Expository note on John 6:37-45

[jonathan.borland]

The Greek term translated draw is ALWAYS found in the passive voice denying that the object provides ANY POWER in the action.

LOL! This is too funny!

 

[jonathan.borland]

However, the word "draw" is found in the PASSIVE VOICE utterly denying that there is any participating POWER involved in this act but it is God's act alone and thus the ultimate CAUSE for anyone coming to Christ by faith.

Good grief! How many times do you repeat this falsehood?

 

[jonathan.borland]

For example the Greek term "draw" is ALWAYS found in the PASSIVE VOICE denying inherent ability to come to Christ

No matter how many times you say it's in the passive voice will never make it passive, since it's obviously an active voice verb in the passage in question. In addition, if your grammatical argument carried any weight were the verb actually passive, then is the converse true if it is active (and it is), that the active voice means the opposite of what you say? Of course not, since your grammatical argument is specious anyway.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Secondly, the term "draw" is PASSIVE VOICE proving that "NO MAN" cooperates/participates in the DRAWING ACTION but it is WHOLLY OF GOD's power.

What is this? Barney Fife Greek lessons on a broken record player?

 

[jonathan.borland]

1. In John 6:37-40 ALL who come are EQUAL to ALL who were given.

Fine.

2. In Jon 6:37 being given by the Father is the textual CAUSE for "all" coming to the Son . . . .

Okay.

3. In John 6:44 universal inability to come to Christ is clearly stated . . . .[/B][/U]

Who affirms that anyone can come to Christ without the Father's drawing? Why the straw man argumentation?

4. Every instance of the Biblical use of the same Greek term translated "draw" in John 6:44 proves that drawing is inseperable and simeltaneous with the action of coming.

Your repeated misspelling of simultaneous is annoying. Do you just cut and paste your phrases repeatedly or do you spell it wrong every time?

At any rate, whoever puts the focus on giving/coming/drawing and not on hearing the Word and learning from the Father and believing on Jesus is emphasizing the wrong points of the passage. For John himself does not say that Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who were not given, who didn't come, who weren't drawn, but who didn't believe (6:64). God doesn't give/draw/cause those to come who refuse to follow Abraham's path of faith, even if one is a Jew. The "all" may indeed be the nations, and the irony is great that one with the glorious name "Judah," named after the chosen tribe with David and the Messiah himself, would not be granted salvation, but all the other nations would. This fits in well with the John 10 passage and the "sheep that are not of this fold" (10:16), i.e., the nations to whom salvation is granted, versus the Jews who are "not among my sheep" (10:26). The message is the same for both Jew and Gentile: Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

 

[The Biblicist]

LOL! Can you even read Greek?

Jonathan, yes I can read Greek. And thank you for correcting me here. What I should have said, is that it is the subject of the verb (Father) that is being ascribed the action by the verb while the object of the verb is not being ascribed this action but is the recipient of this action. My only defense is that I was going on memory of the recipient being the object of the action rather than a partner in the action. You are right, my mistake.

 

[The Biblicist]

Who affirms that anyone can come to Christ without the Father's drawing? Why the straw man argumentation?

There are some on this forum who deny that univesal inability is being asserted here by Christ.

Your repeated misspelling of simultaneous is annoying. Do you just cut and paste your phrases repeatedly or do you spell it wrong every time?

lol! Sorry about that. I should use a spell check.

At any rate, whoever puts the focus on giving/coming/drawing and not on hearing the Word and learning from the Father and believing on Jesus is emphasizing the wrong points of the passage.

The fact still remains, coming is "simultaneous" with drawing in every case it is used and that means it is always effectual in coming. Its common use in scripture is whatever is being drawn is coming as it is being drawn - that is just a simple fact. Peter drew his sword and drawing it out and it coming out are two sides of the same coin but the sword is passive in regard to action of drawing as it is the recipient of that action rather than the doer of the action. Men pulling in fish, the fish are coming in as they are being pulled in. Drawing is the internal work of God that reverses the condition found in the phrase "no man can come" thus this internal work of God is reversing the unregenerated condition described in Ephesians 4:18. Where there is a darkened understanding and ignorance that alienates them from the life of God they are taught by divine fiat (2 Cor. 4:6) which removes that darkness of ignorance. Light and darkness CANNOT co-exist together as light removes darkness.

Verse 45 is explanatory as Jesus quotes from the prophets to support his statement in verse 44. Who can be "taught" without both hearing and learning from the teacher? The difference between "taught" and "heard...learned" is the difference between cause and effect. The point is that the prophets did not say "SOME" shall be taught but "ALL" shall be taught and the "ALL" the prophets are referring to are the "ALL" of the new covenant (Isa. 54:13; Jere. 31:33-34). Likewise, the same Greek term translated "all" is also translated "every one".

For John himself does not say that Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who were not given, who didn't come, who weren't drawn, but who didn't believe (6:64).

The context has already defined "come to me" as believe (v. 35-36). In the context coming to him is consequential to both being given by the Father (vv. 37-38 "shall" come) and being drawn by the Father (v. 44). "Unbelief" is the polar opposite of "come to me" or "believe on me" and John is stating that their condition of "unbelief" is due to the fact they were NEVER DRAWN by the Father (v. 65).

God doesn't give/draw/cause those to come who refuse to follow Abraham's path of faith, even if one is a Jew.

You are reversing the cause and effect statements in the context to even arrive at your conclusion above. Coming is the result of having been drawn not the cause. They are already in a condition of TOTAL INABILITY or unbelief (v. 44).

The "all" may indeed be the nations, and the irony is great that one with the glorious name "Judah," named after the chosen tribe with David and the Messiah himself, would not be granted salvation, but all the other nations would.

No, verse 44 does not say "SOME" men but "NO MAN" and that is a universal statement. The term "all" in John 6:37-38, 45; 12:32 refers to all mankind without distinction of race, class or gender, because coming to Christ by faith is not restricted to just Jews or just Gentiles or just male or just the rich or just the poor. These are universal statements and by context are confined to the people of the New Covenant as the prophetic quotation in verse 45 prove.

 

[Van]

Thanks Jonathan, but the broken record will simply continue to post irrational and mistaken views over and over.

1) The Greek word translated draw when used metaphorically refers to the attraction of God's lovingkindness. Calvinism denies this truth.

2) Since "all given" and all that "come" (G2240 in John 6:37) are the same subset, all given = all who arrive in Jesus.

3) Thus folks are drawn by the gospel of Christ which presents Him high and lifted up, and presents the lovingkindness of God. Those of this set (those who understand the gospel and are drawn to some degree) put their faith in Christ. If God credits their faith as righteousness, then the Father gives them to Christ, spiritually placing them "in Christ" and Christ will not cast them out.

 

[OldRegular]

Thanks Jonathan, but the broken record will simply continue to post irrational and mistaken views over and over.

1) The Greek word translated draw when used metaphorically refers to the attraction of God's lovingkindness. Calvinism denies this truth.

You have said previously that the word "draw" is used metaphorically. I don't understand how you justify that usage. I see the use of the word "draw" to mean the active influence of the Holy Spirit!

Metaphor:
noun
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”.
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphorically?s=t

 

[The Biblicist]

1) The Greek word translated draw when used metaphorically refers to the attraction of God's lovingkindness. Calvinism denies this truth.

Prove that from the Biblical usage! I have based my interpretation solely upon the Biblical usage which is:

1. The object of the verb translated "draw" is always passive in performing the action but is the recipient of the action.

2. The object of the verb translated "draw" simultaneously comes as being drawn - always, unless the one drawing is too weak to draw.

2) Since "all given" and all that "come" (G2240 in John 6:37) are the same subset, all given = all who arrive in Jesus.

1. The term "come" is contextually defined in verses 35-36 as "believe on".

2. Those in verse 36 did not come which is defined as did not believe

3. The words "come to me" does not describe a COMPLETED ACTION OF SPIRITUAL POSITON but an action BEING performed by the one given, whereas SPIRITUAL ARRIVAL defined as a SPIRITUAL POSITION is an act of God and a completed action or condition. Your intepretation demands that giving and coming are actions by the Father, whereas, the overall context proves coming is the consequential action of being given and drawn.

4. Coming is the consequence of being drawn in John 6:44 and the opposite of coming is defined as "unbelief" in John 6:64-65. They remained in "unbelief" BECAUSE they were never drawn by the Father.

5. In verse 35 both "cometh" and "giveth" are present tense continuous action rather than a COMPLETED CONDITION of being "in Christ" as a position as your interpetation demands. The state of being "in Christ" is not a progressive action but always obtained by completed action verbs ("created" "born" "quickened" etc.).

3) Thus folks are drawn by the gospel of Christ

1. It is not the "gospel" that is given the credit for coming to Christ in this context but a PERSON - The Father and His work of giving and drawing. Jesus is dealing with the ultimate cause for coming.

2. It is the work of God that is being credited with ability to come to Christ by faith (Jn. 6:29, 37-38, 44-45; 64-65).

3. Your position is based on the irrational basis that coming to Christ by faith is both the cause and the consequence of being given and drawn.

 

[Van]

Hi OR, did I not say look at the lexicons? For example, Strong's or Thayer's? Both indicate at John 6:44 the word is used metaphorically.
The idea is to impel by attraction, i.e. the lovingkindness of God as presented by Jesus dying for us on the cross. When someone smiles at me, I smile back, when someone dies for me, I am attracted to that person, i.e. I love Him because He first loved me.

 

[OldRegular]

Hi OR, did I not say look at the lexicons? For example, Strong's or Thayer's? Both indicate at John 6:44 the word is used metaphorically.
The idea is to impel by attraction, i.e. the lovingkindness of God as presented by Jesus dying for us on the cross. When someone smiles at me, I smile back, when someone dies for me, I am attracted to that person, i.e. I love Him because He first loved me.

Strong for draw

1670. elkuw helkuo hel-koo'-o; or elkw helko hel'-ko; probably akin to 138; to drag (literally or figuratively):-- draw. Compare 1667.

********************************

Thayer for draw

probably akin to 138; TDNT - 2:503,227; v

KJV - draw 8; 8

1) to draw, drag off
2) metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

********************

My bold!

 

[Deacon]

... don't .. fail to quote what I say and then respond to it. I quote what you say and then I respond to it so everything is up front.

Biblicist, I'll fail your request, there's been so much written that I'll write about what I've been thinking.

I've had a little bit of time to think about what you've written and the thing that has troubled me the most is your analysis of the Father's work of drawing. I believe it is the crux of my problem.

I don't have much of an issue over your other comments regarding my previous post: admittedly I was interpreting things quite broadly.

As I previously mentioned, I would interpret the Father's act of drawing as "softer" than you.

I've been reflecting how I would describe the Father's act of drawing us.
The best examples I could come up with is that the Father draws us as a light draws a moth… or as a mother draws her children around her. Not forcefully but effectively; some come, others don't.

I understand that this word is used a few times in scripture and that each time it is used it is used it carries the stronger meaning that you describe, but the implications of interpreting it that way in this instance, in my estimation, would seem to disrupt the message that the Apostle John is trying to convey in his gospel.

Perhaps it's semantics – I'd be curious to find how other writers outside of scripture use the word.

For me, it comes down to this:
Not everyone is given to Jesus and not everyone comes to Jesus, so obviously the Father doesn't draw everyone. I've no problem with this statement.

But to say the Father chooses to draw only some and not others and that those he chooses, he gives to Jesus; this I find more difficult – not impossible.

But it would leave me confused about the meaning of John 3:16.
Is it only some of the "the world" that God loved so much that he gave his Son?

Have I correctly interpreted what you are saying and its meaning?

Rob

 

[The Biblicist]

The best examples I could come up with is that the Father draws us as a light draws a moth… or as a mother draws her children around her. Not forcefully but effectively; some come, others don't.

The manner in which this occurs is not one of force against ones will, but rather the changing of the disposition so that one becomes willing. So I have no disagreement about the manner.

The issue is WHO is the subject of this drawing and the SIMULTANEOUS action of coming with drawing that is always effectual.

The context places both giving and drawing in the context of God's covenant people - Isa. 54:13 with Jeremiah 31:33-34 as interpreted by Paul in Hebrews 8:12-15 and 10:15-17.

The clear explicit denial that all without exception are drawn in John 6:64-65 and thus only all in the covenant purposes of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

But to say the Father chooses to draw only some and not others and that those he chooses, he gives to Jesus; this I find more difficult – not impossible.

You are struggling with the very same issue as those in John 6:63. Justice does not demand that God save anyone as they are equally condemned and worthy of rejection and therefore none can demand mercy. I think you are failing to see that all mankind in the fallen state are in a state of ENMITY with God and that is the cause of their inability not that they are without volition but they are without love or desire for God. Drawing is effectually in giving them a heart/desire for God.

But it would leave me confused about the meaning of John 3:16.
Is it only some of the "the world" that God loved so much that he gave his Son?

Have I correctly interpreted what you are saying and its meaning?

Rob

The term "all" in this context means "all mankind without distinction of race, class or gender" and so do the term "world" in John 3:16. Remember, he is speaking to a Jewish Master teacher who believed salvation was restricted to Judaism. Jesus is telling him that God's redemptive love is more comprehensive than the Jewish nation but all races, classes and genders.

 

[Van]

Hi OR, here is how the online Strong's reads:

to draw, drag off

metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel​

The idea is to impel by attraction, i.e. the lovingkindness of God as presented by Jesus dying for us on the cross.
From Thayer's: ...2. metaph. to draw by inward power, lead, impel: John 6:44.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hi OR, here is how the online Strong's reads:

The idea is to impel by attraction, i.e. the lovingkindness of God as presented by Jesus dying for us on the cross.
From Thayer's: ...2. metaph. to draw by inward power, lead, impel: John 6:44.

There is nothing in fallen man that is attracted to God.The only thing in fallen man is a love for darkness and enmity toward God. The only thing that God attracts in fallen man is hate.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is nothing in fallen man that is attracted to God.The only thing in fallen man is a love for darkness and enmity toward God. The only thing that God attracts in fallen man is hate.

mankind is in a state of rebellion against its Creator, and apart from Him saving us due to His will and purposes, none of us would even want to acknowledge him, as we have that pride state just like our spiritual father, satan, has himself!

 

[Iconoclast]

Deacon

Hello Deacon, thanks for the response.

.

Those that the Father "gives" to his Son are those that 'believe in his Son',

I am not sure if I am reading you correctly. are you saying?....

a]are you saying those given to the Son believe because they were given?

or
b] they believe first, then they are given?

those that "come" are those of faith and are those that "believe" in his Son

.

all that come...do believe....BECAUSE....they were given before the world was.

Our ability to come to him,

we have no such ability, unless granted such ability by God.

our ability to be given to him,

being given to the Son has nothing to do with any ability we have...it is all of God.

to be drawn to him, is a response

No.....it is the work of the Spirit of God..


If I misunderstand what you have posted feel free to clarify.:wavey:

 

[convicted1]

There is nothing in fallen man that is attracted to God.The only thing in fallen man is a love for darkness and enmity toward God. The only thing that God attracts in fallen man is hate.