TdNT (Littel Kittle) likely has the most extensive research on terms like this, and their conclusion is as follows; "There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God of Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic. "
TDNT has several well-known issues among actual Greek lexicographers. Its method is concept-historical and frequently theological rather than strictly lexical. That means its entries often trace interpretive traditions around a word rather than isolate the word's semantic core in Koine usage. So yes, it is extensive, but page count doesn't equal precision. It can and does sometimes import Johannine theology (or an interpretation of it) into its lexical discussion, effectively commenting the text back into the word. It functions more like a commentary than careful lexicography.
Barr's
Semantics of Biblical Language is the classic critique (a dismantling, really) of this style of semantic history. Moisés Silva, John Barton, and others have also shown the limits of TDNT's approach. BDAG, Louw-Nida, etc. are corpus-based, usage-driven works that aim for tighter semantic delineation. Hence, their conciseness is a strength. It reflects disciplined lexical method.
As to the quote itself, TDNT is correct to note that ἑλκύω has both literal and figurative uses (e.g. John 18:10, 21:6 literally; John 6:44, 12:32 figuratively). What it misdescribes is the figurative sense: figurative application to persons or will does not by itself strip the verb of its forceful, effectual core. The figurative use shifts the
object of the pull (from net or rope to a person), not the verb's basic sense of bringing about movement.
This doesn't entail success of the action, but it does mean that failure (in both the literal and figurative senses) requires contextual indication (e.g., John 21:6); that is, "an attempt that may fail" is
not implicit in the verb's
meaning, and that is not what is "figurative" about the figurative use. Just as "lift" in English still means "raise off the ground" even when someone fails to lift a boulder, ἑλκύω carries an effectual sense; apparent failure in a context is an extra-lexical matter to be proven from context, not assumed as part of the lemma.
So TDNT should be treated as theological commentary; it is the wrong authority if you expect a discipline-level lexical argument about what ἑλκύω
means in Koine.
Calvinist attempts to turn it into a forceful action fail to understand that context determines meaning, and when it is used in the context of influence on humans the forceful implications are not present.
You're not representing the Calvinist argument accurately. The claim is not that ἑλκύω
must mean "force" in order for the conclusion to follow. The reason Calvinists hold that all who are drawn are saved is
grammatical, not because of the semantics of ἑλκύω. The argument is that the grammatical objects of ἑλκύσῃ and ἀναστήσω in John 6:44 are identical. The one who is drawn is the one who is raised. That observation does not depend on a particular interpretation of the verb's "forcefulness." The preoccupation with arguing for a "less forceful" understanding of ἑλκύω frequently leads to this misunderstanding of what the Calvinist argument even is.
More than that, it
undermines the critique! Which has been my point in this exchange:
If you build
potential failure into ἑλκύω's
definition, you introduce a fatal problem for your own reading of John 6:44. The verb answers οὐδεὶς δύναται ("no one is able"), not ἐλθεῖν ("to come"). That is, ἑλκύω describes the
enabling act that moves the sinner from inability to ability. So if you say
ἑλκύω in John 6:44 can fail, what you're actually saying is that this
enabling act itself can fail, in which case the very
possibility of coming to Christ collapses. The failure would not lie in a person declining to come
after being enabled; the failure would lie in the
enabling never having occurred at all. That is a syntactical consequence of your proposed lexical meaning.
So while I understand the
theological point you wish to make, attempting to make it from the semantics of ἑλκύω itself is in a way self-defeating. There
is inherent "forcefulness" (i.e., a change effected) of ἑλκύω in John 6:44, and this
remains consistent with non-Calvinism. It is this: The drawing of the Father
effects a change of position from
inability to
ability.
Again, this doesn't mean ἑλκύω
can't fail, but the failure would never be implicit in the verb's
meaning. It would always be indicated by context or theology. The
semantic core of ἑλκύω, both literally and figuratively, is the effecting of a change of position: movement from one state to another. In John 6:44, the movement in view is precisely the transition from inability to ability. That is the inherent "forcefulness" the verb carries there. We ought to be able to agree that
that movement is not thwarted. Likewise, in John 12:32, the movement in view is the transition from a posture of alienation to a posture of presentation before the Son. That is, being brought out of estrangement and set before him. The contexts differ, but the verb's semantic core remains the same: it denotes the effective initiation of a new relational or existential position, not a tentative attempt that may or may not occur (John 12:32 is about the effects of the gospel going out to the nations, not the internal mechanics of a person's salvation).
As to the Calvinist argument that all those drawn will come and be saved, that argument is based in the
syntax of John 6:44 -- particularly, how the final clause (κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ) relates to the conditional statement preceding it. It is not based on loading "irresistibility" into the meaning of ἑλκύω. Which means attempts to rebut Calvinism by arguing for a "soft" definition of ἑλκύω tend to just undermine one's own position without actually addressing what the Calvinist argument is.
The conditional statement itself -- no one is able to come unless the Father draws -- tells us only that drawing removes inability. By itself, it does not specify whether all who are drawn come. However, the verse does not end with the condition. There's another clause: and I will raise him up on the last day. This clause stands outside the conditional statement altogether and supplies additional information about
the one in view when the condition is fulfilled. The contrapositive makes this clearer:
"If
he is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn
him, and I will raise
him up on the last day."
The future indicative ἀναστήσω predicates a certain outcome of the one who is drawn; that is, the one who has been enabled. The text permits no categorical distinction between "enabled" and "raised." The only coherent interpretation is that the Father's enabling act is effectual: it changes the sinner's state from hostility and inability (Rom. 8:7-8) to receptivity and love for Christ. The coming that follows is genuine, free,
and inevitable because the nature of the enabling is transformative.
Verse 45 reinforces this. The phrase διδακτοὶ θεοῦ, "taught by God," or "God-taught," is a rather rare predicate adjectival construction. It does not refer to a
teaching offered; rather, it's a
descriptive phrase about those upon whom a divine act has been performed. It refers to the impartation of knowledge, the effect of a divine act.
Verses 37 and 65 also confirm the same. Verse 37 establishes the order clearly: all those given by the Father
will come to the Son. Verse 65 restates verse 44 but replaces ἑλκύω with δίδωμι, the same verb used in verse 37, establishing a paradigmatic relationship between the two in this context. In other words, "drawing" and "giving," in this context, refer to the same divine action. Thus verse 37 says explicitly what verse 44 implies syntactically: "All that the Father gives (draws to) me
will come to me."
