- Jun 29, 2016
- 86
- 27
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
I've been tempted to post this in Soteriology DISCUSSION, as that forum seems to be much more active. However, my understanding of the rules is that debate should not take place there (even though it seems to anyway). I want to abide by the rules, but I hope that my doing so will not cause thread to go unnoticed.
I want to offer the argument that the logical structure of John 6:44 leaves little doubt as to its meaning.
The verse consists of three clauses:
Clause C, or r, is not part of the conditional statement:
It is at this point that the debate comes to a head. Is it really the Father's drawing that entails the raising, or is it the individual's subsequent coming that results in the raising? Or is it both?
Theologically, and contextually (cf. vs. 39-40), we know that coming to Christ is the condition for being raised on the last day. However, grammatically, the Father's drawing, not the individual's coming (strictly speaking), is the condition for being raised in John 6:44:
Notice what the main verb is in the opening clause. It isn't "come." Ἐλθεῖν is an infinitive. The main verb is δύναται, "is able." So our main idea in the condition is this: "If not drawn --> is not able." Strictly speaking, the grammar of this verse isn't concerned with the question of who actually does come. It's concerned with the question of who is and isn't able to come. If one is drawn by the Father, he is then made able to come. However, what this entails is that those enabled by the Father's drawing are the ones being raised up on the last day. It is commonly objected here that "only" those who actually come will be raised up, as if to suggest that those who are enabled to come constitutes a larger group of people than those who actually do. However, this is a theological assumption. It is not a conclusion drawn from the text, nor is it compatible with the grammar.
There is no room in this verse for the postulation of a category in which one might be enabled to come, but does not actually do so. Enablement is described here as an action entailing the subsequent coming and being raised (which parallels nicely with what is said in verse 37), given that the object of the raising is grammatically one-to-one the same as the object of the Father's drawing.
The contrapositive of the above logical expression will demonstrate this clearly. A conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. The contrapositive of -p --> -q is q --> p. This reads, "if he is able to come to me, then the Father draws (has drawn) him." Further, given that the final clause is not part of the condition, it remains as an appended statement to the end of the condition in the contrapositive. It does not flip sides with the apodosis. Therefore, the expression -p --> -q ^r, which represents John 6:44, is logically equivalent to q --> p ^r. Compare these two statements:
What this demonstrates is that the one who will be raised up on the last day is the one who has been enabled by the Father's drawing. Again, we know theologically and contextually that it is those, and those only, who actually come who will be raised up on the last day. But grammatically it is clear from this verse that if one is enabled by the Father's drawing, he will be raised up. In other words, Jesus does not recognize a distinction between being enabled to come, and actually acting upon that enablement.
The suggestion that enablement does not necessarily entail coming, while perhaps philosophically true, does not grammatically work here. What Jesus is saying is that the specific kind of enablement being spoken of here - this drawing action of the Father - is an effectual act that actually brings about the intended result. The conclusion seems unavoidable on a simple grammatical level, as the same "him" is being spoken of throughout the verse. The "him" who is drawn is also the "him" who is enabled, who is consequently also the "him" who is raised. To suggest that the "him" who is enabled is not necessarily one and the same as the "him" who actually comes is a suggestion grounded in rationalism and/or theological tradition, not one grounded in the grammatical facts of the text. The final "him" of the verse has the same referent as the "him" who is drawn. They do not refer to different subjects.
In sum, what I am contending that John 6:44 tells us is that humanity is essentially composed of two groups:
I want to offer the argument that the logical structure of John 6:44 leaves little doubt as to its meaning.
The verse consists of three clauses:
A: | οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με | "No one is able to come to me" |
B: | ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν | "if not the Father, the one who sent me, draws him" |
C: | κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ | "and I will raise him up on the last day" |
- These three clauses can be represented by the logical expression -q if -p and r, where q is "one is able to come to me," p is "the Father, the one who sent me, draws him," and r is "I will raise him up on the last day."
- The first two clauses form a conditional sentence. More specifically, they form a third class condition (ἐάν μὴ + the subjunctive, ἑλκύσῃ), of the present general variety (the main verb of the apodosis is present tense). These conditions express axiomatic statements. Thus, the truth of the statement is not restricted to the specific context, but is rather a proverbial truth about the nature of man - namely, his natural inability to come to Christ.
- The protasis (the "if" clause) and the apodosis (the "then" clause) are reversed, given the negative way in which the condition is stated. The sense is, "[Then] one is not able to come, [if] the Father does not draw him."
- Clause B, or p, is the protasis (if); clause A, or q, is the apodosis (then).
Clause C, or r, is not part of the conditional statement:
- It can't be part of the protasis because the verb ἀναστήσω is not in the subjunctive (which is required of the protasis in a third class condition).
- It is extremely doubtful that it would be part of the apodosis because the condition in that case would logically distribute to both clauses A and C, with the conclusion being that the Son would raise up those not drawn by the Father.
- "If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to me, and I will raise him up on the last day."
It is at this point that the debate comes to a head. Is it really the Father's drawing that entails the raising, or is it the individual's subsequent coming that results in the raising? Or is it both?
Theologically, and contextually (cf. vs. 39-40), we know that coming to Christ is the condition for being raised on the last day. However, grammatically, the Father's drawing, not the individual's coming (strictly speaking), is the condition for being raised in John 6:44:
Notice what the main verb is in the opening clause. It isn't "come." Ἐλθεῖν is an infinitive. The main verb is δύναται, "is able." So our main idea in the condition is this: "If not drawn --> is not able." Strictly speaking, the grammar of this verse isn't concerned with the question of who actually does come. It's concerned with the question of who is and isn't able to come. If one is drawn by the Father, he is then made able to come. However, what this entails is that those enabled by the Father's drawing are the ones being raised up on the last day. It is commonly objected here that "only" those who actually come will be raised up, as if to suggest that those who are enabled to come constitutes a larger group of people than those who actually do. However, this is a theological assumption. It is not a conclusion drawn from the text, nor is it compatible with the grammar.
There is no room in this verse for the postulation of a category in which one might be enabled to come, but does not actually do so. Enablement is described here as an action entailing the subsequent coming and being raised (which parallels nicely with what is said in verse 37), given that the object of the raising is grammatically one-to-one the same as the object of the Father's drawing.
The contrapositive of the above logical expression will demonstrate this clearly. A conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. The contrapositive of -p --> -q is q --> p. This reads, "if he is able to come to me, then the Father draws (has drawn) him." Further, given that the final clause is not part of the condition, it remains as an appended statement to the end of the condition in the contrapositive. It does not flip sides with the apodosis. Therefore, the expression -p --> -q ^r, which represents John 6:44, is logically equivalent to q --> p ^r. Compare these two statements:
John 6:44: | "No one is able to come to me (-q), unless the Father who sent me draws him (-p), and I will raise him up on the last day (r)." |
John 6:44's Contrapositive: | "If he is able to come to me (q), then the Father has drawn him (p), and I will raise him up on the last day (r)." |
What this demonstrates is that the one who will be raised up on the last day is the one who has been enabled by the Father's drawing. Again, we know theologically and contextually that it is those, and those only, who actually come who will be raised up on the last day. But grammatically it is clear from this verse that if one is enabled by the Father's drawing, he will be raised up. In other words, Jesus does not recognize a distinction between being enabled to come, and actually acting upon that enablement.
The suggestion that enablement does not necessarily entail coming, while perhaps philosophically true, does not grammatically work here. What Jesus is saying is that the specific kind of enablement being spoken of here - this drawing action of the Father - is an effectual act that actually brings about the intended result. The conclusion seems unavoidable on a simple grammatical level, as the same "him" is being spoken of throughout the verse. The "him" who is drawn is also the "him" who is enabled, who is consequently also the "him" who is raised. To suggest that the "him" who is enabled is not necessarily one and the same as the "him" who actually comes is a suggestion grounded in rationalism and/or theological tradition, not one grounded in the grammatical facts of the text. The final "him" of the verse has the same referent as the "him" who is drawn. They do not refer to different subjects.
In sum, what I am contending that John 6:44 tells us is that humanity is essentially composed of two groups:
- Those who are not able (οὐ δύναται) to come.
- Those who are able to come, who are here defined as those who actually do come, given that their enablement is the grounds of their being raised.