More On John 6

This is a follow up to here.

Phil wrote:

"This proves that everyone drawn comes. How? Everyone who hears and learns from the Father and "be taught of God" explains what drawing is."
Could you please give a more detailed explanation of why you think that these two are exactly equivalent (if that's what you are saying)? It doesn't seem to me like Hebrew parallelism requires this...not that I'm an expert or anything. But take, for example, genesis 1.27:
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

The parallelism here gives gender an "explanation" as to what is meant by being created in the image of God, but surely it is not an exhaustive account of how humanity bears the image of God. In the same way, hearing from the Father and being taught of God may not be exhaustive of "drawing."

My reply:

This discourse is given in Midrashic form (cf.for example, Blomberg's material on John).

Parallelism is common in midrashic teaching. The only question is "what sort to we have?"

We have 4 options:

Synonymous Parallelism: In synonymous parallelism, the second line of the pair repeats the idea of the first line without making any significant addition or subtraction. Your example from Genesis seems to fit this pattern.

Antithetic Parallelism: In antithetic parallelism—the most common form in Proverbs—the second line is set in contrast to the idea of the first line, and usually by means of the adversative conjunction “but.” This often consists of a restatement of the idea of the first line by asserting its opposite (i.e., both lines state the same idea but in antithetical ways):

*

10:1: “A wise son makes a father glad, but a foolish son is a grief to his mother.”

c. Emblematic Parallelism: In emblematic parallelism, one line is figurative and the other is literal, and together they form a simile with the word “like” or “as” introducing one of the lines (usually the figurative one):

*

10:26: “Like vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is the lazy one to those who send him.”

d. Synthetic Parallelism: Synthetic parallelism is a form of synonymous parallelism in which the second line completes, advances, or develops the thought of the first line by supplying additional ideas. If the second line provides no further clarification of the first, the parallelism should be classified as synonymous, but if it does bring forth clarification or expansion, it is synthetic.

*

15:3: “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, watching the evil and the good.”

*

16:4: “The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.”

The interpreter is to determine the contribution of that second line, as well as the point of the two statements taken together as a whole. Because synthetic parallelism usually takes the form of a wisdom saying (see 2b in part 1), the interpreter will need to determine the unstated exhortation implied by the proverb by wrestling with the question: How am I to live in light of this truth?

So what do we have here:

No man can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him.

This is given to explain the unbelief of the audience.

Jesus follows: It is written in the prophets, "And they shall be taught of God." This refers to Isaiah 54: "All your sons will be taught of the LORD;
And the well-being of your sons will be great.

Then Jesus says, "Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me."

The text continues on with a parallel incident among the disciples themselves, which is a microcosm of the events in the synagogue:

59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"

61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?

62"What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

63"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

64"But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

65And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

So, we have,stylistically, a number of things going on:

Statements in Midrashic form, each building one upon the other. Commentaries frequently refer to John's "shingle" or "stair step" fashion, in which one statement is made and a subsequent statement develops it. This is consistent with Hebrew parallelism.

In the synagogue itself, in 44/45, we see either synonymous or synthetic parallelism. Take your pick. Either 45 is repeating 44 without developing it further, or it is adding to the force of 44. Either way, hearing and learning from the Father is equivalent to "drawing," and an explanation of unbelief. Why do some not believe? Because they are not drawn by the Father. Why? Because EVERYONE who hears and learns from the Father comes to Jesus. The addition of a new qualifier, the universal positive, "everyone" leads me to view it as synthetic, as it clarifies and adds force to the previous statement (44),where the universal negative (Nobody can come) is stated.

Moving on, John, adds another layer as if to reinforce his meaning, not by a new line of dialogue, but a parallel incident, this time among the Disciples. They too are stumbling over Jesus' words,and there are those there who do not believe (Judas). Why? Because belief is something granted by the Father. Nobody can come to Jesus without the Father granting it to him. Those who do not come are those to whom it has not been granted to come.

So, having been "granted" by the Father runs parallel to being taught by the Father, which in turn runs parallel to being drawn by the Father. So, in this context, "drawing" is explained in a number of ways in the context of explaining why some people believe in Jesus and others do not.

The Arminian contention is that all people are drawn equally, which is why the often run to John 12. Otherwise, they try to insert a disjunction in 44, which the text does not support, per 45.

Well, if that's so, on Arminian grounds, that leads directly to universalism given the constraints of the text of John 6. Arminians deny universalism.

Phil wrote:

Thanks for your detailed response. Though you've certainly clarified for me some things about Hebrew parallelism, I'm still having difficulties with the reasoning behind your analysis. You said that "Everyone who hears and learns from the Father and 'be taught of God' explains what drawing is." You justify this on the basis of the parallelism, where 45 explains 44. Now in the passage I posted from genesis, we have something going on that, while I'm not sure which of your categories it falls into, seems to negate the type of reasoning you are engaging in.

I explained this. If we take the text you quoted as a couplet, which is what is required for a parallel statement, we have synonymous parallelism if we stipulate to your reading of the text.

Synonymous parallelism:

Synonymous Parallelism: In synonymous parallelism, the second line of the pair repeats the idea of the first line without making any significant addition or subtraction.

You say:

"In the synagogue itself, in 44/45, we see either synonymous or synthetic parallelism. Take your pick. Either 45 is repeating 44 without developing it further, or it is adding to the force of 44. Either way, hearing and learning from the Father is equivalent to "drawing," and an explanation of unbelief."

Well, it's not antithetical parallelism. It's not emblematic parallelism. So we have two choices.

1. Synonymous. If synonymous, then 45 simply restates 44.

2. Synthetic. If synthetic, then the second line completes, advances, or develops the thought of the first line by supplying additional ideas.

Synthetic parallelism is a form of synonymous parallelism. Go back and read the definitions.

I've explained the rest already. You say you don't understand. I'm afraid you need to be more specific. Hearing and learning are "equivalent" with drawing insofar as drawing and "taught of God" are the divine actions that result in persons hearing and learning. Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes. How do we know this? Because we're told this by Jesus to explain the unbelief of those in the audience.

Once more:

Jesus says,

1. Nobody can come to me unless my Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.
2. It is written in the prophets, "And they shall be taught of God.

a. Who is "they?" They are those who are drawn. They are the "everyone" of his next statement.

3. Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me.

Who comes? Everyone who hears and learns from the Father?
Who are they? They are the ones drawn.
Who are they? They are those taught by God.

What you and Godismyjudge below do is posit disjunctions between one o more of the following:

Those drawn and those who come. - eg. Everyone is drawn, but only some come.
Those who are taught and those who learn. Everyone is taught (drawn) but not all of them learn.
Those who hear and those who learn. Everyone is taught,and they hear, but not all of them learn, or everyone is taught (drawn), some hear,and those who learn are a subset of those who hear.

Consequently, this would mean:

Only some who are drawn come.
Some who are taught hear and learn.
Some who hear learn, but not all.

This successfully upends the text as an explanation of the reason some believe and others do not,when Jesus predicates hearing and learning on teaching/drawing. Some people believe and others do not? Why? Does Jesus say, "Because some people hear and do not learn?" Does Jesus say, "Because everybody is taught but only some hear and learn and thus come?" Does Jesus say, "Because everybody is drawn but only some come?" Those would, at best, only restate the problem and not answer the problem of unbelief.

According to John 6, rather, in Jesus words, the reason some believe and others don't is because some are drawn by God and others are not; some are taught by God and others are not, and all who hear and learn come.

I've never claimed that 45 explains drawing "exhaustively." Rather, I am discussing it's usage in this particular text. To quote James White:

The drawing of the Father leads those drawn to the Son. Why? Well, part of it has to do with imparting knowledge, teaching. God does the teaching. And just as the drawing of the Father brings all who are drawn to the Son (and hence to eternal life), so too He never fails in imparting the knowledge that leads to life. All who are taught "hear" (aorist) and "learn" (aorist), and as a result of this action, come to Christ (just as v. 37 and 44). Here all truly does mean all, because it has a specific delimiter in the context: all drawn, all given, all taught, all hearing, etc. In v. 45 the emphasis remains upon the Father, not upon those taught, those who, as a result, hear and learn.

Also, Thibodeux is the one who tried to link this text to Hosea 11. Some commentators do this. Granting that connection, what does this say about John 6? I've been over this too.Here's Hosea 11:1-4

1When Israel was a youth I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called My son.

2The more they called them,
The more they went from them;
They kept sacrificing to the Baals
And burning incense to idols.

3Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk,
I took them in My arms;
But they did not know that I healed them.

4I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love,
And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws;
And I bent down and fed them.

This text is not about God "wooing" Israel, it's about God's deliverance of Israel, the Exodus. It's about His faithfulness to them. This text, if we want to talk about it's relation to the meaning of "drawing" is on our side, not his. God did not "woo" Israel out of Egypt or "woo" Israel into the land of Canaan. Indeed, He did not "woo" them into the Exile and the Return. He drove them there and pulled them out.

I don't know if I fully understand your categories for Hebrew Parallelism (or whether they are accurate and exhaustive), but I simply can't see why the parallelism would make the latter statement "equivalent" to the former.

I'm applying standard definitions you can find in any text on hermeneutics, particular OT Exegesis. You can also find it in more popular works like How To Read the Bible For All It's Worth.

In genesis, we have "in the image of God he created them" parallel to "male and female he created them." This seems to me to not be an equivalence with, nor a strengthening of, the first statement. I see the second statement, rather, as pointing out a major, central aspect of what is meant in the first: God created humankind in his image, and one major thing this means is that we are created for a male/female reciprocal relationship that models the trinity. But there are also ways we are created in God's image--our rationality, our creativity, our brotherly love, etc. The second line is not equivalent or stronger than the first, but weaker, because it lists a particular (though central) aspect of what was mentioned in the first. It "expands" on the idea by giving more detail, but it also leaves stuff out by becoming specific.

Genesis is not John, nor is Genesis Isaiah. John has a particular affinity for Isaiah's style and content. That too is a fairly standard view.

I'd say you're reading quite a bit into "image" here. In Genesis, the image of God refers to "dominion." See Turretinfan's archives for more on that text. I do agree with much of what you say about the image of God in man, but I don't think Genesis addresses those issues. Rather, I would say that the Trinitarian model is more properly inferred from the relationship between Christ and the Church which in turn is predicated on the relation between Father and Son, per Paul. The Father stands over Christ and loves Christ. Christ stands over the Church and loves the Church and so on. The husband/wife relationship is is representative of the relationship between Christ and the Church, and from there we can draw Trinitarian inferences.

Might it be the case that, in the same way, the statement that everyone who hears and learns from the Father and will "be taught of God" comes to Jesus is meant to highlight the specific, central (in terms of the salvation story) quality of the "drawing," but does not exclude other potential aspects of it, such as the drawing of those that do not eventually come to Jesus?

If it does so highlight a specific quality, it would be its effectual nature, namely everyone so drawn comes.

People not coming who are drawn is excluded because 44/45 is an explanation of why some people believe and not others. Christ says this because they begin grumbling among themselves. Again, the next account magnifies this even more when the Lord says specifically that there are those there who do not believe (alluding to Judas). Why do they not believe? Because it has not been so granted.

The unspoken problem you seem to have is "free will." Where is the supporting argument?

Michael Williams wrote:

Your "epexegesis" is impressive; it's impervious within the frame of your focus.

Your lack of alterative exegesis is impressive. It's impervious within the frame of your focus.

That would be the end of it; if the scriptures consisted of this portion of text solely, but the problem is the remaining 31000+ verses of the Bible.

The remaining 31,000 plus verses of the Bible do not discuss this topic. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how they refute Reformed soteriology.

Why is epexegesis required to understand a handful of verses as a passage, but erroneous to apply to all of the Scriptures as one body for complete apprehension of divine revelation?

Because not all texts are epexegetical to others.

That said, we use Scripture to interpret Scripture. The Reformed believe in the analogy of faith. By way of contrast, where do we find Libertarian Free Will taught in the Scriptures? As it goes, so goes Arminian soteriology.

Can epexegesis of another isolated section of the Scriptures, like 1 Timothy 4, make for example the language of v. 10 conform to a strictly Calvinistic understanding, when we hear that God is the Savoir of all people, especially of those who believe?

1. Universalistic texts don't distinguish between universal atonement, to take just one Arminian objection, and universal salvation. So you'll need to demonstrate how you believe they do, if you're not a universalist.

2. Calvinism has no problem with this. It's a statement of identity. God is the Savior of all men in a general sense. (a) There is only one God who can justify a sinner. (b) God has made provisions for common grace.

God is the Savior of all men, e.g. the only Savior any man can ever know and the general patron of all people (common grace). He is not the Savior of all men when it comes to eternal salvation, because not all men are saved. He is the Savior of all men extensively with respect to common graces. God restrains evil in the world, gives us light, feeds us, and a host of other activities. Unless the disputant is a universalist, this text cannot refer to all men without exception.

If we take these references to mean everybody without exception in 1 Timothy, then what of the following texts? Using the Arminian yardstick:

• 1 Tim. 2:8 "everywhere" means "the North Pole" or "in hell" or “the moon.”
• 1 Tim. 4:4 "everything God created is good" include Satan; note that verse 3 limits verse 4 to food and marriage.
• 1 Tim. 6:17 "everything for our enjoyment" includes sin

Godismyjudge said:

Here's the issue I have. You seem to be saying drawing is equivalent to hearing and learning. But I think teaching is a better candidate for equivalency. Who draws? God. Who teaches? God. Who hears and learns? Us. So hearing and learning doesn't seem parallel to drawing, but teaching does.

Hearing and learning is a response to teaching (i.e. drawing). This seems to be the purpose of the law. The law as a schoolmaster leads us to Christ. It prepares us for saving grace.

In Christ audience, some believe Moses (John 6:14) and some didn't (John 5:46). In other words, some heard, but didn't learn.

1. Then in that case, teaching is restricted to the external, general call.

2. On those grounds, which are Arminian considerations, Arminianism is thereby falsified, for everyone who hears and learns comes. So, you'll have to posit a disjunction between those who hear and those who learn in this text. Instead, you've run to John 5, but John 5 is not citing Isaiah 54:13, nor is it the same pericope, with the same audience, context, etc. More importantly, this portion of the text is explaining why some people believe and not others. Just once, I would like to find an Arminian who can actually read through John 6 without running back to John 5 or forward to John 12.

3. Nobody who comes is turned away.

Yes, God teaches. What is the result of the teaching? They hear and learn. Everyone who hears and learns comes. Those who come are not turned away. It's the Arminian who says that God's teaching is universal, by way of UPG. So, why do some believe and not others?

This text is given as an explanation of why some believe and not others.

Some people were grumbling. Jesus said, "Nobody is able to come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

These people were being taught by God. The text from Isaiah was viewed by some as Messianic. "He will be a righteous king over them taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days. " This in turn evokes other texts, including Jer.33, Joel 2, Micah 4, Zeph 3, Mal. 1. All the citizens of the Kingdom are "Those who are taught by God."

So the referent for "everyone who hears and learns" refers to citizens of the Kingdom, the regenerate, not to some sort of generalized teaching ministry like the tutoring of the Law or the general preaching of the word, in this case by God Incarnate in a Jewish synagogue no less. The irony here is that these same people in Jesus audience believed they were citizens of the Kingdom already, but they were not, for, if they were,they would have believed. We see this made quite clear later on in John when Jesus tells off the Pharisees saying that if they were truly Abraham's children they would believe in Him.

Nobody can come unless the Father draws them.
They are taught of God, because God must teach them for them to come.
Everyone who is taught comes, because everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes.
Nobody who comes is turned away.
Everybody who comes is raised on the last day.

If this drawing is universal and equal to all, friend, then, pray tell, why do some believe and not others? If we confine the "teaching" to the Law, then we're confining teaching to what we might call the outward preaching of the Word. Everyone who hears this comes according to v. 45, given those considerations. But the text has, by this point, already stated that all who come are not turned away, and those drawn all raised up. You're left with universalism on Arminian considerations alone, but you're no universalist.

So, let's plug some of these considerations of yours into the text.

Nobody is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Let's stipulate that this teaching is the Law.

It is written in the prophets "And they shall be taught (the Law) by God.

Everyone who hears the teaching of the Law and learns from it comes to me.

1. You've posited, thereby that those who learn are a subset less than those who hear. Where's the supporting argument? How does this explain the unbelief of those in this place in light of v. 44?

2. You'd have to posit a corresponding disjunction between those who are drawn and those who are raised in v. 44. Where is this to be found in the text? Who is the "him" of vs. 44?

Nobody can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

This him is the one who is drawn.

And (conjunction). I will raise him up on the last day.

That is, Jesus will raise up the person who is drawn. So, these must be the same person. The text simply doesn't support such a disjunction.

Epexegetical statement begins:

It is written in the Prophets, "And they will be taught of God."

Who is "they?" It would be those who are drawn, which is identical with those raised.

Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me

Why do they hear and learn from the Father? Because the Father teaches them. Ergo, everyone who is taught by the Father hears and learns from Him, comes to Jesus, and is raised on the last day. I can read this text without resorting to disjunctions where none exist and where, if they existed, it wouldn't make sense as an explanation of the reason lying behind persons' unbelief.

You are positing LFW to make this disjunction. You're reading would be either:

Everyone who (chooses to) hear and learn from the Father comes to me

or

Everyone who hears (and chooses to) learn from the Father comes to me

Note carefully, you're inserting something not stated in the text.

1. Why does one person choose to hear and/or learn and not another? Remember, this text is intended to explain this phenomenon. Your reading doesn't make sense as an explanation of the reasons for unbelief. It only moves the question back a step.

2. Where can we find LFW taught in the Bible?