(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.