Joh 6:31 a;rton evk tou/ ouvranou/ e;dwken auvtoi/j fagei/n — The clause

could alternatively be construed after the Semitic idiom, in which a;rton would be the
object of the infinitive fagei/n, and the infinitive phrase would be the direct object of
e;dwken. See also v. 52.
Joh 6:38 — The o[ti clause could alternatively be construed as modifying both main
clauses. It seems to me, though, that the most intimate thought connection is with just the
second. Jesus’ coming to do the Father’s will and not his own seems better to explain why
he will not cast out those who come to him than why they will come to him. The reason
they come to him has already been implied: it is because the Father wills it (He has given
them to him). Since the Father wills them to come, and since Jesus does the Father’s will
rather than his own, he certainly will not turn them away.
Joh 6:31 a;rton evk tou/ ouvranou/ e;dwken auvtoi/j fagei/n — The clause
could alternatively be construed after the Semitic idiom, in which a;rton would be the
object of the infinitive fagei/n, and the infinitive phrase would be the direct object of
e;dwken. See also v. 52.
Joh 6:38 — The o[ti clause could alternatively be construed as modifying both main
clauses. It seems to me, though, that the most intimate thought connection is with just the
second. Jesus’ coming to do the Father’s will and not his own seems better to explain why
he will not cast out those who come to him than why they will come to him. The reason
they come to him has already been implied: it is because the Father wills it (He has given
them to him). Since the Father wills them to come, and since Jesus does the Father’s will
rather than his own, he certainly will not turn them away.