The "him" of John 6:44

[The Biblicist]

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The question is who is the second "him" in verse 44?

From a Greek grammar point of view:

1. The second "him" is the same case, gender and number of the first "him" in verse 44 - Masculine accusative singular

2. The nearest noun or pronoun for the second "him" is the preceding "him" of verse 44

Hence, the natural conclusion is that the SAME "him" that is drawn by God is the SAME "him" that is raised to resurrection of life.

Hence, this is an EFFECTUAL drawing as one SINGULAR "him" out of one SINGULAR "him" is drawn and raised.

Moreover, verse 45 demands that "ALL" taught are of a certain lmited sphere of people and "EVERY MAN" taught does come to Christ.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Jesus is quoting Isaiah 54:13 which is restricted to the people of God alone:

Isa 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

Therefore "him" in John 6:44a is the same "him" of John 6:44b all of which consist of the "ALL" of John 6:45a which equals "EVERY MAN" (same greek word translated "all") of John 6:45b which are taught and do learn and do come to Jesus and thus will be raised to life. Notice there are no exceptions but "EVERY MAN" that is subjected to God's teaching does "come to me." The "him" drawn is the "him" that is raised. "ALL" will be taught not merely some.

However, the quotation from Isaiah 54:13 is the direct quotation but meant to be but the primary example as the Lord uses the plural "prophets". Where is another example in the prophets where "ALL" will be taught by God?

Jer. 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Again, it is "ALL" who are taught by God and "every man" so taught knows God from the least to the greatest = "all" and they will be raised to the resurrection of life because their sins are removed.

Drawing by God = TEACHING by God and this teaching is not due to men but due to God directly teaching them. This is the revelation by God that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16:17 which does not originate from "flesh and blood". This is the revelation from God Paul spoke of in Galatians 1:15-16 that does not originate from flesh and blood and a teaching that no man can teach another man but only God can.

1 Jn. 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.


CONCLUSION: What I gave is the grammatical correct and natural interpretation of this passage that fits the Old Testament references and immediate context as he is addressing those who refused to beleive in him (Jn. 6:36,41-43) and is explaining to them why they do not come to him in faith.

 

[kyredneck]

44 ...Isa 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.....

Who is the 'thy' of Isa 54:13?

 

[The Biblicist]

Who is the 'thy' of Isa 54:13?

All the Seed of the Abrahamic Covenant

For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee.- Isa. 54:10

Not the covenant "of the law" but the covenant of "my peace."

13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be THE PEACE of thy children.


The same is true of Jeremiah 31:34 as it is quoted in Hebrews 8 and 10 as the New Covenant pertaining to all the promised seed of Abraham both Jews and Genitles - the elect.


Abraham's promised seed - the elect

 

[kyredneck]

And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children 54:13

Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith Jehovah. 54:1

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. Gal 4

3 Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. Selah
4 I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon as among them that know me: Behold, Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia: This one was born there.
5 Yea, of Zion it shall be said, This one and that one was born in her; And the Most High himself will establish her.
6 Jehovah will count, when he writeth up the peoples, This one was born there. Selah Ps 87

 

[The Biblicist]

Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith Jehovah. 54:1

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. Gal 4

3 Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. Selah
4 I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon as among them that know me: Behold, Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia: This one was born there.
5 Yea, of Zion it shall be said, This one and that one was born in her; And the Most High himself will establish her.
6 Jehovah will count, when he writeth up the peoples, This one was born there. Selah Ps 87

Ga 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Your problem is that this in context refers to the NEW COVENANT of peace and secondly not "ALL" children of PHYSICAL JERUSALEM obtained that peace.

 

[kyredneck]

I'm not sure what you're problem is....never mind.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not sure what you're problem is....never mind.

Sir, it is your position that has the problem, not mine. Your position cannot accomodate the "ALL" in regard to the NEW COVENANT as you are trying desperately to pin it solely upon physical Jerusalem.

Furthermore, the context of John 6:44 is in regard to coming to Christ by faith as no one can honestly deny that to "come to me" means to by to me IN FAITH (Jn. 6:35).

 

[Greektim]

From a Greek grammar point of view:

1. The second "him" is the same case, gender and number of the first "him" in verse 44 - Masculine accusative singular

2. The nearest noun or pronoun for the second "him" is the preceding "him" of verse 44

As a point of grammar, number 1 doesn't matter and proves nothing. The only time matching case, number, and gender is important is w/ adjectives or participles (verbal adjectives; as you see in the verse w/ "the father who sent"). This is neither but a pronoun. In fact, if John wanted to be more specific, he would have switched the second pronoun from a personal pronoun to a demonstrative pronoun.

In this case, bother are masculine accusative singular is because that is their grammatical function in the sentence both acting as an object to the subject and verb

Otherwise, I agree that the 2nd him is the same as the first him.

 

[The Biblicist]

As a point of grammar, number 1 doesn't matter and proves nothing. The only time matching case, number, and gender is important is w/ adjectives or participles (verbal adjectives; as you see in the verse w/ "the father who sent"). This is neither but a pronoun. In fact, if John wanted to be more specific, he would have switched the second pronoun from a personal pronoun to a demonstrative pronoun.

In this case, bother are masculine accusative singular is because that is their grammatical function in the sentence both acting as an object to the subject and verb

Otherwise, I agree that the 2nd him is the same as the first him.

If the second pronoun was neuter or feminine or plural that indicate it modifies a different antecedent. So the gender and number are grammatically significant.

 

[Greektim]

If the second pronoun was neuter or feminine or plural that indicate it modifies a different antecedent. So the gender and number are grammatically significant.

Not in linking them to each other. The only reason it takes the masculine singular is because that is the grammatical function of the object in that sentence. But as I said, it is not a grammatical certainty that the pronouns refer to the same person/thing just b/c they agree in gender, case, and number. That has no bearing on the matter. As an example, if it was the intention to make the second "him" refer to raising the Father on the last day, he would say it the exact same way (accusative, masculine, singular) as the other "him".

 

[The Biblicist]

That no bearing on the matter. .

I disagree! If that second pronoun had been a different gender or plural it would not grammatically be possible that it refers to the same antecedent as the first pronoun.

You are right that the same gender and number ALONE don't demand they refer to same person but contextually they must refer to the same antecedent as there is no other contextual antecedent available and the gender and number do determine that.

 

[Greektim]

I disagree! If that second pronoun had been a different gender or plural it would not grammatically be possible that it refers to the same antecedent as the first pronoun.

You are right that the same gender and number ALONE don't demand they refer to same person but contextually they must refer to the same antecedent as there is no other contextual antecedent available and the gender and number do determine that.

You are completely wrong. There are at least 4 possible antecedents.

The grammar will determine the pronoun's case, number, and gender... its function in the sentence. However, it could also, but extremely unlikely, refer to the Father being raised as well. The reason it is not plural or neuter is that the context is about general humanity which takes the masculine.

As I said, your point grammatically proves nothing b/c it can't be anything else but what it is in the passage grammatically. But it could refer to Jesus, the Father, or some other unknown antecedent as well as the other "him". Your point is nonesense b/c it had to be masculine, singular, accusative, and not to link it to the previous "him". The second "him" had to be what it was b/c the second clause demanded it.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are completely wrong. There are at least 4 possible antecedents.

The grammar will determine the pronoun's case, number, and gender... its function in the sentence. However, it could also, but extremely unlikely, refer to the Father being raised as well. The reason it is not plural or neuter is that the context is about general humanity which takes the masculine.

As I said, your point grammatically proves nothing b/c it can't be anything else but what it is in the passage grammatically. But it could refer to Jesus, the Father, or some other unknown antecedent as well as the other "him". Your point is nonesense b/c it had to be masculine, singular, accusative, and not to link it to the previous "him". The second "him" had to be what it was b/c the second clause demanded it.

Sorry but I disagree. Pronouns must have a proper antecedent and the context determines that and they must agree with that antecedent. Neither the Father or the Son are possible antecedents because the Father cannot be doing the action and receiving it (no middle voice) and the Son is the indirect object of the action and thus cannot be the proper antecedent. The antecedent is "man" for both pronouns.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry but I disagree. Pronouns must have a proper antecedent and the context determines that and they must agree with that antecedent. Neither the Father or the Son are possible antecedents because the Father cannot be doing the action and receiving it (no middle voice) and the Son is the indirect object of the action and thus cannot be the proper antecedent. The antecedent is "man" for both pronouns.

"A pronoun will have the same gender and number as its antecedent" - Huber L. Drumwright, Jr., An Introduction to New Testament Greek, p. 54 (Broadman Press)

 

[Greektim]

Sorry but I disagree. Pronouns must have a proper antecedent and the context determines that and they must agree with that antecedent. Neither the Father or the Son are possible antecedents because the Father cannot be doing the action and receiving it (no middle voice) and the Son is the indirect object of the action and thus cannot be the proper antecedent. The antecedent is "man" for both pronouns.

I agree w/ you, but the grammar doesn't prove your point. We are arguing for the same thing, but I am just clarifying that the pronoun's case, number, and gender is what it is based on its function in the sentence.

Grammatically, the Father is a possible antecedent b/c the 3rd clause (w/ the 2nd "him") is in the first person whereas the second clause about the Father is in the 3rd. Logically, it makes little sense, but grammatically it is not incorrect.

Speaking of which, it is still illogical, but Jesus is still a grammatical possibility. He is the object in the first clause, indirect object in the second, and the subject in the third. He could be referring to himself, grammatically speaking. And a person can refer to himself w/out using the middle voice. They actually had pronouns that did the same thing as the middle voice.

And as an example to go against your grammatical source, John does not always follow this rule... for the Holy Spirit as an example in Jn 15:26, 16:14 he uses a masculine pronoun for the neuter "spirit".

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree w/ you, but the grammar doesn't prove your point. We are arguing for the same thing, but I am just clarifying that the pronoun's case, number, and gender is what it is based on its function in the sentence.

"function in the sentence" is called "syntax." I am sorry but I still disagree and disagree with your examples. Some nouns are not gender specific (grammatical genders) but that is due to the noun not the pronoun and that is an exception to the rule not the rule. However, the point is that we do agree on interpretation.

 

[Greektim]

"function in the sentence" is called "syntax." I am sorry but I still disagree and disagree with your examples. Some nouns are not gender specific (grammatical genders) but that is due to the noun not the pronoun and that is an exception to the rule not the rule. However, the point is that we do agree on interpretation.

I'm not satisfied. Even exceptions to rules must be taken into account. You made a blanket statement (provided a source at least) and I refuted it. Deal with it. You have got to be the hardest person to teach... no one can teach you anything b/c you never accept that you are wrong, even slightly.

And syntax is not function in the sentence, it is the relationship of one word with the other words in its context. Grammar is a word's function in the sentence. The grammar I am referring to is that due to the type of subject and verbs used, a direct object in the accusative was a grammatical necessity. Therefore, both "him"s appear the exact same form, not to indicate to the reader that the have the same antecedent, but that they both have the same grammatical function in the sentence--direct objects. It just happens that in this case they clearly have the same antecedent. But the form has nothing to do with determining it.

Now I will grant you that since it is not feminine or neuter or plural is significant. But no one would expect that in this context, so that is a non-sequitur. Therefore, the masculine singular doesn't necessitate the referent you want. Grammatically, it could be a reference to "father" or "me" or even a different antecedent not in the context (very unlikely). The fact is, the grammar does not prove the point you want it.

 

[convicted1]

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:':thumbs:"

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The question is who is the second "him" in verse 44?

From a Greek grammar point of view:

1. The second "him" is the same case, gender and number of the first "him" in verse 44 - Masculine accusative singular

2. The nearest noun or pronoun for the second "him" is the preceding "him" of verse 44

Hence, the natural conclusion is that the SAME "him" that is drawn by God is the SAME "him" that is raised to resurrection of life.

Hence, this is an EFFECTUAL drawing as one SINGULAR "him" out of one SINGULAR "him" is drawn and raised.

Moreover, verse 45 demands that "ALL" taught are of a certain lmited sphere of people and "EVERY MAN" taught does come to Christ.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Jesus is quoting Isaiah 54:13 which is restricted to the people of God alone:

Isa 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

Therefore "him" in John 6:44a is the same "him" of John 6:44b all of which consist of the "ALL" of John 6:45a which equals "EVERY MAN" (same greek word translated "all") of John 6:45b which are taught and do learn and do come to Jesus and thus will be raised to life. Notice there are no exceptions but "EVERY MAN" that is subjected to God's teaching does "come to me." The "him" drawn is the "him" that is raised. "ALL" will be taught not merely some.

However, the quotation from Isaiah 54:13 is the direct quotation but meant to be but the primary example as the Lord uses the plural "prophets". Where is another example in the prophets where "ALL" will be taught by God?

Jer. 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Again, it is "ALL" who are taught by God and "every man" so taught knows God from the least to the greatest = "all" and they will be raised to the resurrection of life because their sins are removed.

Drawing by God = TEACHING by God and this teaching is not due to men but due to God directly teaching them. This is the revelation by God that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16:17 which does not originate from "flesh and blood". This is the revelation from God Paul spoke of in Galatians 1:15-16 that does not originate from flesh and blood and a teaching that no man can teach another man but only God can.

1 Jn. 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.


CONCLUSION: What I gave is the grammatical correct and natural interpretation of this passage that fits the Old Testament references and immediate context as he is addressing those who refused to beleive in him (Jn. 6:36,41-43) and is explaining to them why they do not come to him in faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not satisfied. Even exceptions to rules must be taken into account.

Yes, but they are still "exceptions" and not the rule and the recognized Greek Scholar gave the rule and gave it clearly. I can't help it if you disagree with him.

You made a blanket statement (provided a source at least) and I refuted it. Deal with it.

In your own mind I am sure you believe that. However, I don't think you "refuted" anything but simply gave me your interpretative opinion which contradicts a recognized Greek scholars opinion of personal pronouns and contradicts proper exegesis which requires grammar to be considered with syntax and immediate context.

You have got to be the hardest person to teach... no one can teach you anything b/c you never accept that you are wrong, even slightly.

Can we skip the personal attacks.

And syntax is not function in the sentence, it is the relationship of one word with the other words in its context. Grammar is a word's function in the sentence.

That is technically correct. However, broadly speaking the "function" of a pronoun in a sentence is in relationship to other words in that sentence or it has no function at all with regard to that sentence.

The grammar I am referring to is that due to the type of subject and verbs used, a direct object in the accusative was a grammatical necessity.

No argument here

Therefore, both "him"s appear the exact same form,

No argument here

not to indicate to the reader that the have the same antecedent,

That is not my argument. I am not arguing simply due to the same form they must have the same antecedent. That is not my agument. I am arguing that whatever antededent they do have must agree in number and gender just as you admit at the end of this post that number would make a difference and gender would also make a difference unless we are dealing with substantives that are gender neutral but they are exceptions to the rule.

Furthermore, grammar cannot be considered apart from syntax or context. What you are doing is isolating one from the other in order to make your arguments and that is why I don't agree you have valid arguments. Neither "father" or "I" are possible antecedents unless you dissect grammar from syntax and context.

I believe the proper and nearest antecedent is "man".

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, but they are still "exceptions" and not the rule and the recognized Greek Scholar gave the rule and gave it clearly. I can't help it if you disagree with him.




In your own mind I am sure you believe that. However, I don't think you "refuted" anything but simply gave me your interpretative opinion which contradicts a recognized Greek scholars opinion of personal pronouns and contradicts proper exegesis which requires grammar to be considered with syntax and immediate context.



Can we skip the personal attacks.



That is technically correct. However, broadly speaking the "function" of a pronoun in a sentence is in relationship to other words in that sentence or it has no function at all with regard to that sentence.



No argument here




No argument here




That is not my argument. I am not arguing simply due to the same form they must have the same antecedent. That is not my agument. I am arguing that whatever antededent they do have must agree in number and gender just as you admit at the end of this post that number would make a difference and gender would also make a difference unless we are dealing with substantives that are gender neutral but they are exceptions to the rule.

Furthermore, grammar cannot be considered apart from syntax or context. What you are doing is isolating one from the other in order to make your arguments and that is why I don't agree you have valid arguments. Neither "father" or "I" are possible antecedents unless you dissect grammar from syntax and context.

I believe the proper and nearest antecedent is "man".

Well, I don't claim to be a Greek scholar and my Greek is rusty. After reconsidering your arguments you may be correct and I may be wrong.