus of our discussion, is it not? You have not offered any exegetical reason to suggest that the inability mentioned in v. 44 is limited only to one's receptive posture toward the Son, and not the Father. I have offered ample evidence to the contrary. The mere fact that hearing/learning involves choice is not an argument for the view that one must have the ability to engage in these acts. Again, that would be question-begging. The issue is not whether a choice is made; the issue is why people make the choices they do. Which mindset governs their choosing - the sarkic or pneumic (Rom. 8:7-8)? - and is an individual capable of altering that mindset on their own, or is it the whole point of John 6:44-45 that the very nature of the sarkic mindset renders one unable to do anything pleasing to God? You are advocating for an interpretation that assumes answers to these questions, rather than provide exegetical commentary that demonstrates how the text bears out a particular answer.

"It makes far more sense," you say. How? It doesn't make sense to the context at all, actually, if you think about it. You're suggesting that there is something the crowd could have done which would have fulfilled a condition for being drawn by the Father. Okay... then why discuss the need to be given/drawn at all? If they can't believe because they haven't been drawn, but they haven't been drawn because they haven't heard and learned, then what would have made far more sense is if Jesus would have simply focused the discussion on their lack of hearing/learning, not their lack of being drawn/given. To reiterate the analogy I used in my reply to tall73 above, if my failure to purchase a ticket (re: hear/learn) means that the gate will not open (re: gives/draws), and if I cannot enter the venue (re: come/believe) unless the gate is open, then it makes little sense for the staff to lecture me about the gate being closed. The real issue is my failure to purchase the ticket, not, specifically, the closure of the gate. So what purpose does the whole discussion of giving/drawing even serve, then? Why shouldn't Jesus have just said, "you cannot come to me because you haven't heard/learned"?

If they can do something about their failure to hear/learn, then it would have made much more sense for Jesus to focus his attention on that issue. But that's not what he does. In fact, he consistently neglects to explain the spiritual significance of his words, opting instead to talk about why it is they are not capable of having a receptive posture toward anything spiritual at all. This speaks to moral corruption (Rom. 8:7-8); it suggests that attempting to reason with these people would prove futile. That does not comport with the idea that they have the capacity to hear/learn.

There are a lot of subtle details in the text that indicate that Jesus is not interested here in helping these people to understand. I'll mention just one: Verse 33 doesn't contain the masculine pronoun. The reason that's significant is because that means ὁ καταβαίνω can be translated as either "he who comes down from heaven," or "that which comes down from heaven." It is clear from the context that Jesus means "he" (he's talking about himself). But the Jews have already evidenced their misunderstanding; they have in mind the physical manna, like that which was provided in the wilderness for 40 years (v. 31). So when verse 33 says ὁ καταβαίνω, it is almost a certainty that the crowd would have heard "that which comes down from heaven." The language is ambiguous enough to accommodate their misunderstanding without correcting it. This is why they immediately say to Jesus in response, πάντοτε δὸς ἡμῖν τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον, "all the time give us this bread." Repeatedly provide it for us, as Moses did in the wilderness. The fact that Jesus didn't take the extra bit of effort to make such a simple clarification in the language suggests that his purpose is not to try and persuade these people to understand something (for that is futile if they are not drawn by the Father), but rather to explain why it is they never will understand, unless drawn to.

John 5:46 and John 7:17 also touch on who will come to Jesus.

How does one believe Moses / do God's will? Certainly not apart from the revelation of the Son (John 1:1; cf. Col. 1:15-17; 1 Tim. 2:5). That would be mysticism.

I am not saying you assert this, but to be clear,John 6:45 does not describe the process of the Father's drawing.

As argued above, verse 45 provides the OT background to the Father's drawing; it describes what that drawing is, in other terms.

The underlined portion of verse 45 shows actions people participate in such as hearing and learning - and we all choose who we listen to and learn from.

Choice is not the issue. The issue is the basis of our choices. Why do some choose to listen and learn, and others don't? Because some are given/drawn/taught by God, and some aren't. Those who aren't remain in the flesh, and are not capable of doing anything to please God, because they love their sin and walk according to it. Those who are, on the other hand, are both capable and made willing (vv. 37, 44) to please God. They listen, learn, and come and believe, on account of that internal transformation of their hearts, wrought by God.

 

[tall73]

(Part 1 of 2)

@tall73 , thanks for your thoughtful comments, and I apologize for the delay. The last few weeks have been pretty crazy. Not only am I currently in the process of moving, but my wife had a medical emergency last week, and I lost this entire post when my computer decided to install Windows updates while we were at the hospital. *sigh* (This is a re-write…). Needless to say, it has taken me some time to find the motivation to get back around to this.

Understandable, and I appreciate you being willing to re-type. It sounds like you have a lot onf your plate. I also am getting to this when I have the motivation and energy. I just started taking on new responsibilities at work, and have been having some health issues as well. I will pray for you and your wife.

That being said, I have a lot to say in response to your last reply, so this post will be lengthy (the forum is forcing me to split it into two parts). Please take your time with it; I’m in no hurry.

I don't mind thorough replies, even if they require more than one post. That is fine!

If I can begin by summarizing briefly what I elaborate on below, I simply fail to see the exegetical warrant for your position. While your explanation posits a logical viewpoint (i.e. the idea that hearing/learning is a precondition for drawing/giving does not pose a logical contradiction), what’s relevant, of course, is whether the author actually intended to communicate this.

Yet I don’t see any exegetical evidence for this at all, which underscores some hermeneutical concerns regarding your interpretation. Moreover, I think your references in John fail to substantiate the view that hearing the Father is a prerequisite to hearing the Son, and therefore they fail to offer evidence for the view that hearing precedes being drawn/given. Additionally, critical aspects of my previous response were left unaddressed in your reply. This further complicates the exegetical evidence for your interpretation. I’ll elaborate on all of this below.

Again we agree that the issue is one of context, what the author intends, etc. The point of my last post was to show that it is a logically possible position, and to show that the theme of the relation of Father to Son is a repeated theme in the book. This larger context is important to understanding the passage, though we cannot ignore the particulars in the chapter as well. Since your two replies here reference

a. the particulars of chapter 6
b. Some of the material of John
c. Some key passages outside of John

I will also look at these areas, including additional passages, inside, and outside of John, while addressing some of your specific arguments.

I may do this a bit at a time, and won't be able to get to all of it in this first post. The more exchanges, the more specific we can get. I think we now both have a broad view of where the other is coming from. So we can start to examine more of the particulars.

You indicate that you feel I have not followed up on all you have said. I also feel the same about some of your posts. That is usual in the opening rounds of such discussions. And the later rounds can highlight more specific questions.

I’m not convinced we mean the same thing by “explaining their unbelief.” What I mean is that Jesus’ mention of the Father’s giving and drawing plays the contextual role of identifying why it is they do not understand.

I think we do agree that His audience did not understand. And we agree that He is pointing out why they cannot understand. We even agree that they lack a prerequisite. We do, however, disagree on the nature of that prerequisite.

I see them as having rejected prior revelation and appeal. You see them as lacking a sovereign, monergistic enabling from God.

These people neither know the Son nor the Father, and Jesus is explaining why that is.

Yes, we both agree they do not know the Father or the Son.

But what John brings out repeatedly, and what is important to understanding Jesus' explanation here, is that Jesus' audiences often think they they DO know the Father, know the Scriptures, and are children of the Father. He repeatedly has to warn them that these things are not true.

Part of the reason they cannot understand is that they have a false view of their current relation to the Father. Below are particular phrases from the John material that highlight just that notion:

But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you​

​

I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know.​

​

If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God​

​

It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him​

​

The statement about ones who have heard and learned of the Father coming to Jesus highlights that it is those who truly are in relationship with the Father that come to Jesus. But the hearers in chapter 6 are not able to. They are not in relationship.

His pointing out their inability because they are not of the ones given by the Father, unlike those who who are hearing and learning of the Father, is in keeping with the other statements above.

The statements are disabusing the hearers of the notion that they are in good standing with God. The audience in chapter 6 cannot come to Him because the ones that come to Him are the ones who hear and learn of the Father.

It is important to note that the audience does not at all think they are unable to to learn from the Father, or that they do not belong to the Father. They think they are following the Father. Jesus has to repeatedly point out that their understanding on this point is wrong. He notes that they think they belong to the Father. But they do not. His argument that they are not drawn or given by the Father is part of the overall picture that their relation to the Father is not what they believe it to be. They are not ones who hear and learn of the Father, even though they think they are.


So is their lack of good relation to God because He has not monergistically made them to be in good relation? Or is it because they have refused prior revelation, and the provision of God, and His appeal to them to believe?

I will now look at some statements in John that, in my view, indicate the ability of the audience to respond, though they have not yet done so.

John 5 was already referenced in recent posts. Some selections that show appeal/will involved:


John 5:33-34
33 You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. (NKJV)

He wants the hearers in chapter 5 to be saved, so he refers to the witness of John. This was prior revelation from God that they were meant to accept, but did not. But he does not say they are unable to accept it. He mentions the testimony of John that they may be saved.

To the same audience a few verses later He says:

John 5:39-40
39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. (NKJV)

Again they have received prior revelation through the Scriptures. But they do not have eternal life, because they are unwilling to come to Him.

This is not a contradiction of chapter 6. Those in chapter 6 had not heard or learned from the Father, and could not come to Jesus. They were not drawn or given by the Father. Here the listeners also are not in good relation to the Father. This is evident from them refusing the Son, but also clearly stated in verse 42:

John 5:42
42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. (NKJV)

They have not received additional earlier revelation from Moses:

John 5:43-47
43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (ESV)

They are not seeking the glory that comes from God.

They did not believe Moses, so they cannot believe in Jesus.

So from the passage we know:

a. Jesus mentions the testimony of John that they may be saved.

b. They refuse to come to the Son to have life

c. They do not have the love of God in them.

d. They do not seek glory that comes from God.

e. They do not believe Moses, so they cannot believe in Jesus.

This is not describing inability. He wouldn't bother mentioning John's testimony so that they may be saved if they were unable. He describes unwillingness, and not seeking glory from God. He mentiones them not having the love of God in their hearts.

They have rejected the previous appeals of God through John the Baptist, sent by God, and through the Scriptures, inspired by God.


Now, to look at some of your arguments on this passage:

John 5:18-23
...
The one who doesn't honor the Son doesn't honor the Father who sent the Son.


This merely states a negative correlation. It does not necessarily imply a “therefore” relationship. All it says is that the absence of honoring the Son implies the absence of honoring the Father. Logical implication does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship.

For example, if we had the statement (and we’re assuming it’s true for the sake of argument), “if there is a high homeless population, then there is a high crime rate,” this does not necessarily mean that the crime rate is the result of the high homeless population. Rather, this could simply be an observation of a correlation between the two. It could be that the two are correlated because they are both equally affected by a third variable which guarantees the simultaneous truth of both. Similarly, “the one who doesn’t honor the Son doesn’t honor the Father” no more entails that honoring the Son is the result of honoring the Father than it does the possibility that both are the result of the Father’s drawing (i.e. a third variable explaining an observable correlation).

Moreover, even when a causal relationship may be present, that doesn’t necessarily mean that a statement’s contrapositive is going to clearly retain that relationship (unless you change the verb tenses to do so). For instance, if we had the statement, “the one who doesn’t have money doesn’t eat” (~P → ~Q), with the implication being that money is necessary to buy food, it is equally true to say that “the one who eats has money” (Q → P). Yet it clearly does not follow from this that eating is a prerequisite to having money. One’s having money, rather, is more likely the prerequisite of one’s eating, if there is any causal relationship at all.

So the error in your statement, “those who honor … the Father will therefore honor … the Son” (Q → P), is that it attempts a contrapositive expression of “the one who doesn’t honor the Son doesn’t honor the Father” (~P → ~Q), but forces a causal relationship where one is not necessarily present. This suggests you’re unwittingly assuming what you’re wanting to prove. It would be like taking the statement, “the one who doesn’t have money doesn’t eat,” and interpreting its contrapositive to mean, “the one who eats therefore has money,” meaning, their eating is a prerequisite to their having money, as opposed to a mere implication of the fact that a monetary transaction was made.

Therefore, “the one who doesn’t honor the Son doesn’t honor the Father” does not in itself entail that honoring the Father is a prerequisite to honoring the Son. All it tells us is that there is a logical relationship between the two, such that if one is true, the truth of the other is also guaranteed. But this can be explained by correlation, where a third variable (e.g. drawing) affects both outcomes equally, or even by a causal relationship going the other way.

John 5:22-23
22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (NKJV)


The reason the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son is "so that" all should honor the Son as they honor the Father. You have a ἵνα clause, indicating purpose. God sent the Son. God entrusted all judgment to Him, so that all SHOULD honor the Son as they do the Father.

This is showing that God is acting so that people will honor the Son as they do the Father. While the existence and work of the Son is not new, since He was with the Father in the beginning, the notion of His ministry is, in fact, new to the people hearing. God designs that those who honor the Father should honor the Son.

The following statement with the negative is a further clarification:

He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

You take exception to my statement: "those who honor, hear, learn of the Father will therefore honor, hear, learn of the Son"

But we do see in the passage that God took action that all SHOULD honor the Son as they honor the Father. And the ones who actually hear the Father are said to come to the Son, and do honor Him. They are drawn/sent by the Father.

“His voice you have not heard, his form you have never seen” (v. 37b). Why not? “For/because (ὅτι) you do not believe the one whom he has sent” (v. 38b). It’s interesting that you cite this text in support of your claim that “those who honor … the Father will therefore honor … the Son,” when it would appear to be stating the opposite (if any causal relationship is intended at all). Ὅτι introduces a causal subordinate clause, and believing the Son is identified as that cause, not the result, of hearing the Father.

My own position is that the overall witness of Scripture is that the two are mutually entailing (i.e. correlated realities equally affected by a third variable, that being the Father’s drawing). Ὅτι can both provide the cause and the evidence of hearing from the Father. It is not strictly a causal identifier. However, what it can’t do here is suggest that hearing the Father is the cause of believing the Son.

The context is that of testimony. He introduces the testimony of John, that they may be saved, and then He mentions additional testimony:

John 5:36-38
36 But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me.

The works that He has been given by the Father to accomplish bear witness that the Father sent Him. Nicodemus already expressed this in chapter 3:

John 3:2
2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” (ESV)

He then builds on that statement from what may be observed by them, the works that HE does which show that God sent Him, and states that God has borne witness about Him.

He then states that they are not able to access direct testimony from the Father, though it has been given:

37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen,

And then He notes that it is nonetheless obvious that they do not have the word of God in them BECAUSE they do not believe in the one whome the Father sent (as evidenced by the works, which they could see).

38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. (ESV)

He indicates that you can tell they do not have HIS word, that of the Father, abiding in them, by the fact that they have rejected the one the Father sent.

So yes, it is "because" they do not believe in Jesus that it is obvious that they do not have the Father's word abiding in them. But the reason for this is because the works the Father has given to the One He sent make it clear He is from God. And they are rejecting that evidence from God.


They don't have the word of the Father in them. And they have rejected the plain testimony of the Father, displayed through the works, that declare Jesus is sent of God.

He places this right alongside John's testimony, which they also rejected.

But He has not declared them incapable, or said they don't have a monergistic work done on them, but instead mentions the testimony that they may be saved.

 

[tall73]

Some other texts in John:

John 7:14-17
14 Now about the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught. 15 And the Jews marveled, saying, “How does this Man know letters, having never studied?”
16 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority (NKJV)

They are amazed by Jesus' teaching, and His learning. Jesus indicates that it is not His teaching, but that of Him who sent Him. Then He says

"If anyone wills to do His will"...

The one wanting to know God's will, will know whether Jesus' doctrine is from God or not.

Those who desired God's will would know. Those who did not really desire God's will would not know. Again we see that the choice of the hearer is a prerequisit, in this case of knowing whether Jesus' teaching is really from God.


Another example:

John 10:24-38
24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” (NKJV)

Jesus says that the people He is speaking to are not His Sheep. And He says the Father is the one who gives Him His sheep.

But He does not say they are therefore lacking a monergistic work of the Father and hopeless. Rather He says, If He does the works of the Father, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in Him.

Again He appeals to the testimony of the works of His Father, as evidence that the Father sent Him. And He appeals to them to believe.

He appeals to them again to receive the testimony, just as He did with the testimony of John the Baptist.

I referenced John's baptism and testimony in an earlier reply, when you asked what prerequisite could there be for someone who is unable. But you did not address it.

Luke indicated that the pharsiees and lawyers rejected God's will for themselves, not having been baptized by John, who was sent to prepare the way.


Luke 7:29-30
29 And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him. (NKJV)


So we might ask how they could reject God's will for themselves, if the determining factor is God monergistically working in those He chooses.

Why would Jesus appeal to the testimony of John so that they might be saved?

Why did Jesus say if someone wills to do God's will He would know whether Jesus' teaching wa from God?

Why did Jesus tell them to believe on the basis of the works of the Father that He had done, if they cannot believe?

There are a number of points that you raised in your two posts that I still have not gotten to. I will try to address those before long, in future posts.

 

[tall73]

Compare Romans 8:7-8. In that passage Paul distinguishes between the sarkic (flesh) and pneumic (spirit) “walks,” or way of living (περιπατοῦσιν, v 4). This is a dichotomy. If one’s life is not characterized by one walk, it is characterized by the other.

Yes, the only way to walk/live in a way that is pleasing to God is to walk in the Spirit. But life in the Spirit comes after one repents and believes.

Acts 2:36-41
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

John the Baptist called the religious leaders to repentance, and pointed to Christ. But they rejected Johns baptism of repentance, rejecting God's purpose for their life. Jesus pointed out John's testimony that they might be saved.

Nothing in that says they could not accept God's purpose and repent, and believe John's testimony and be saved.

But they couldn't reject the testimony of Scripture, reject John's baptism, reject the testimony of John, reject the testimony of the Father through Jesus doing the works of the Father, etc. and still come to Jesus. They can't come to Jesus when they have no love of God in them. They cannot discern that Jesus' teaching is the Fathers if they don't will to do God's will. They cannot be saved while rejecting every evidence God gives, and refusing to repent. They are not coming to Jesus when they are not hearing and learning of the Father.

But that does not mean they cannot relent, or else appeals would not be given to do so.

And once someone repents and believes, and are in Christ, then there is no condemnation, because then they walk in the Spirit:

Romans 8:1
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (NKJV)

Romans 8

In verse 7, he says τὸ φρὸνημα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν, “the flesh mindset is at enmity to God.” To not be of the pneumic walk, which is characterized as being in Christ (v. 1), i.e. a saved believer, is necessarily to be of the sarkic walk, which is characterized by hostility toward God. There is no middle or neutral ground. Thus, he goes on to say that this τὸ φρὸνημα τῆς σαρκὸς, this fleshly mindset, is not able to submit to God’s law (v. 7); in fact, it is not able to do anything whatsoever that is pleasing to God (v. 8).

To say that someone in the flesh cannot walk/live in a way pleasing to God, while someone in the Spirit can, is not the same as saying that someone cannot believe when God invites them to do so.

Jesus called on those who He said were not His sheep to believe the works that He did of His Father, that you may "know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in HIm."
John 10:37-38

37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” (NKJV)

 

[tall73]

(Part 2 of 2 ... please don't miss my above reply)

John 6:45: ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις· Καὶ ἔσονται πάντες διδακτοὶ θεοῦ· πᾶς ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθὼν ἔρχεται πρὸς ἐμὲ.

“It is written in the Prophets,” Jesus says, most likely referring to Isaiah 54:13 (but probably Jeremiah 31:33 as well):

“All your children shall be taught by the Lord (διδακτοὺς θεοῦ, LXX), and great shall be the peace of your children.” (Isaiah 54:13)

Why quote this verse? What purpose does it serve in the discourse?

John 6:45 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

It shows that the time of Jesus is the time spoken of when God will show favor to Israel, and they shall be taught by God.

And Jesus describes what characterizes the person who comes to Him: Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Jesus.

Which is mentioned in the narrative because the hearers do not match the criteria. And they are not drawn. They are not given.

They are not hearing and learning of the Father.

Isaiah 54 discusses the restoration and redemption of Israel. Verses 1-12 describe God’s everlasting love and covenant faithfulness toward his people, promising to restore them despite their past afflictions and desolation. In verse 13, Isaiah prophesies about the future state of Israel, envisioning a time when all the children of God’s people will be taught directly by the Lord himself.

Yes

Both of these texts emphasize God’s sovereign illumination and instruction of his people, an instruction characterized by internal transformation and motivated by his own initiative. God actively imprints his truths onto the hearts of his people, and there is no hint in either of these passages of there being a condition in man’s activity upon which his decision to do this is based. Quite the contrary, in fact. In Isaiah 54, God is the subject throughout the whole chapter; the whole text is about what he is doing to sovereignly bring about a relationship with his people.
Likewise, in Jeremiah 31:33 it is the establishment of the new covenant itself that is characterized by sovereign, internal transformation. That is, God’s relationship with his people is initiated by his own sovereign act in imprinting his law on their hearts.

So the purpose of this quotation in John 6:45 is to provide the Old Testament background to this concept of the Father’s drawing, and it is a background that is monergistic. Jesus’ point is that to be “taught by God” is synonymous with being “drawn” or “given” by the Father. In its original context, the phrase in Isaiah 54:13 describes this same kind of drawing/illumination/transforming activity that sovereignly brings about an intended result. This is why Jesus quotes from that text. He’s pointing to the Scriptural basis for his claim in verse 44.

But this point isn’t only made by the context; it’s also suggested in the grammar itself. It is not insignificant that the far less common adjective, διδακτοί, is chosen here over the verb, διδάσκω. There’s a point being made with that word choice. The adjective form, when used of persons, describes those persons as having received the educational effect of the teaching. Compare to the LXX translation of 1 Macc. 4:7, διδακτοἰ πολέμου, “experts of war.” This is referring to war veterans; men described as battle-hardened. It is not that men are training for battle, or that they may or may not choose to have the right posture toward a training offered. Rather, the phrase is simply descriptive of an effect received by some external act or experience, much the same way that “etched” is descriptive of a subject that has received the engraving effect of the etching.

Διδακτοὶ θεοῦ is a genitive expression with a substantivized predicate adjective. All such expressions convey this sort of meaning. That is, they designate the agent with a passive action. Compare ἁγαπητοῖς θεοῦ in Romans 1:7, “loved by God,” and τοῖς ἁγαπητοῖς ἡμῶν in Acts 15:25, “our beloved.” One’s acceptance or rejection of another’s love does not determine whether or not it is the case that they are loved by them. They simply are, or are not, loved by the other, on no condition of whether or not the recipient of that love asked for it. See also γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν in Matt. 11:11, “those born of women.” No one accepts or rejects being born. It is simply an experience that happens to you. Likewise, διδακτοὶ θεοῦ in John 6:45, “taught by God,” describes the “they all” as persons who are passively affected by the action (“taught”) in a way that is not conditioned on their acceptance or rejection. This is descriptive of an illumination of divine origin. To echo Jeremiah 31:33, a writing upon one’s heart.

All of God's children that came to Jesus were taught of God. We don't disagree on that point. The teaching had its effect. It was passive in that they received instruction. It was a fulfillment of the prophecy of God restoring the fortunes of Israel.

But that does not at all mean that some did not receive the teaching, or that people had no choice in the matter.

I already pointed out texts in John where Jesus calls for them to believe, and wants them to be saved. They were not doing so. But He appealed for them to do so, which means they were not unable. He pointed them back to prior revelation in the testimony of John, and the Scriptures, and pointed them to the works themselves. He said that the one who willed to do God's will would know if Jesus' doctrine was His own, or from God.

Now you emphasize the passive aspect of the phrase referring to being taught of God.

The latter part of 6:45 indicates "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."

πᾶς ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθὼν ἔρχεται πρὸς ἐμέ (SBL NT)

The participles are active. It is the ones who heard and learned from the Father that come to Jesus. They are characterized by that action.

Moreover, at the outset of Jesus' earthly ministry, the ones given to the Son belonged to the Father, and then were given to the Son. This is stated directly in John 17:6 regarding the disciples;

John 17:6
6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. (NKJV)

They were the Fathers, and He gave them to the Son.

So when you say:

But what is your argument for this? Again, the mere fact that the Father draws to Christ does not pose a contradiction with the idea that this drawing precedes a spiritually receptive posture toward the Father as well. So we actually need an exegetical argument for this claim.

Jesus says that they were the Father's, then they were given to the Son. They belonged to the Father before they were given to the Son.

The ones who were addressed in chapter 6 were NOT his, and were not given.

And the point that some were not belonging to the Father is highlighted by Jesus throughout the book:

​

But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you​

​

I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know.​

​

If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God​

​

It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him​

 

[tall73]

Moreover, in the very next verse (v. 46) Jesus alludes to the fact that the Son is the only mediator of the Father (cf. John 1:18; 5:37; 12:45). The point is that hearing and learning from the Father isn’t possible apart from the revelation given in Jesus. If having a receptive posture toward the Father came logically prior to having a receptive posture toward the Son, this would imply that men can theoretically have a mystical knowledge of God apart from revelation.

Jesus specifically states that they were the Fathers before they were given to Him.

John 17:6
6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. (NKJV)

Nor does this require mystical knowledge apart from revelation. References in John to revelation through John's testimony, through Moses and the Scriptures have already been pointed out.

Jesus notes that even after they saw the effects of John's ministry in turning sinners to the Lord, they still did not relent and believe.

Matthew 21:31-32
Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him. (NKJV)

And of course God spoke in prior to Jesus' earthly ministry:

Hebrews 1:1-3
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, (NKJV)

Without a doubt Jesus is the ultimate revelation as the Son. But God had been sending prophets for some time.

Jesus refers to this in the parable of the tenants in which they mistreat the servants before killing the Son.

Since all revelation is mediated through the Son (cf. John 1:1), if any knowledge of God could be obtained apart from the Son's mediation, it is by definition mystical and not revelational.

John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NKJV)

In the beginning was the Word, but nothing is said of God not revealing Himself prior to the earthly ministry of Jesus. The prophets obviously do reveal the Father, but also point to the Son.

Thus, just as it is true that hearing and learning from the Father entails belief in the Son (v. 45),

It is those hearing and learning from the Father who come to the Son. Not only is it stated in John 17, that they were the Fathers, and then were given to the Son, but aorist participles, such as in vs. 45 are often showing antecedent action.

Hence the rendering as such:

Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me (NKJV)

it is equally true that hearing and believing the Son is the means by which they hear and learn from the Father (v. 46).

Jesus is a mediator between God and man, and reveals God as the Son. But the ones who heard from the Father and learned then came to Jesus, they were the Father's, and then were given to the Son.

Two corollary, mutually-entailing actions which stem from a common variable: the giving/drawing/teaching of the Father, a sovereignly initiated, internal transformation of an individual’s dead heart, affecting a change of position from a sarkic mindset to a pneumic mindset.

You early said I just read my view into it. This seems like an example of such.

John 17:6
6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. (NKJV)

They were yours, you gave them to Me.....They learned of the Father before being given to the Son, which is what 45 says:

Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me (NKJV)

As a concluding thought, I’d again like to reiterate that Jesus’ approach to the discourse simply doesn’t make sense if hearing/learning are prerequisites to being given/drawn. In the larger context (especially verses 35-45), Jesus does not focus his efforts toward helping the crowd to grasp the spiritual significance of his signs and words. Instead, he emphasizes the necessity of being drawn by the Father in order to be able to believe. This decision implies that attempting to reason with these individuals would prove futile, suggesting an inability not only to believe in him as the Messiah, but to hear and understand spiritual truth in general. It stands to reason that if these people had the ability to hear and learn, Jesus would have focused his efforts on encouraging them to do so. What’s the relevance of discussing the need to be drawn at all, if the real issue is that they haven’t done something that they are capable of doing?

If you don’t buy a ticket (re: hear/learn), then the gate will not open (re: given/drawn), and if the gate does not open, then you are unable to enter the venue (re: come). If that’s the order of actions, then is it not redundant to talk about the gate being closed? It would be even more effective to just say, “if you don’t buy a ticket, then you are unable to enter the venue,” as this would stress the need to take advantage of an ability one has to remedy the situation. Likewise, it seems strange for Jesus to focus his point on the lack of the Father’s giving/drawing if all he’s really saying is, “if you don’t hear/learn from the Father, then you are unable to come to me.” It actually seems to detract from the message.

Not at all. He is pointing out that their claim to be of the Father is wrong. They cannot be given to the Son, because they are not the Father's.

Based on all of the above -- (1) my critique of your interpretation of the other John texts you cited, (2) the evidence offered in favor of viewing a spiritually receptive posture toward the Father and Son as corollary actions grounded in the common variable of the Father’s drawing, (3) the exegetical insights offered regarding John 6:45-46, Isaiah 54:13, Jeremiah 31:33, and Romans 8:7-8, (4) the problematic contextual implications posed by your claim that hearing/learning are prerequisites to being given/drawn, and (5) the lack of any actual exegetical evidence offered in support of that claim - I contend that the claim is rather thoroughly refuted. There is simply no exegetical basis for distinguishing between the ability to hear/learn from the Father and the ability to come to the Son. On the contrary, there is every reason to see the hearing/learning as descriptive of what the giving/drawing of the Father produces in one's life experience.

I have addressed all of your points. There is a direct statement regarding them being the Father's before they are given to the Son. And there are a number of statements that some who claimed to be of the Father were not. These were not given by the Father. They had not heard and learned of the Father.

Verses were pointed out that there were prerequisites that had been disregarded.

And verses were pointed out that indicated that even those who did not know the Father, or who were not Jesus' sheep were still addressed with appeals, reference to testimony from John, and from the Father's works which the Son was doing, so that they may be saved, and that they may believe.

It was pointed out that those who willed to do God's will would know if Jesus' teaching was of the Father or Himself.

 

[tall73]

The underlined portion of verse 45 shows actions people participate in such as hearing and learning - and we all choose who we listen to and learn from.

​

Choice is not the issue. The issue is the basis of our choices. Why do some choose to listen and learn, and others don't? Because some are given/drawn/taught by God, and some aren't.

That doesn't follow from the other statements in the book of John, as outlined above.

And the participles characterize those who come to Jesus as those who heard and learned. They are active, and aorist, translated as antecedent action.

And as seen in Jesus' own statement the ones that were given to Jesus were the Father's first:

John 17:6 6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. (NKJV)

Those who aren't remain in the flesh, and are not capable of doing anything to please God, because they love their sin and walk according to it. Those who are, on the other hand, are both capable and made willing (vv. 37, 44) to please God. They listen, learn, and come and believe, on account of that internal transformation of their hearts, wrought by God.

The life in the Spirit is the result of receiving the Holy Spirit following repentance and remission of sins, in accordance with God's provision, and appeal:

Acts 2:38-39 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (NKJV)

 

[tall73]

It makes far more sense that the the underlined portion is describing the prerequisites for the Father's drawing as those are things that His audience (OT Jews) could have participated in long before being drawn to Jesus.

​

@John Mullally

"It makes far more sense," you say. How? It doesn't make sense to the context at all, actually, if you think about it. You're suggesting that there is something the crowd could have done which would have fulfilled a condition for being drawn by the Father. Okay... then why discuss the need to be given/drawn at all? If they can't believe because they haven't been drawn, but they haven't been drawn because they haven't heard and learned, then what would have made far more sense is if Jesus would have simply focused the discussion on their lack of hearing/learning, not their lack of being drawn/given.

It does fit the context, and He did focus on their lack of hearing and learning--hearing and learning of the Father. That is why He kept saying they didn't know the Father, they were not His children, they had not heard those sent by the Father (John, Moses), etc.

The order is that those who came to the Son during His earthly ministry belonged to the Father first, who then gave them to the Son, and the Son gave them the words of the Father, showed them the Father, and did not cast out or lose those given.

John 6:37-39
37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 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. (NKJV)

All that the Father gives to the Son will come to Him. Because the Son came down from heaven to do the will of His Father, the Son will not cast out any who the Father gives to Him. The Father is the one who sent the Son. Those the Father gives the Son keeps, in accordance with the will of the Father.

Notice the parallel to chapter 17, with the emphasis on the Father giving those who were His to the Son, during His earthly ministry, and that none would be lost (with the exception of Judas)

John 17:6-12 6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.
9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (NKJV)

Your notion that what is happening is a monergistic change by the Father, which then results in a changed orientation towards Father and Son at the same time, does not capture this idea of "giving".

They were the Father's. He gave them to the Son.

When someone gives to another, it means one has, and one does not. The one who has, gives to the one who does not have.

Those given to the Son were the Father's and the Father gave them to the Son.

In light of this, and keeping in mind the various statements in John in which Jesus corrects the notion that those who are not coming to Him are in good standing with the Father, we see that the drawing of the Father is drawing those who are His to the Son. Those who are drawn are those who have already been taught by the Father, who have heard and learned from the Father.

John 6:44-45 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. (NKJV)

The "Father who sent Me" is important because it highlights that there is a start to Jesus' being in the world. It emphasizes that Jesus is doing the will of the Father. It indicates that Jesus knows the Father in a way they do not. The incarnate Son is sent to earth, and is given those who already hear and learn of the Father, so that they may learn of the Father more fully through the Son. He keeps those given to Him by the Father.

The problem of the hearers is not stated to be the lack of a monergistic change brought on by the Father that would then orient them towards the Father and Son.

Rather, they are not of those who are already hearing and learning of the Father, are taught by God, and are drawn to the Son, so that the Son may fulfill the purpose for which He was sent.

The Son keeps those given, and reveals to them the Father more fully.

Hebrews 1:1-4 1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
NKJV

God spoke in various ways in the past, but now spoke through His Son.

The plan involved those who were already hearing His previous speaking then being given to the Son, who then revealed the Father fully, being the "brightness of His glory and the express image of His person".

Let's look at how this "drawing" played out in an example in the book of John.

John 1:6-7
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. (NKJV)

One of God's means of speaking, prior to the earthly ministry of the Son, was through John the Baptist. John was sent from God, as a witness to the Light, so that all through him might believe.

Here is the account of John bearing witness:

John 1:29-31
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ 31 I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.” (NKJV)

John 1:35-42
35 Again, the next day, John stood with two of his disciples. 36 And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, “Behold the Lamb of God!”
37 The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 Then Jesus turned, and seeing them following, said to them, “What do you seek?”
They said to Him, “Rabbi” (which is to say, when translated, Teacher), “where are You staying?”
39 He said to them, “Come and see.” They came and saw where He was staying, and remained with Him that day (now it was about the tenth hour).
40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus.
Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas” (which is translated, A Stone). (NKJV)

Through the witness of John the Baptist Andrew and Simon Peter come to Jesus.

Did Simon and Andrew know the Father at this time? It appears so. Did they know Jesus prior to being introduced? It appears not.

The Father used the means of John the Baptist to draw those who were His to the Son.

They then were kept by the Son, He gave them the Father's words, revealed the Father to them, etc. They were part of those referenced by Jesus that had been given by the Father, and kept by Jesus in John 17.

Now let's look at an example of those who also were aware of the witness of John the Baptist, but rejected it:

John 5:31-47
31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. 32 There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. 33 You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. 35 He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (NKJV)

The ones here described did not have the love of the Father in them. They had sent to John, but had not believed his witness. They had not been listening to John, who was a witness sent from the Father. They had not been listening to Moses, a prophet sent by God.

They were not the Father's. They were not given to the Son.

But Jesus says He mentions the testimony of John that they may be saved. They need to go back to the testimony already given, and learn of the Father, and come to the Son.

They need to will to do God's will.

John 7:17 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. (NKJV)

It is consistent in the context, and throughout the book. And this notion of a prerequisite in the ministry of John is also seen in Luke:

Luke 7:29-30 29 And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him. (NKJV)

They rejected the will of God for them. They were not hearing and learning from the Father.