The "him" of John 6:44

[Skandelon]

In every illustration offered to counter my interpretation of John 6:44 thus far, the illustration considered on its on merits makes perfect sense. However, when it is tested by how it parallels with John 6:44 it is flawed.

The flaw in Winman's illustration about being the only man invited to dinner at the white house would mean if refused NONE came to dinner. That was the flaw in his illustration.

Yet, that illustration is perfectly parallel to the parable of the wedding banquet that Winman mentioned earlier. He sends his servants to do his 'bidding' and to 'invite' or to make an 'appeal' to all people. That supports our contention that the 'drawing' is more liken to an 'appeal' than to an 'irresistible work of regeneration.'

With that said, however, when we are speaking of God's drawing or giving of the Remnant from Israel (the twelve) to Christ while he was here on earth, there was certainly a more 'effectual' or 'predetermined' plan in place. But, we must remember that proof of God's use of effectively convincing means (i.e. signs, big fish, bright lights, big storms, etc) to call out his appointed messengers is not proof that God irresistibly makes certain hearers believe that message.

The flaw in Skandelon's illustration of the Army recruiter was much more subtle. The illustration was incomplete and impossible without either the potential recruit coming to the recruitor, recruiting station or the recruiter coming to the recruit

I am not seeing the distinction. You say God must "draw" him (irresistibly call/regenerate OR appeal/woo), and the General in my illustration is saying that a recruiter must recruit him. What is the difference?

 

[The Biblicist]

They are parallel in that both of them cons
titute a willingness on the part of the person to join/come/unite with the other.

However, you are ignoring the cause versus consequence in John 6:44 in regard to willingness which is not parallel with your illustration. Being drawn is presented as the cause for coming (willingness) not vice versa. In your illustration the recruit already shows a willingness in coming to the recruiter. The fact that "come" is the very term that expresses faith in Chriist and yet coming to the recruiter precedes any committment in your illustration flip flops the cause verses effect in John 6:44.

The point is not to be a perfect parallel, but to illustrate how the simplest and most common sense understanding of the text can include the presumption that the 'him' being addressed is one who has been positively affected by the effort, and not necessarily meaning to connote the idea that no one else was even given opportunity.

And here lies the problem with your imperfect parallel attempting to interpret the perfect words and perfect context for such words - they simply do not fit. When you lift the words of Scripture out of the context of scripture and place them in your own LIMITED context then you can make them mean whatever you like because there is no broader context to contradict your illustration.

Given the fact that God DOES indeed make an appeal to ALL MANKIND by the powerful gospel message (which is not sent until Christ is risen, mind you...long after John 6 took place), there is no reason to draw the conclusion that God only attempts to draw those who are actually positively drawn.

First, no preacher in existence has ever preached to all mankind. So the appeal only extends to those present and more reject than accept.

Second, the kind of teaching in John 6:45 never is reject by "ALL" or "ANY MAN" taught by God as "EVERY MAN" thus taught does in fact come to Christ (v. 45b).

So, the gospel call must be distinguished by who is the speaker - man or God. Moreover, God's teaching is INTERNAL and unseen (v. 46) but that is not true of the gospel in the hands of men.

 

[Skandelon]

However, you are ignoring the cause versus consequence in John 6:44 in regard to willingness which is not parallel with your illustration. Being drawn is presented as the cause for coming (willingness) not vice versa. In your illustration the recruit already shows a willingness in coming to the recruiter.

Where does my illustration say that? Some guy walking down the street may have no desire to join the army, but once confronted by the recruiter (drawn/convinced) he chooses to join. He didn't want to join because he didn't know about it, but once given the information he decided to join. The Army made an appeal through their recruiter, just like God does through his messengers.

That is what Paul says: "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

First, no preacher in existence has ever preached to all mankind. So the appeal only extends to those present and more reject than accept.

The point is that the message is sent to all...whether we, his messengers, obey is up to us and we are responsible for that.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yet, that illustration is perfectly parallel to the parable of the wedding banquet that Winman mentioned earlier. He sends his servants to do his 'bidding' and to 'invite' or to make an 'appeal' to all people. That supports our contention that the 'drawing' is more liken to an 'appeal' than to an 'irresistible work of regeneration.'

No it is not "perfectly" parallel to the wedding bangquet parable either. Some did come. In his illustration if "one" did not come NONE CAME.

Second, neither is the parable of the wedding banquet parallel with John 6:44-46 or with scripture in general. Those taught by God in John 6:45 "ALL" effectually came to Christ - "EVERY MAN" thus taught. That is not true when men preach the gospel - hence that demands TWO different kinds of teaching - one that is effectual to "EVERY MAN" it is applied to and one that is not. That is what Paul teaches in 1 Thes. 1:4-5. They know their salvation because the gospel did "NOT COME IN WORD ONLY" but it came "in power and in the Spirit and in much assurance". You cannot possibly claim that is how the gospel comes to every man hearing it - thus again TWO DIFFERENT kinds of calls.

With that said, however, when we are speaking of God's drawing or giving of the Remnant from Israel (the twelve) to Christ while he was here on earth, there was certainly a more 'effectual' or 'predetermined' plan in place.

It is one thing to apply it to lost Israel it is quite another to restrict it to lost Isreal - that is impossible unless you totally violate the language of the text.

He never says "no Jew" or "all Jews" but purposely omits "thy children" from Isiah 54:13 to deny that kind of interpetation. There are many contextual factors that completely and utterly repudiate that kind of restrictive application in John 6.

I am not seeing the distinction. You say God must "draw" him (irresistibly call/regenerate OR appeal/woo), and the General in my illustration is saying that a recruiter must recruit him. What is the difference?

You have the cart before the horse in your illustration when attempting to apply it John 6:44. Your illustration demands COMING to the recruiter to be convinced whereas John 6:44 demands DRAW before coming to Christ. The drawing is the convincing explained in verse 45 which precedes coming.

 

[The Biblicist]

Where does my illustration say that

That is the problem! Your illustration assumes the very thing that John 6:44 states - coming! You cannot use the Biblical words in your illustration just as Winman could not so your substitute them for other words and then fabricate your own special context so there is no overall context to challenge your illustration. Your illustration must assume that the recruit comes to the recruiter. To deny that you must then change your illustration as you do below in order to tweak all the circumstances of your illustration to make your illustration fit. YOU CAN TWEAK THE DETAILS AND CONTEXT OF YOUR FABRICATED ILLUSTRATION but you cannot tweak God's context for John 6:44.
So the fallicy is that as long as we continue in your fabricated changing illustration you can prove any point you desire and you know it.

Some guy walking down the street may have no desire to join the army, but once confronted by the recruiter (drawn/convinced) he chooses to join. He didn't want to join because he didn't know about it, but once given the information he decided to join. The Army made an appeal through their recruiter, just like God does through his messengers.

So we rewrite the script, change the context, manipulate the details in your illustration and there is no end what you can prove by doing that as long as we abide by your illustration. Now you are attributing additional details like motives in your illustration.

Your illustration won't fit verse 45 at all but verse 45 is the Divine context that verse 44 does fit. So why should I accept a manufactured illustration to fit your theory of John 6:44 when it contradicts the immediate context of verse 44 - namely verses 45-46?????????

You are basing doctrine on human reasoning and extrabiblcial fabricated stories to change the meaning of a text in its immediate context to suite your own theological perspective. In contrast, I am dealing with the grammar and immediate context (vv. 44-46) which directly contradicts your extra biblical fabrications

That is what Paul says: "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

Again, the preaching by men cannot possibly be harmonized with John 6:45 as the results are distinctly and drastically different. As long as you deny that there can be no rational discussion when you are attempting to take scriptures from conflicting contexts and force them to deny what they evidently do teach - two different kinds of calling.

Find yourself any preacher that when he teaches the gospel "every man" that "heard" and "learned" from him came to Christ - "ALL" with no exceptions. You see, verse 45 is teaching exactly what the grammar of verse 44 demands. That is consistency in context.


The point is that the message is sent to all...whether we, his messengers, obey is up to us and we are responsible for that.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Biblicist]

At the Army headquarters a General makes this statement:

"No one can join the Army unless a Army recruiter has recruited him, and the Army will train him to fight to his greatest potential."

.

Another flaw in this illustration is that your illustration presents it in the form of a condition rather than a fact. "unless a Army recuiter has recruited him" which leaves open whether that has occurred or not. If he has recruited him he is in fact in the army. If he has not recruited him then he is still unrecruited. You have this parallel with "draw" in John 6:44. However, being drawn is not an option but a necessity for coming. If "him" is not drawn he does not come- period. In contrast you leave recruited in the air as only a possibility.

 

[The Biblicist]

Another flaw in this illustration is that your illustration presents it in the form of a condition rather than a fact. "unless a Army recuiter has recruited him" which leaves open whether that has occurred or not. If he has recruited him he is in fact in the army. If he has not recruited him then he is still unrecruited. You have this parallel with "draw" in John 6:44. However, being drawn is not an option but a necessity for coming. If "him" is not drawn he does not come- period. In contrast you leave recruited in the air as only a possibility.

No one can join the Army unless a Army recruiter has recruited him, and the Army will train him to fight to his greatest potential

I think this illustration by Skandelon is probably the best illustration to defend their point yet given. So I give kudo's to Skandelon for ingenuity behind the illustration.

That said, because the illustration does not use the Biblical language nor provides a context as does John 6:44, and because he can and does tweak it to make it fit his theory of John 6:44 it is more difficult to deal with.

However, the vital points where his illustration fails is:

1. "recruited" is parallel to "draw" in John 6:44 and yet draw is not regarded as an option but necessity for every "him" coming to Christ while in his illustration "recruited" may or may not occur. If he says the boy was "recruited" then that means he is in the army. If he says he was not recruited then he says he has not joined and that is precisely where the parallel breaks down because every him that comes is drawn period.

2. In John 6:44 coming to Christ is the consequence of being drawn. However, in his illustration coming to the recruiter is assumed before being recruited which is paralle with draw in Jn. 6:44. So he reverse cause and consequence.

3. His illustration can be tweaked to support his interpretation of John 6:44 but it cannot be tweaked so that his interpretation of John 6:44 will harmonize in context with verses 45-46. He has drawing in verse 44 as ineffectual to coming but verse 45-46 are explanatory of how God draws and in verse 45 "ALL" taught by God do come to Christ which contradicts their interpreation of verse 44 and drawing.

4. Also verse 45 contradicts their interpretation of drawing in verse 44 as they have drawing to be general to all men but ineffectual for drawing all men to come to Christ whereas the explanation of drawing by the father in verse 45 has it that "ALL" taught do effectually come to Christ.

 

[agedman]

Perhaps this is breaking a BB rule - I don't know.

But because Biblicist may not notice this question, I wanted to re-post it in this thread on the same passage discussed.

Here is the quote from the other thread:

Biblicist,

Would the following thinking be inconsistent with the context?

Preface: The rational for this thinking is found in the two prepositions "of" and "from."

"It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’"
​

But not everyone "taught of God" actually is given eyes to see and ears to hear. Therefore the verse concludes that those that are given to see and hear do come.

"Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."

​

I have taught thousands of students who never learned.

Isn't it historically accurate with the wisdom and teaching of God, also - that many are schooled, but few are believers?

The determining factor isn't the teaching, it is the ability to hear and learn.

Such ability comes "FROM" the father, not from learning "OF" God.

Your thoughts?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

edit *let's all stay on topic*

 

[Skandelon]

It is one thing to apply it to lost Israel it is quite another to restrict it to lost Isreal - that is impossible unless you totally violate the language of the text.

1. The principle is not restricted. I agree with you and everyone here that God must draw before one can come...that is true of Israel or all other nations.

2. At that time, however, only Israel was in view because the gospel had yet to be fulfilled (cross/resurrection) and sent to the Gentiles (Paul is called the apostles to the Gentiles, and Peter has a dream)

3. Paul refers to the fact that both Jews and Gentiles are being drawn is the "mystery" of the gospel...in John 6 that mystery was not yet known.

4. The context of John 6 was addressing Israel and at that time most of Israel was being hardened/blinded from the truth (not enabled/not drawn), but there were exceptions (the twelve), who God had set apart and 'gave to Christ.'

5. And I agree with Calvinists that there is an 'effectual' tone or meaning to this word 'draw' because when it came to getting out His Message, God did use effective and convincing means to ensure its distribution (signs, lights, fish, storms, etc). The difference is that Calvinists think this is a universal doctrinal teaching on how God effectually draws every hearer of the message, rather than a lesson on God's appointing of the remnant from Israel to be his divinely appointed messengers to go into all the world and make an appeal to everyman. Read the rest of the context of John 6. He specifically talks about the twelve...those from Israel who WERE enabled to come to Christ (while in the flesh) and to learn from him (the qualification for being an apostle).

You have the cart before the horse in your illustration when attempting to apply it John 6:44. Your illustration demands COMING to the recruiter to be convinced whereas John 6:44 demands DRAW before coming to Christ. The drawing is the convincing explained in verse 45 which precedes coming.

I'm not following you here. An Army Recruiter can walk up to a unexpecting and stagnant student sitting at a table in the mall who has NO DESIRE to join the Army. The Recruiter can convince that student to join and never once did that student come to the recruiter...never once did he initiate the meeting. If that is the only nitpick you can find about my illustration than suppose (for the sake of the illustration) that is the ONLY way it ever happens and then maybe you can let that go so as to see the point of the analogy.

No analogy is perfect, but it is given to ILLUSTRATE a point. You accuse me of using 'extra biblical fabrications' but that is all an illustration is meant to do...to relate something in the bible to something common so as to understand it better...to MAKE A POINT. My point has been made...you are missing it...or maybe intentionally diverting to another unrelated point because you don't want to admit that the author may have actually had this intent in mind when writing. Plus, I have use many biblical examples which BETTER illustrate the concept of God's 'bidding' or 'appealing' for all people to come to Christ. Can you present any that explicitly teach the concept of irresistibly calling? I doubt it.

 

[The Biblicist]

edit *let's all stay on topic*

 

[Skandelon]

I just responded to some of this but wanted to point this out as well...

No one can join the Army unless a Army recruiter has recruited him, and the Army will train him to fight to his greatest potential

1. "recruited" is parallel to "draw" in John 6:44 and yet draw is not regarded as an option but necessity for every "him" coming to Christ while in his illustration "recruited" may or may not occur.

Untrue. For the sake of the illustration I'm fine with supposing that every person who joins must first be recruited. An illustration can suppose anything for the sake of the illustration...that is why it is called an illustration.

If he says the boy was "recruited" then that means he is in the army.

Untrue. The recruiter may have attempted to recruit 10 people that day while only one joined. Granted, you wouldn't call those who rejected 'recruits' nor would you say they were recruited, because that would imply success in the effort, but that is the VERY POINT of the analogy. The potential for those who were approached by the recruiter was REAL, in that they COULD have joined. To suggest that the Recruiter only attempted to recruit those who actually joined is as nonsensical as suggesting that God only appeals/draws/enables those who actually come. The point has been made...It has been illustrated...you don't need to nitpick the analogy any further.

 

[The Biblicist]

Perhaps this is breaking a BB rule - I don't know.

But because Biblicist may not notice this question, I wanted to re-post it in this thread on the same passage discussed.

Here is the quote from the other thread:

Biblicist,

Would the following thinking be inconsistent with the context?

Preface: The rational for this thinking is found in the two prepositions "of" and "from."

"It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’"
​

But not everyone "taught of God" actually is given eyes to see and ears to hear. Therefore the verse concludes that those that are given to see and hear do come.

"Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."

​

I have taught thousands of students who never learned.

Isn't it historically accurate with the wisdom and teaching of God, also - that many are schooled, but few are believers?

The determining factor isn't the teaching, it is the ability to hear and learn.

Such ability comes "FROM" the father, not from learning "OF" God.

Your thoughts?

Notice that he uses the plural "prohets" but only quotes Isaiah 54:13. Jeremiah 31:34 is another prophet that teaches the exact same thing in regard to the exact same covenant. Again "all" is comprehensive "from the least to the greatest." The prophets are talking about the "all" of the new covenant under which Israel in the future shall be saved (Rom. 11:25-28).

However, that same "new" covenant and its "all" is the same "new" covenant under which all true children of God have been saved and are now being saved as it is quoted in Hebrews 8 and 10 as THE ONLY COVENANT of salvaiton fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ - Heb. 8-10 as our High Preistly sacrifice. It is called "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" in Heb. 13:20.

That eliminates your interpretation based on "of" and "from" idea completely as the same Greek word translated "all" in the first clause is the same Greek word translated "every man" in the second clause - same "all" as the interpreation and application of Isaiah 54:13 is applied to the same "all" as the Father gives to Christ in John 6:37-39. This is the "all" of the new covenant just as Isaiah 54:13 is the "all" of the new covenant.

 

[The Biblicist]

I just responded to some of this but wanted to point this out as well...

Untrue. For the sake of the illustration I'm fine with supposing that every person who joins must first be recruited. An illustration can suppose anything for the sake of the illustration...that is why it is called an illustration.

Untrue. The recruiter may have attempted to recruit 10 people that day while only one joined. Granted, you wouldn't call those who rejected 'recruits' nor would you say they were recruited, because that would imply success in the effort, but that is the VERY POINT of the analogy. The potential for those who were approached by the recruiter was REAL, in that they COULD have joined. To suggest that the Recruiter only attempted to recruit those who actually joined is as nonsensical as suggesting that God only appeals/draws/enables those who actually come. The point has been made...It has been illustrated...you don't need to nitpick the analogy any further.

Look, we can wrangle all day about your illustration. You can tweak it, change it, modify it and make it fit your interpretation of John 6:44 and that is all fine. However, your interpretation of Jn. 6:44 will not fit the context of John 6:44 or fit John 6:44. The way John 6:44 is worded can never fit your illustration. Your illustration is not exactly parallel to Christ's words in many ways. Not in terms, not in meaning, not in structure.

 

[Skandelon]

Look, we can wrangle all day about your illustration. You can tweak it, change it, modify it and make it fit your interpretation of John 6:44 and that is all fine. However, your interpretation of Jn. 6:44 will not fit the context of John 6:44 or fit John 6:44. The way John 6:44 is worded can never fit your illustration. Your illustration is not exactly parallel to Christ's words in many ways. Not in terms, not in meaning, not in structure.

Sounds like you are 'hardened' in your view of the matter just as Israel was hardened in their views. That means you may have lost objectivity when it comes to these matters...and for that matter, maybe I have as well. I used to be Calvinist and I used to believe as you do about this text, and it was VERY DIFFICULT to see it from another perspective. I simply implore you to have an open mind and objectivity when approaching the text.

Consider that no one is being 'enabled' to come to Christ except a few Israelites. (and the gospel hadn't even been fulfilled or sent to the Gentiles yet)

Those who are being 'drawn/enabled' are the twelve who have been set apart to be apostles (which Jesus specifically mentions in this chapter)...the rest are being blinded (not drawn, not enabled).

That is kind of important to understand the intent of the author whether you are willing to admit it or not.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sounds like you are 'hardened' in your view of the matter just as Israel was hardened in their views. That means you may have lost objectivity when it comes to these matters...and for that matter, maybe I have as well. I used to be Calvinist and I used to believe as you do about this text, and it was VERY DIFFICULT to see it from another perspective. I simply implore you to have an open mind and objectivity when approaching the text.

Consider that no one is being 'enabled' to come to Christ except a few Israelites. (and the gospel hadn't even been fulfilled or sent to the Gentiles yet)

Those who are being 'drawn/enabled' are the twelve who have been set apart to be apostles (which Jesus specifically mentions in this chapter)...the rest are being blinded (not drawn, not enabled).

That is kind of important to understand the intent of the author whether you are willing to admit it or not.

You have changed, tweaked, added and subtracted from your original illustration to make it fit your theory. Please present it again with all the changes, so we can see the modified illustration as it now stands and be able to deal with it.

 

[Skandelon]

You have changed, tweaked, added and subtracted from your original illustration to make it fit your theory.

Incorrect. I've responded to your nitpicks of my illustration so as to focus back on the original point, which is that one can speak of being drawn and then raised up in the same manner as one can speak of being recruited and then trained without NECESSARILY implying that those drawn/recruited were done so irresistibly.

The recruiter, like God, may draw/enable/recruit many who freely choose to reject their appeal. That point was clearly illustrated.

Further more, you have ignored much of my post regarding the more effectual nature of the word 'draw' in that immediate context regarding the twelve. Can I ask why that isn't being addressed, as I believe it is the strongest of the arguments.

 

[The Biblicist]

Incorrect. I've responded to your nitpicks of my illustration so as to focus back on the original point, which is that one can speak of being drawn and then raised up in the same manner as one can speak of being recruited and then trained without NECESSARILY implying that those drawn/recruited were done so irresistibly.

The recruiter, like God, may draw/enable/recruit many who freely choose to reject their appeal. That point was clearly illustrated.

Further more, you have ignored much of my post regarding the more effectual nature of the word 'draw' in that immediate context regarding the twelve. Can I ask why that isn't being addressed, as I believe it is the strongest of the arguments.

I have a few more minutes. The parallel between your illustration and John 6:44 ultimately hinges upon the ability of the recruiter to recruit versus the ability of God to draw. Your recruiter is limited in ability to merely the power of mental persuasion and external incentives. In contrast drawing by God requires ability to deal with internal moral obstacles rooted in human nature (Rom. 8:7-8).

Furthermore, if you concede that verse 45 is scriptural support and explanation of the internal power of God's drawing then God's success rate is 100% without failure in drawing him to Christ. You must admit that the Father's drawing has to be internalized by nature similar to what is explained in verse 45.

At minimum verse 45 demands there is at least two different types of drawing/calling in scripture as that kind explained in verse 45 is 100% effectual to "all" taught by God in that manner.

So it seems to me, that your one sided argument about one kind of drawing/calling is skewed by verse 45 and other similar scriptures (Jer. 31:34; etc.)

Therefore, verse 44 by immediate context it refers to the verse 45 kind of drawing rather than the general kind of drawing. This is also confirmed by the general context of verse 44 in regard to the first work of the Father introduced in verses 37-39 which is also effectual to "all" given to the Son do come to the Son.

Finally, if all given by the Father and all come to the Son and all taught by the Father all come to the Son then verse 44 would favor that interpetation as well that him drawn by the Father is him that comes to the Son especially as given the scriptural support and further explanation provided by verse 45.

 

[agedman]

Notice that he uses the plural "prohets" but only quotes Isaiah 54:13. Jeremiah 31:34 is another prophet that teaches the exact same thing in regard to the exact same covenant. Again "all" is comprehensive "from the least to the greatest." The prophets are talking about the "all" of the new covenant under which Israel in the future shall be saved (Rom. 11:25-28).

However, that same "new" covenant and its "all" is the same "new" covenant under which all true children of God have been saved and are now being saved as it is quoted in Hebrews 8 and 10 as THE ONLY COVENANT of salvaiton fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ - Heb. 8-10 as our High Preistly sacrifice. It is called "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" in Heb. 13:20.

That eliminates your interpretation based on "of" and "from" idea completely as the same Greek word translated "all" in the first clause is the same Greek word translated "every man" in the second clause - same "all" as the interpreation and application of Isaiah 54:13 is applied to the same "all" as the Father gives to Christ in John 6:37-39. This is the "all" of the new covenant just as Isaiah 54:13 is the "all" of the new covenant.

Not certain that I disagree nor agree.

It is true that the "all" and the "everyone" are the same word. However, is not the respondents (the all) conditioned upon the ability rather than the knowing?

In the first instance, the "all" is certainly the total body of people who are "taught of God." These are those who gain head knowledge and scholarship much as the rabbinical folks are known to be much about learning and discussions of and about matters of learning. The learning is directed from human to God, not God to human.

For instance, when one is instructed in driving a car, the person must learn of (or about) the various safety features of the vehicle. The person is questioned about their knowledge of (or about) the vehicle before taking the driving test. One learns from one who has learned of (or about) and experience with the car. But, the car does no instructing.

In the second instance, the "everyone (all)" is connected specifically with those who have heard and learned "from" the Father. The significance is the learning is directed by God to the human.

Using the illustration, above, the person who is to learn is not taught from an outside source, but the car itself gives instructions. The voice "from" the car gives instruction in the operation and how to experience the car. The car directs the learning and the person hears directly "from" the source - the car.

Is this not holding truthfully to the context?

 

[The Biblicist]

Not certain that I disagree nor agree.

It is true that the "all" and the "everyone" are the same word. However, is not the respondents (the all) conditioned upon the ability rather than the knowing?

In the first instance, the "all" is certainly the total body of people who are "taught of God." These are those who gain head knowledge and scholarship much as the rabbinical folks are known to be much about learning and discussions of and about matters of learning. The learning is directed from human to God, not God to human.

For instance, when one is instructed in driving a car, the person must learn of (or about) the various safety features of the vehicle. The person is questioned about their knowledge of (or about) the vehicle before taking the driving test. One learns from one who has learned of (or about) and experience with the car. But, the car does no instructing.

In the second instance, the "everyone (all)" is connected specifically with those who have heard and learned "from" the Father. The significance is the learning is directed by God to the human.

Using the illustration, above, the person who is to learn is not taught from an outside source, but the car itself gives instructions. The voice "from" the car gives instruction in the operation and how to experience the car. The car directs the learning and the person hears directly "from" the source - the car.

Is this not holding truthfully to the context?

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. - Jer. 31:34

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. - 2 Cor. 4:6

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. - 1 Jn. 2:27

This is the teaching by God under the New and "everlasting" Covenant. Ultimately God must be the teacher as the problem is internal and only God can give understanding to the mind and make the blind see. Our problem is internal - Eph. 4:18 - "darkened understanding....ignorance that is in them.....blindness of heart" Only God can deal with that.