A Thought on John 6:44

[Dikaioumenoi]

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:

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).

Thus, stated properly in symbolic logic, the condition can be represented as -p --> -q, which reads, "If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to me."

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.

Therefore, r is best taken as an additional clause appended to the end of the conditional statement. Moreover, it assumes the fulfillment of the condition. Compare how the full verse reads when stated "properly" without the reversing of the protasis and apodosis:

• "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."

Logically, this statement is equivalent in meaning to John 6:44 (as long as we recognize that the last clause is not part of the condition). But the wording is awkward, as it is tempting to read this statement in a way that does take the final clause as part of the apodosis. Thus, the last clause only makes sense given the negative way in which the condition is expressed, with the reversing of the protasis and apodosis. In other words, "I will raise him up" assumes the fulfillment of the condition. That is, given the successful drawing of the Father, one is enabled to come to Christ (direct statement of the condition), and that same one will be raised (implication of the appended clause).

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:

1. Those who are not able (οὐ δύναται) to come.
2. 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.

This is not some vague philosophical concept of enablement. So objections the likes of, "having money (i.e. being able) to buy something doesn't necessarily mean I will choose to buy it" won't work here. They appeal to an erroneous philosophical notion of enablement, not to the definition we have right here in the text. This drawing of the Father is a specific enabling activity - some kind of work upon the heart of man - that in and of itself constitutes an overwhelming desire to act.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

He says that whoever is not for Me is against Me.
It is clear from all of Scripture that what you have tried to make and to look complicated
is not for a good nor right Scripture Motive.

Shalom to all those who turn to the Creator as Jesus Says to do.

This is the standard sort of reply I receive to this argument. It takes this form: "Your conclusion is false, because it is not consistent with my understanding of the rest of Scripture." I appreciate the reply, but respectfully, this is a dismissal, not a rebuttal.

What if your understanding of the message of Scripture is erroneous, or incomplete? What if the above argument can shed light on something you have missed? Please engage with the argument itself.

I will simplify it. Let's focus on the contrapositive statement (the OP is really just a detailed justification for the validity of that statement):

"If he is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

In this statement, who is the "him" who is raised up? Do you have any objections to the argument offered for this statement?

Um, okay. The bottom line is Scripture explicitly presents the command to repent as part of the gospel.

I take no issue with that. Do you have a point? In what way does my argument conflict with this?

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

The first thought reading the op is still "it's too complicated" , not Christlike, not simple wisdom from above.
So, without another reason needed, just as apparently others have 'warned' you at times past,
there is little reason, no reason actually, to dismiss whatever point there is in your making the op obscure ....
Why have a rebuttal then ? What good would it do anyone ?

The good it would do is to demonstrate that John 6:44 is consistent with your theology. The argument is not complicated. It simply demonstrates that these two statements are equivalent in meaning:

1. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44 as translated)
2. "If he can come to me then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

I ask again: In statement #2, who is the "him" who is raised up on the last day? Please answer, if you desire my continued participation in discussion.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Since these are not equivalent even in English let alone Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic, and not the same logically, and then possibly most especially not the same spiritually if that clarification matters ,
the op is a false premise, a mute point, in error.
To try to build on this would be like trying to build on quicksand then.

Perhaps , if anything is salvageable, instead of using these contrary to each other points,
use other points to get to the purpose of the op, the goal, if there is another way to show this.

You're making assertions without arguments. "Since these are not equivalent." Yes, they are. That's what the OP shows. Do you have an argument to the contrary? Or are we just going to go in circles - me making arguments and asking questions; you making contrary assertions? Because that's all that's taken place so far.

q: "one can come to me"
p: "the Father, the one who sent me, draws him"
r: "I will raise him up on the last day"

-q if -p and r, is the structure of those three clauses. "Not q, if not p, and r."

"No one can come to me (-q), if not the Father ... draws him (-p), and I will raise him up (r)"

That's John 6:44. Stated in symbolic logic, the "if" comes before the "then," so it would be written as: -p --> -q ^r, which simply reads, "if not p, then not q, and r."

A conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive.

The contrapositive of -p --> -q ^r is this: q --> p ^r. This reads: "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)."

An assertion to the contrary is not an argument. Nor is it reasonable, respectful, or Christlike, to dismiss and accuse one of error while refusing to engage the details of the argument offered. If you find the argument complicated, please tell me how I can help to better explain it. I am happy to help! But if all you're going to do is dismiss the argument on account of your opinion that it is too complicated, and assert a contrary position without comparable argument of your own, then this is not a fruitful conversation and I won't be responding further.

I'll ask one final time: Can you show how the contrapositive is not an equivalent statement to what we have in John 6:44? And if you can't, then can you explain why the verse does not, in fact, tell us that all those enabled to come to Christ will be raised up?

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish here, Aaron. Would anyone like to chime in with a response to the OP?

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

I think I posted already, the problem is that while someone might be enabled in your scenario to come to Christ, that does not mean that they do come to Christ.

It does, as I argue in the OP. You're welcome to challenge that argument, but I'm still waiting.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Thanks for your time, Aaron. I'm looking for serious engagement with the OP now.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

p.s. was this op some kind of assignment or homework for you to do ? thanks if you answer, and no worry if you don't.

Not an assignment. Just part of personal studies.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

I'm not really sure what you want me to "answer." You still haven't actually interacted with the argument of the OP, beyond simply asserting that it's wrong. Why is it wrong? Can you pick a point that I raised and show the error in it? Here's a simplified version, point by point:

1. The first two clauses of John 6:44 contain a conditional statement, with the "if/then" reversed: "[Then] no one is able to come to me, [if] not the Father draws him." Any disagreement with this?
   
   
2. The final clause ("and I will raise him up on the last day") is not a part of the conditional statement. Any disagreement with this?
   
   
3. If we let "one is able to come" be q, "the Father draws him" be p, and "I will raise him up" be r, then we can represent the verse symbolically with the expression, -q if -p and r. Any disagreement with this?
   
   
4. The expression -q if -p and r can be restated as -p --> -q ^r. This is just the formal way of expressing a condition in symbolic logic. Nothing has changed as far as what's being said. The expression reads, "if not p, then not q, and r." Any disagreement with this?
   
   
5. A conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. The contrapositive of a statement is when the "if" and "then" are both inverted and flipped. Example: The statement "if an object is blue, then it has color" (p --> q) is logically equivalent to "if an object does not have color, then it is not blue" (-q --> -p). Any disagreement with this?
   
   
6. The contrapositive of -p --> -q ^r would be q --> p ^r. Any disagreement with this?
   
   
7. The expression q --> p ^r reads, "if he is able to come to me, then the Father who sent me has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day." Given all the above, this statement is logically equivalent to what we have in John 6:44. This is a conclusion to the above premises, none of which you have directly challenged.

Can you identify a number and tell me what's wrong with it?

If you can't, then what the conclusion (point 7) to this argument clearly demonstrates is that the "him" who is raised up on the last day is the "him" whom the Father draws, who is also the one who is made able to come. Thus, John 6:44 presupposes that all those whom the Father enables to come will actually do so (this is what I meant by Jesus "not recognizing" a distinction between being able to come, and actually coming), because it is the enabled ones who are described as being raised up on the last day.

How can Jesus promise to raise someone merely on account of them being able to come, unless something about the drawing/enabling activity of the Father effectually moves them to make that decision? After all, is that not exactly what we are told in verse 37? - "All that the Father gives me will come to me..."

 

[B Griffin]

I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish here, Aaron. Would anyone like to chime in with a response to the OP?

Is this support for for 5 point Calvinism or something else?

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Is this support for for 5 point Calvinism or something else?

I would identify as a Calvinist, yes.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Thank you.
In this or in another thread, if you care to answer some of the points/ questions I asked that you did not even address as far as I know, feel free to do so.

See my above post in response to this.

I'm trying to simplify this. How's this:

We have three statements:

Statement	Variable (for symbolic representation)
he is able to come to me	q
the Father draws him	p
I will raise him up	r

The first two statements are negated, and they also form a condition. The second statement, p, is the "if" clause. The first statement, q, is the "then" clause. The following are all equivalent, given the logical law of contraposition:

Symbolic Representation	Statement
-q if -p and r	He is not able to come to me, unless the Father draws him, and I will raise him up.
-p --> -q ^r	If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to me; and I will raise him up.
q --> p ^r	If he is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up.

If you take any issue with any of these statements, please explain the error. Show what it wrong with it. Don't just assert that it's wrong.

All I am doing is stating John 6:44 positively. The meaning doesn't change. The condition is simply inverted and flipped so as to represent it positively, rather than negatively. The point in doing this is to illustrate clearly that the "him" who is raised up on the last day is one-to-one the same "him" who is drawn and made able to come. Thus, all who are enabled by the Father's drawing to come to Christ will actually come to Christ, because this verse tells us they will all be raised up on the last day.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Is this a clerical error ?

Clearly, if the Father does not draw him,
Clearly, also, if he is not able to come to Me (Jesus),
then no way I (Jesus) will raise him up.
i.e. NOT "and I will raise him up."

If someone is not called by The Creator, if someone is not drawn to Jesus, if anyone is not able to come to Him, then they are not saved, period . They are NOT raised up.

You're not following the argument.
-p --> -q ^r is simply the symbolic expression of John 6:44. The "if" comes before the "then" in symbolic logic. What you need to address is the contrapositive: q --> p ^r, "If he is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up."

Did you read the OP? I elaborated on the fact (and have done so several more times since) that the last clause is not part of the condition. Here's what I had to say concerning the statement you quoted:

• "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."

Logically, this statement is equivalent in meaning to John 6:44 (as long as we recognize that the last clause is not part of the condition). But the wording is awkward, as it is tempting to read this statement in a way that does take the final clause as part of the apodosis. Thus, the last clause only makes sense given the negative way in which the condition is expressed, with the reversing of the protasis and apodosis. In other words, "I will raise him up" assumes the fulfillment of the condition. That is, given the successful drawing of the Father, one is enabled to come to Christ (direct statement of the condition), and that same one will be raised (implication of the appended clause).

I've not argued that one can be saved apart from being drawn by the Father. I've specifically argued the contrary. What I was saying was the statement, "I will raise him up on the last day," only makes sense given the reverse way in which the condition is stated: "[Then] he is not able to come to me, [if] the Father does not draw him."

The point of the argument using symbolic expressions is simply to illustrate that these two statements are equivalent in meaning:

• "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."
• "If he can come to me, then the Father who sent me has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Do you disagree that these are equivalent in meaning? If so, can you show why?

 

[B Griffin]

I would identify as a Calvinist, yes.

Thanks for verifying.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

=========== the contrary is truth, yes, I agree with that.... so that would be /is/ 'good argument'

but this does not appear to agree with that >>>>

yet you continue with what seem right, and very very different from the above in red.>>

You're still not following the argument. You're hung up on a statement that isn't representative of anything that I've argued. I never said that Jesus will raise up those the Father doesn't draw. I clarified this in my last reply to you. What you are quoting is a logically equivalent statement to the conditional in John 6:44 without the reversing of the "if" and "then." In that quote, the final clause does not make sense, which is why I went on to include the contrapositive statement. I have repeatedly said this. You are not paying attention to the argument. If you don't understand the argument, please ask for clarification.

Here is John 6:44 represented in symbolic logic: (-Q <--> -P) ^ R. This reads, "Not Q if and only if not P, and R," where Q is "he is able to come to me," P is "the Father draws him," and R is "I will raise him up."

The following four expressions are all logically equivalent to (-Q <--> -P) ^ R:

1. (-P --> -Q) ^ R, which reads: "[If the Father does not drawn him, then he is not able to come to me], and I will raise him up."
2. (-Q --> -P) ^ R, which reads: "[If he is not able to come to me, then the Father does not draw him], and I will raise him up."
3. (Q --> P) ^ R, which reads: "If he is able to come to me, then the Father draws him, and I will raise him up."
4. (P --> Q) ^ R, which reads: "If the Father draws him, then he is able to come to me, and I will raise him up."

What you're quoting is statement #1, and then you're accusing me of having argued for that as my interpretation of the verse. That is a misrepresentation.

Notice the brackets, and the grayed out text at the end. The reason I've put the conditionals in brackets for the first two statements is because of their negative expression. R assumes the fulfillment of the condition. That is, it assumes that the subject, the "him," is one whom the Father has drawn. Therefore, R really only makes sense either when the condition is expressed positively (as in the latter two statements), or when the protasis and apodosis are reversed (as in the wording of John 6:44). When the condition is stated negatively, the emphasis is upon what isn't true of the subject. R is out of place with such emphasis.

I have not argued that statement #1, in full, is what John 6:44 says. What I said is that the logical structure is equivalent, given that the final clause is not part of the conditional statement. Since statement #1 is expressed negatively, "I will raise him up" does not make sense there, because the emphasis of the conditional is not on its fulfillment. Once again, this is why I went on to include the contrapositive, thus stating the verse positively, to illustrate the full and correct force of "I will raise him up" in relation to the conditional statement.

Now, we are 30 comments deep into this discussion and you have yet to answer a direct question. Can you quote the below statement and illustrate why it is not equivalent to John 6:44?

"If the Father draws him, then he is able to come to me, and I will raise him up."

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

So, you don't have an answer to my question?

 

[GDL]

Thanks for your time, Aaron. I'm looking for serious engagement with the OP now.

I think I posted already, the problem is that while someone might be enabled in your scenario to come to Christ, that does not mean that they do come to Christ.

I just noticed you, @Dikaioumenoi, had posted this OP. I'm not switching over here unless we both desire to.

I find it interesting that both @Aaron112 and I have the same problem with what you're presenting.

I'm not challenging your logic beyond a surface level, but still trying to learn your technical language to be able to interact with it. I'm sure you've seen how I am using words according to their basic English meanings, but such meanings can obviously be different in logic. From what I see it takes learning your language in order to interact with you at the level you're seeking. I'm not opposed to trying to learn it, but some of it can be like Chinese or similar that I've have no clue how to read or speak. I'm looking at some online tools for Logical Terms and such. If you have any such tools you'd put forth, I'm open.

Until then, my 2nd statement above still lingers. And the lens of Calvinism as was mentioned in this thread lurks as well. At the end of the analysis, the Text says what it says, and for that reason I'm interested in what you've presented. Presupposition and eisegesis are problems that cause me to be wary while remaining open to truth. Hope this make sense.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

I just noticed you, @Dikaioumenoi, had posted this OP. I'm not switching over here unless we both desire to.

I find it interesting that both @Aaron112 and I have the same problem with what you're presenting.

I'm not challenging your logic beyond a surface level, but still trying to learn your technical language to be able to interact with it. I'm sure you've seen how I am using words according to their basic English meanings, but such meanings can obviously be different in logic. From what I see it takes learning your language in order to interact with you at the level you're seeking. I'm not opposed to trying to learn it, but some of it can be like Chinese or similar that I've have no clue how to read or speak. I'm looking at some online tools for Logical Terms and such. If you have any such tools you'd put forth, I'm open.

Until then, my 2nd statement above still lingers. And the lens of Calvinism as was mentioned in this thread lurks as well. At the end of the analysis, the Text says what it says, and for that reason I'm interested in what you've presented. Presupposition and eisegesis are problems that cause me to be wary while remaining open to truth. Hope this make sense.

I understand that you don't agree with the argument I've presented. What I don't understand is why. You've consistently objected to the claim that being drawn/made able to come to Christ necessarily results in coming and being raised, yet there really hasn't been interaction with the argument I've offered for that claim. Your objection that "ability implies contingency" has been addressed, and that response remains unchallenged.

If you're still working through my other replies, forgive me for rushing. Take your time. I just want to make sure they aren't being dismissed. Not that you have any obligation to engage me further, but I hope to see further interaction with my argument if you're going to suggest that your problems with it "still linger."

Maybe a summary of my overall argument would be helpful? Can you point out which of the following you disagree with (or are unclear on), and why?

1. John 6:44 can be logically represented as (~P <--> ~Q) ^ R, which reads, "he is not able to come to me unless (i.e. if and only if not) the Father draws him, and I will raise him up."
   
   
2. One of several expressions that can be derived from the above is (Q --> P) ^ R, which reads, "if the Father draws him, then he is able to come to me, and I will raise him up."
   
   
3. It is clear from the above statement that the drawn one is both (1) able to come, and (2) will be raised. First, P and Q entail one another. Second, the "him" who is raised refers grammatically to the same subject as the "him" who is drawn.
   
   
4. Being enabled by the Father's drawing therefore results necessarily in coming and being raised. This equivalence of the two "hims" tells us that Q and R entail one another, as does P and R.
   
   
5. This mutual entailment is also indicated by the fact that R assumes the fulfillment of the condition. R does not make contextual sense when the condition is stated negatively (except when the consequent precedes the antecedent, as in John 6:44, as this stresses the condition's fulfillment, not its unfulfillment). Thus, if P and Q are true, and only if they are true, R must be true as well.
   
   
6. There is no contradiction implied by the argument that contingent choices may be made extrinsically necessary by God's decree. The one (contingency) is true with respect to the proximate (second) cause; the other (necessity) is true with respect to the ultimate (first) cause. Examples of Scripture supporting these categories: Gen. 45:5; 50:20-21; Ex. 4:21 (cf. 7:13, 22, 8:15, 19, 9:12, 35, 11:9); Judg. 14:1-4; Prov. 21:1; Ezra 6:22; Acts 2:23.
   
   
7. Further, the distinction between the preceptive and decretive aspects of God's will accounts for how it is meaningful to say that God both desires that all repent and believe, and that He determines that only some will. The above sampling of texts also demonstrate this.
   
   
8. As biblical categories, the mysterious relationship between first and second causes, as well as between the preceptive and decretive aspects of God's will, are no less meaningful and true than that of the relationship between the "three persons" and "one essence" of the Trinity, or the "fully human" and "fully divine" natures of the one person of Jesus. To accept the Trinity and hypostatic union while also denying the legitimacy of the ultimate/proximate and preceptive/decretive distinctions would demonstrate an inconsistent hermeneutic.
   
   
9. The equivalence of the two "hims" in John 6:44 makes perfect sense in light of all the above. The "him" who is drawn is one-to-one the same "him" who is raised, demonstrating the irresistibility of God's grace in the Father's drawing. Insisting that we must understand the language of "ability" in a way that precludes the possibility of necessity of choice in any respect is question-begging (the only relevance of pointing out the contingency in ability is to make this argument), as it insists upon the resistibility view without arguing for it.
   
   
10. This understanding best fits the context. In verses 37-40, there is a juxtaposition between the divine actions of God and the contingent actions of man. The former governs the latter, such that God's purposes are described in a way that emphasizes their perfect fulfillment, and yet that fulfillment involves the contingent choices of men, and does so in a way that does not do violence to their wills. Then, when the Jews grumble about Jesus' words, Jesus responds not with an attempt to help them understand what they are confused on, but rather He simply tells them to knock it off. Stop grumbling (v. 43). Why? Because... "no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him," the implication being these ones haven't been, hence the futility of their grumbling.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

“I have told you,” replied Jesus, “and you do not believe it. What I have done in my Father’s name is sufficient to prove my claim, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep recognise my voice and I know who they are. They follow me and I give them eternal life. They will never die and no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all. And no one can tear anything out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are One.”

Are you agreeing with me?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

"Can come" means possibility not ability.