"Draw" in Jn 6:44--What does it mean in your opinion???

[Greektim]

A good word study to do is the word "draw" in Jn 6:44. It has a huge bearing on one's theology and view of God's sovereignty in salvation.

Those of the non-calvi persuasion will argue that it does not mean to coerce, pull, drag, or draw (in the sense of drawing a sword or bow or fishing net). However, why they believe that it is some sort of divine wooing or similar will be better left explained by those in that camp. In fact, they will probably want to clarify or define their entire interpretation of the word so as not to be confused or misrepresented here.

My opinion based on my personal study is that the word in every case in the Bible (LXX and GNT) refers to pulling of some kind. The only time this concept is disputed is in Jn 6:44 and possibly one other place of less significance (where pulling makes sense as well).

I also find that the English word "draw" that is used in Jn 6 is adequate 400 years ago, but has altered its emphasis through the years. "Draw" was a primary word for the act of pulling or dragging, especially of a weapon such as pulling a sword from its sheathe or an arrow in the bow. Over the years, we have applied to it a metaphorical sense of an inward wooing or enticement, but I am not convinced that such a connotation was implied in the original Greek word or even the meaning of "draw" 400 years ago.

 

[agedman]

I think the whole verse needs to be carefully examined.

I wait to see some of the responses. It should be interesting.

 

[preachinjesus]

The word used for "draw" in GJohn (and elsewhere as noted above) is from the stem ἑλκω. This word has the force of pulling in, dragging, hauling, or the action of a person bringing something closer by tugging on a rope.

In the GJohn the word is used in narratives to describe the action of fishermen (cf. 21:6, 11) bringing in a catch in the scene where Jesus is standing on the shore post-resurrection commanding His disciples to cast their nets so they can take in a significant catch of fish. The term is also used (cf. 18:10) to describe how Peter pulled his sword out of His sheath and cut off Malchus' ear at Jesus' arrest. So in Johannine literature the term carries this meaning well.

As it exists elsewhere in the NT the usage in Acts (cf. 16:19; 21:30) talks about people acosting others and dragging them to the authorities for punishment. Finally, the usage in James 2:6 carries this meaning as well.

From the NT usage the idea of the verb becomes one of pulling in or drawing near, also one of moving from concealment into light. The challenge for the Reformed interpreter is the nature of why Jesus says all people are drawn but only some are chosen.

Also we must consider the verb not as the justifying act but as the convicting act. Jesus does not unwillingly drag all people to Him kicking and screaming. The nature of salvation, at least in Johannine literature, seems to teach that one must still choose whether or not they will follow Jesus and submit to His calling. In doing word studies like this we also must consider the related terminology and how it all fits into the larger theological schema of a particular book and the larger NT teaching. Though Jesus, and as a result the Father, draw people this act isn't of itself salvific (if you think it is...well...you've got a lot of work to do in explaining it) yet provides the convictional means whereby one can submit to the justifying act that ushers one into salvation by grace through faith.

 

[Greektim]

The challenge for the Reformed interpreter is the nature of why Jesus says all people are drawn but only some are chosen.

Did you have a particular verse in mind where that word "draw" is used for all people and then some are chosen? Or are you referring to John 12:32?

 

[preachinjesus]

Did you have a particular verse in mind where that word "draw" is used for all people and then some are chosen? Or are you referring to John 12:32?

Yeah that is the verse I was referring to in my post. "I will draw all people to me" can cause some theological problems is misunderstood.

 

[freeatlast]

To be drawn even with force does not negate the fact that in the end the person has to accept by free will the end result. Both God and man working together, one never overriding the other, to save some.

 

[Van]

This is a silly thread, every lexicon lists two meanings for the word, to be compelled by force when used literally and to be attracted by force of argument or presentation when used metaphorically. Calvinists redefine the word to mean only compulsion by force, i.e irresistible grace. What a joke.

 

[Jerome]

What would motivate such a counterfactual pronouncement?:

I also find that the English word "draw" that is used in Jn 6 is adequate 400 years ago, but has altered its emphasis through the years. . . . Over the years, we have applied to it a metaphorical sense of an inward wooing or enticement, but I am not convinced that such a connotation was implied in. . .the meaning of "draw" 400 years ago.

The OED says otherwise.

On what exactly are you basing your "finding"?

Please elaborate.

 

[Greektim]

What would motivate such a counterfactual pronouncement?:



The OED says otherwise.

On what exactly are you basing your "finding"?

Please elaborate.

Care to give us the OED then?

 

[kyredneck]

To be drawn even with force does not negate the fact that in the end the person has to accept by free will the end result. Both God and man working together, one never overriding the other, to save some.

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

 

[psalms109:31]

I'm not going to quarrel about words, but I know I continue to believe that God did choose the right people to translate the Bible for us to keep it pure so we have a measuring tape to go by. That we do not have to be blown by the wind back and forth that we have something sturdy to rely on without depending on men.

Jesus say's to listen and learn from Him and that God wanted to gather them like a hen gathers her chicks, but they were not willing.

That draw is the best translation. I have never seen anyone dragged to the cross, but each their own.

The word of Jesus is the net, but there are those who find holes in the net and escape and go their own way.

I pray that we continue to persuade men by Jesus Christ word and let His word draw us to Himself.

 

[Jerome]

Draw may signify traction or attraction according to the OED.

Under the heading draw (attraction) is found this definition with examples well predating the OP's "well, I doubt it meant that four hundred years ago" manufactured timeframe:

fig. To attract by moral force, persuasion, inclination, etc.; to induce to come (to a place); to attract by sympathy (to a person); to convert to one's party or interest; to lead, entice, allure, turn (to, into, or from a course, condition, etc.).

c1175 Lamb. Hom. 53 To draȝe lechurs to ham.

?c1200 Ormulum (Burchfield transcript) l. 10115 Her droh iohan bapptisste wel. Þe leode wiþþ hiss lare.

c1330 R. Mannyng Chron. Wace (Rolls) 14039 He‥þy wif til hys hore haþ drawe.

c1450 tr. De Imitatione iii. lix. 138 Grace drawiþ to god and to vertues.

1576 A. Fleming tr. Cicero in Panoplie Epist. 98, I was drawn and allured ther~unto through the.

[etc.]

Please tell us where you pulled your OP pronouncements about draw from.

 

[Van]

Hi Jerome, thanks for shedding truth over this attempt to cook the books, literally.

Having now shown that the translators understood draw to convey attraction, such as God drawing us with lovingkindness, lets look at the claim only one place in the Septuagint is the word used to convey attraction, i.e. John 6:44. Now in John 12:32 we have Christ high and lifted up drawing all men, not the Calvinist rewrite, drawing all kinds of men. But since only those who behold Christ high and lifted up would be drawn by the lovingkindness of Jesus sacrificing Himself for us, i.e. exposed to the gospel of Christ, and all those so exposed do not put their trust in Christ, again "draw" must mean attract. So in at least three places, not one, is the word used to convey attraction.

If a doctrine must be presented with cooked books, it is an unsound doctrine or so it seems to me.

 

[DaChaser1]

Hi Jerome, thanks for shedding truth over this attempt to cook the books, literally.

Having now shown that the translators understood draw to convey attraction, such as God drawing us with lovingkindness, lets look at the claim only one place in the Septuagint is the word used to convey attraction, i.e. John 6:44. Now in John 12:32 we have Christ high and lifted up drawing all men, not the Calvinist rewrite, drawing all kinds of men. But since only those who behold Christ high and lifted up would be drawn by the lovingkindness of Jesus sacrificing Himself for us, i.e. exposed to the gospel of Christ, and all those so exposed do not put their trust in Christ, again "draw" must mean attract. So in at least three places, not one, is the word used to convey attraction.

If a doctrine must be presented with cooked books, it is an unsound doctrine or so it seems to me.

except that the only "cooked books' would be those of the Bible!

As Jesus and paul both taught that jesus would be drawing 'all men" unto Himself by the Cross, bu the "all" is seen ion the biblcal record to refer to "all that have been elected.chosen in christ!"

problem is you are attempting to interprete the passages based upon what you see it to be saying, not taking into account that the Apostles already explained what was meant!

 

[freeatlast]

except that the only "cooked books' would be those of the Bible!

As Jesus and paul both taught that jesus would be drawing 'all men" unto Himself by the Cross, bu the "all" is seen ion the biblcal record to refer to "all that have been elected.chosen in christ!"

problem is you are attempting to interprete the passages based upon what you see it to be saying, not taking into account that the Apostles already explained what was meant!

That is not what scripture says.

 

[jbh28]

One way would be to address positions rather than persons. Anytime you see a person's behavior rather than his or her position being discussed, you are seeing uncivil behavior. To disparage a position by disparaging the person is disingenuous, and therefore uncivil. Civil behavior requires we treat others with honesty rather than fallacy calculated to score points. This adds heat but not light.

However...

This is a silly thread, every lexicon lists two meanings for the word, to be compelled by force when used literally and to be attracted by force of argument or presentation when used metaphorically. Calvinists redefine the word to mean only compulsion by force, i.e irresistible grace. What a joke.

What a joke.

Exactly

 

[jbh28]

A good word study to do is the word "draw" in Jn 6:44. It has a huge bearing on one's theology and view of God's sovereignty in salvation.

Those of the non-calvi persuasion will argue that it does not mean to coerce, pull, drag, or draw (in the sense of drawing a sword or bow or fishing net). However, why they believe that it is some sort of divine wooing or similar will be better left explained by those in that camp. In fact, they will probably want to clarify or define their entire interpretation of the word so as not to be confused or misrepresented here.

My opinion based on my personal study is that the word in every case in the Bible (LXX and GNT) refers to pulling of some kind. The only time this concept is disputed is in Jn 6:44 and possibly one other place of less significance (where pulling makes sense as well).

I also find that the English word "draw" that is used in Jn 6 is adequate 400 years ago, but has altered its emphasis through the years. "Draw" was a primary word for the act of pulling or dragging, especially of a weapon such as pulling a sword from its sheathe or an arrow in the bow. Over the years, we have applied to it a metaphorical sense of an inward wooing or enticement, but I am not convinced that such a connotation was implied in the original Greek word or even the meaning of "draw" 400 years ago.

What will be beneficial is to look at the context. Which definition most closely fits the context of John 6? Anytime we have a word with multiple definitions(which is almost every word) you must look at the context to determine what the correct definition is. Seeing the word used in another context doesn't dictate how it is being used here. Context, context, context.

Now, It says that no man can come unless.....

If you can't do something, me just persuading you isn't going to allow you to be able to come. But if I'm the one doing the action(drawing) then it would change the outcome. We see this being very similar to verse 64 where it used the term enabled.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents on it. Headed out...

 

[DaChaser1]

That is not what scripture says.

the contex of the verses where "All" men come to christ, would be saved, that"none" would perish HAVE to be seen in order to know that the Bible define and limits that use of those terms to refer to the saved/elect of God!

 

[freeatlast]

the contex of the verses where "All" men come to christ, would be saved, that"none" would perish HAVE to be seen in order to know that the Bible define and limits that use of those terms to refer to the saved/elect of God!

No that is not the context. Here is the passage;
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 passage context is about those who come to Him, not those who are drawn. The drawing allows someone to choose to come, but the drawing is not forcing them to come. It is stating that no man would come unless they were drawn by the Father, but the drawing does not force them to come. That part is left to free will and if they choose to come then Christ will not cast them out because they have been drawn by the Father. He calls everyone but not all will come.

 

[jbh28]

No that is not the context. Here is the passage;
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 passage context is about those who come to Him, not those who are drawn. The drawing allows someone to choose to come, but the drawing is not forcing them to come. It is stating that no man would come unless they were drawn by the Father, but the drawing does not force them to come. That part is left to free will and if they choose to come then Christ will not cast them out because they have been drawn by the Father. He calls everyone but not all will come.

Speaking of not in the context.... The passage say nothing of the kind. In no way does it say that God "leaves it up to 'free will'" God doesn't draw us half way to him and then leaves the rest to us.