No one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me MAY NOT DRAW him

[tonychanyt]

Young's Literal Translation, John 6:44

no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;

ἐὰν μὴ
if not

draws
ἑλκύσῃ (helkysē)
Verb - Aorist Subjunctive Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 1670: To drag, draw, pull, persuade, unsheathe. Or helko hel'-ko; probably akin to haireomai; to drag.

BDAG:

ⓒ w. other particles

α. ἐὰν καί even if Gal 6:1; likew. ἐὰν δὲ καί (POxy 472 II, 7) but if 1 Cor 7:11, 28; 2 Ti 2:5. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ παρακούσῃ but if the pers. refuses to listen Mt 18:17.

β. ἐὰν μή if not, unless w. pres. subj. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ ἀξία Mt 10:13; cp. Lk 13:3; J 3:2f, 5, 27. Mostly w. aor. subj. ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ Mt 5:20; 6:15; 12:29; 18:3; 21:21; Mk 3:27; 4:22 (s. KBeyer, Semitische Syntax im NT, ’62, 131); J 4:48; 6:44; 7:51; Ro 10:15; 1 Cor 9:16; 14:6; unless, without ἐὰν μὴ αὐτὸ πίω Mt 26:42. W. fut. ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσουσιν Rv 2:22.

Biblehub listed 30 translations out of 51 use the word "unless" to translate ἐὰν μὴ with aorist subjunctive. In this case, it is not just ἐὰν μὴ; it is ἐὰν μὴ followed by an Aorist Subjunctive verb. This pattern has been observed frequently enough that some experts believe that this pattern is the equivalent of the English concept of "unless".

In this thread, I will stick with the literal translation: The Father may or may not draw him.

Does the Father draw everyone?

One interpretation of the potential subjunctive mood says no.

Now, Jesus said in John 12:

32 "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

The Cross will draw all people to Jesus. After that, the sovereignty of the Father has to draw him to enable him to actually come to Jesus.

See also No one can come to me UNLESS the Father who sent me draws him.

 

[GDL]

Young's Literal Translation, John 6:44 no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;

The YLT version is one of many I have on screen when translating to see what others have decided in their translations. "may not" is a good way to keep track of the Subjunctive Mood and seeing the 3rd class condition but IMO not good for reading in English.

ἐὰν μὴ
if not

draws
ἑλκύσῃ (helkysē)
Verb - Aorist Subjunctive Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 1670: To drag, draw, pull, persuade, unsheathe. Or helko hel'-ko; probably akin to haireomai; to drag.

BDAG:
ⓒ w. other particles
α. ἐὰν καί even if Gal 6:1; likew. ἐὰν δὲ καί (POxy 472 II, 7) but if 1 Cor 7:11, 28; 2 Ti 2:5. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ παρακούσῃ but if the pers. refuses to listen Mt 18:17.
β. ἐὰν μή if not, unless w. pres. subj. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ ἀξία Mt 10:13; cp. Lk 13:3; J 3:2f, 5, 27. Mostly w. aor. subj. ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ Mt 5:20; 6:15; 12:29; 18:3; 21:21; Mk 3:27; 4:22 (s. KBeyer, Semitische Syntax im NT, ’62, 131); J 4:48; 6:44; 7:51; Ro 10:15; 1 Cor 9:16; 14:6; unless, without ἐὰν μὴ αὐτὸ πίω Mt 26:42. W. fut. ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσουσιν Rv 2:22.

I have highlighted "if not" for ἐὰν μή. One of the tasks in exegesis is determining whether or not to remain in agreement with the Lexicons. Since you have pointed out in another thread that there can be logical ambiguity in the word "unless" then why use it in translation? Is there the same ambiguity in "if not" - in this case a 3rd class condition in Greek? We can note that Young determined to remain literal with ἐὰν μή.

Biblehub listed 30 translations out of 51 use the word "unless" to translate ἐὰν μὴ with aorist subjunctive.

Maybe the translators are not as learned in logic as you and others are. Maybe logic should be another proficiency used in translating from Greek. For me, what many others are doing I do note, but it is not my final guide.

In this thread, I will stick with the literal translation.

IMO a good choice.

If the Father does not draw him, he cannot come to Jesus.
⇒ If he comes to Jesus, then the Father has drawn him.

Agreed.

Does the Father draw everyone?

The subjunctive mood says no.

How does the Subjunctive Mood say no?

Doesn't the SM and 3rd class condition here simply tell us that God must draw a person to Jesus in order for that person to come to Jesus? Does it place any limits on who or how many the Father draws?

Now, Jesus said in John 12:

The Cross will draw all people to Jesus. After that, the sovereignty of the Father has to draw him to enable him to actually come to Jesus.

For precision, Jesus says in John12:22 that He - not the Cross - will draw all [men] to[ward] Himself.

• Are there truly 2 different drawings now?
  • In the context of John6:44-45 the Father's drawing looks to be the teaching about Jesus being Messiah that Jesus was doing on earth at the time.
  • One of the things the Cross, Resurrection & then the Ascension did was prove Jesus is the Christ, which is the foundational message of the Gospel according to Paul in 1Cor3 and elsewhere.
    • When we speak of the Cross we really don't just speak of His death. A dead man - such as a martyr - may be a draw to men, but the message of GJohn is of death, resurrection, ascension & seating. It's much more than His death by which He is drawing all men to Himself.
  • Since He is drawing all men to Himself, and since the Gospel is still referred to as God's Good News about His Son, again, are there truly two separate drawings?
    • Or are we now dealing with the Good News from the Father and the Son and also the Spirit as the drawing of all men?

The way I read John6 compared with the rest of the Scripture, I see the importance of another fact (among others) Jesus explains that I see few discuss. Jesus explains not only drawing but also the Father's giving/granting men to Jesus (John6:37, 39 and very importantly John6:65).

As I said in your other thread re: "unless" in John6:44, there is a lot of logic to analyze in John6. IMO Jesus explains quite a bit of what is actually being done by the Godhead in the Salvation of men. IMO our Father's sovereign decision on who He grants to His Son is a vital and much overlooked part of the process.

 

[tonychanyt]

"may not" is a good way to keep track of the Subjunctive Mood

reference?

 

[GDL]

reference?

Personal opinion and familiarity with YLT and discussions about using words like may vs. might and how to represent the concept of probability represented in the Subjunctive Mood. As I said, I don't typically use "may" in my personal work.

 

[tonychanyt]

Personal opinion and familiarity with YLT and discussions about using words like may vs. might and how to represent the concept of probability represented in the Subjunctive Mood. As I said, I don't typically use "may" in my personal work.

Sure, I put some weight on that

I have highlighted "if not" for ἐὰν μή. One of the tasks in exegesis is determining whether or not to remain in agreement with the Lexicons. Since you have pointed out in another thread that there can be logical ambiguity in the word "unless" then why use it in translation?

Good question.

In this case, it is not just ἐὰν μὴ; it is ἐὰν μὴ followed by an Aorist Subjunctive verb. This pattern has been observed frequently enough that some experts believe that this pattern is the equivalent of the English concept of "unless".

 

[GDL]

Sure, I put some weight on that



Good question.

In this case, it is not just ἐὰν μὴ; it is ἐὰν μὴ followed by an Aorist Subjunctive verb. This pattern has been observed frequently enough that some experts believe that this pattern is the equivalent of the English concept of "unless".

ἐὰν + the subjunctive is the structure of a third-class condition. μὴ is negating. "unless" is simply a translational choice and seemingly from what you have pointed out, a potentially poor choice for those familiar with a logical ambiguity concerning "unless."

Does the same potential ambiguity exist with "if not"?

 

[tonychanyt]

ἐὰν + the subjunctive is the structure of a third-class condition. μὴ is negating. "unless" is simply a translational choice and seemingly from what you have pointed out, a potentially poor choice for those familiar with a logical ambiguity concerning "unless."

Does the same potential ambiguity exist with "if not"?

No. The potential ambiguity is in the subjunctive mood.

 

[GDL]

No. The potential ambiguity is in the subjunctive mood.

Please explain what you mean by "ambiguity" and clarify your statement.

 

[GDL]

Sure, I put some weight on that



Good question.

In this case, it is not just ἐὰν μὴ; it is ἐὰν μὴ followed by an Aorist Subjunctive verb. This pattern has been observed frequently enough that some experts believe that this pattern is the equivalent of the English concept of "unless".

So, some experts believe the pattern is equivalent to an English word that carries its own ambiguity?

It's time we clarify the intended meaning of ambiguous. Post 8

 

[tonychanyt]

Please explain what you mean by "ambiguity" and clarify your statement.

The subjunctive mood means "may" or "may not". That's what I meant by ambiguity.

 

[GDL]

The subjunctive mood means "may" or "may not". That's what I meant by ambiguity.

Do you prefer any specific English Dictionary?

 

[tonychanyt]

Do you prefer any specific English Dictionary?

Oxford. But I don't dismiss any dictionary. I put a weight on different dictionaries.

 

[GDL]

Oxford. But I don't dismiss any dictionary. I put a weight on different dictionaries.

Oxford Learners Dictionary - Ambiguity
1. [uncountable] the state of having more than one possible meaning
2. [countable] a word or statement that can be understood in more than one way
3. [uncountable, countable] the state of being difficult to understand or explain because of involving many different aspects

OED
a1325–

ambiguity, n.​

Originally and chiefly with reference to language: the fact or quality of having different possible meanings; capacity for being interpreted in more…
1445–

ambiguity, n.​

An instance of ambiguity (sense 1a) or uncertain meaning; a doubt; an uncertainty.
1583–

ambiguity, n.​

A word or phrase that can be interpreted in more than one way; an ambiguous expression.
1930–

ambiguity, n.​

Literary Criticism. A nuance which allows for an alternative reading of a piece of language; (as a mass noun) the fact or quality of having one or…
c1425–1593

ambiguity, n.​

Uncertainty about one's course of action; doubt, hesitation. Also an instance of this: a feeling of uncertainty, a doubt. Obsolete.
1661–

ambiguity, n.​

The fact or quality of being difficult to categorize or identify, esp. due to changeable or contradictory qualities or characteristics. Also…
1783–

latent ambiguity​

An ambiguity in a document which only becomes apparent in the light of knowledge gained from extrinsic evidence.
1970–

lexical ambiguity, n.​

Ambiguity arising from homonymy rather than from grammatical structure (as between brake ‘restrainer’ and brake ‘fence’, or well noun and well…
1933–

non-ambiguity, n.​

The state of not being ambiguous.
1915–

structural ambiguity, n.​

Ambiguity arising from uncertainty about the grammatical relationships of elements in a sentence; an instance of this; cf. lexical ambiguity, n.
1908–

systematic ambiguity, n.​

Variation in meaning of a term or expression, of a kind governed and explicable by a rule.

My Comments:

• Welcome to the world of everchanging descriptive dictionaries. Putting weight on multiples can be quite the task.
• An ambiguity is generally a word or statement that has 2 or more possible meanings.
  • This is what I first think of when I hear or read the word ambiguous, ambiguity.
• Although the Greek 3rd-class condition can be simplified in explanation to say "may" or "may not" as you've said, this represents possibility and the Subjunctive Mood ("SM") in the 3rd-class conditional statement in John6:44 is expressing contingency (a major factor in the SM): A man coming to Christ is contingent upon God drawing the man to Christ.
• Although we can find a way to make the word "ambiguity" relate to the Subjunctive Mood, I don't see it as a primary or general concept when it comes to the word "ambiguity".
  • In John6:44 we are not looking at a verse that says what God needs to do for a man is an ambiguity - it is not an ambiguity that God must draw a man to Christ for a man to come to Christ.
• Since I see you periodically ask for references, I'd refer you to the teaching on the Subjunctive Mood in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace. I don't see the word "ambiguity" or "ambiguous" mentioned anywhere in that instruction. It's not a word I would apply to the SM apart from a detailed explanation of what the one applying it means by the word.

 

[tonychanyt]

Oxford Learners Dictionary - Ambiguity
1. [uncountable] the state of having more than one possible meaning
2. [countable] a word or statement that can be understood in more than one way
3. [uncountable, countable] the state of being difficult to understand or explain because of involving many different aspects

OED
a1325–

ambiguity, n.​

Originally and chiefly with reference to language: the fact or quality of having different possible meanings; capacity for being interpreted in more…
1445–

ambiguity, n.​

An instance of ambiguity (sense 1a) or uncertain meaning; a doubt; an uncertainty.
1583–

ambiguity, n.​

A word or phrase that can be interpreted in more than one way; an ambiguous expression.
1930–

ambiguity, n.​

Literary Criticism. A nuance which allows for an alternative reading of a piece of language; (as a mass noun) the fact or quality of having one or…
c1425–1593

ambiguity, n.​

Uncertainty about one's course of action; doubt, hesitation. Also an instance of this: a feeling of uncertainty, a doubt. Obsolete.
1661–

ambiguity, n.​

The fact or quality of being difficult to categorize or identify, esp. due to changeable or contradictory qualities or characteristics. Also…
1783–

latent ambiguity​

An ambiguity in a document which only becomes apparent in the light of knowledge gained from extrinsic evidence.
1970–

lexical ambiguity, n.​

Ambiguity arising from homonymy rather than from grammatical structure (as between brake ‘restrainer’ and brake ‘fence’, or well noun and well…
1933–

non-ambiguity, n.​

The state of not being ambiguous.
1915–

structural ambiguity, n.​

Ambiguity arising from uncertainty about the grammatical relationships of elements in a sentence; an instance of this; cf. lexical ambiguity, n.
1908–

systematic ambiguity, n.​

Variation in meaning of a term or expression, of a kind governed and explicable by a rule.

My Comments:

• Welcome to the world of everchanging descriptive dictionaries. Putting weight on multiples can be quite the task.
• An ambiguity is generally a word or statement that has 2 or more possible meanings.
  • This is what I first think of when I hear or read the word ambiguous, ambiguity.
• Although the Greek 3rd-class condition can be simplified in explanation to say "may" or "may not" as you've said, this represents possibility and the Subjunctive Mood ("SM") in the 3rd-class conditional statement in John6:44 is expressing contingency (a major factor in the SM): A man coming to Christ is contingent upon God drawing the man to Christ.
• Although we can find a way to make the word "ambiguity" relate to the Subjunctive Mood, I don't see it as a primary or general concept when it comes to the word "ambiguity".
  • In John6:44 we are not looking at a verse that says what God needs to do for a man is an ambiguity - it is not an ambiguity that God must draw a man to Christ for a man to come to Christ.
• Since I see you periodically ask for references, I'd refer you to the teaching on the Subjunctive Mood in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace. I don't see the word "ambiguity" or "ambiguous" mentioned anywhere in that instruction. It's not a word I would apply to the SM apart from a detailed explanation of what the one applying it means by the word.

Good point. Since the word "ambiguous" itself is ambiguous, let's stop using that term here. BTW, I did not use the word in the OP.

 

[St_Worm2]

The Cross will draw all people to Jesus. After that, the sovereignty of the Father has to draw him to enable him to actually come to Jesus.

Hello Tony, I have several questions to ask you about this, but I'll start with just one for now, since it has been more than 2,000 years since the Lord's Resurrection and Ascension, and many still die (even today) who have never heard of Jesus, in what way can it truly be said that He has drawn ALL people to Himself?

Thanks!

God bless you!!

--David

 

[tonychanyt]

Hello Tony, I have several questions to ask you about this, but I'll start with just one for now, since it has been more than 2,000 years since the Lord's Resurrection and Ascension, and many still die (even today) who have never heard of Jesus, in what way can it truly be said that He has drawn ALL people to Himself?

Good question. See When I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL people to myself. Really?

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello again Tony (@tonychanyt), my second question concerns the 51 translations and paraphrases at BibleHub.com. All but two of them, Young's Literal and the Literal Standard translate the passage with "except the Father" or "unless the Father" (even the other "literal" translations do so .. in fact, here they are).

Literal Standard Version​

no one is able to come to Me if the Father who sent Me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;​

​

Berean Literal Bible​

No one is able to come to Me unless the Father, the one having sent Me, draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day.​

​

Young's Literal Translation​

no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;​

​

Smith's Literal Translation​

None can come to me, except the Father having sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.​

​

Literal Emphasis Translation​

No one is able to come to Me except the Father, the One having sent Me, draws him and I too will raise him up in the last day.​

​

Why do you think that "unless/except the Father" is (far and away) the principal translation, even among the so called "literal translations"? Could the use of except/unless the Father, by 49 of the 51 translations and paraphrases at Bible Hub, have something to do with the verse/passage context?

BTW, "no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him" makes it sound like someone needs to give El Shaddai ~permission~ to draw us to His Son (which is, of course, a silly thought that requires no discussion). So, my question is this, what does the Young's "literal" translation above actually mean (or mean to you .. when taken as written)?

Thanks

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

Good question. See When I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL people to myself. Really?

Head'n over there. Thanks!!

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Does the Father draw everyone?

The subjunctive mood says no.

Part of my soteriology is to take into account 2 things:
1) The person has some amount of revelation (either by word of mouth, from the Bible, or other "messenger" or more "direct" revelation)
2) It is based on the character of the Spirit the person has on whether they "receive" this revelation as true or not.

For example, Balam was given some rather "direct revelation" yet the Bible constantly condemns him as a false prophet. Why? Based on Free Will or something else? It is commonly taught in many different traditions that this is based on Free Will, but the way it was thought about people at the time the Bible was written, it was understood that the person has a character that does not change over time. And this is why when we consider that the four Gospels are "biographies" of Jesus it does not need to talk about His early life since He was "The same yesterday, today, and forever."

The question is whether we want to give credit to these more modern interpretations of Free Will in the philosophy of mind or whether we want to go with the way people thought at the time the Bible was written. In other words, Libertarian Free Will is a relatively recent way to think about things in the history of the world.

 

[GDL]

Good point.

Thanks.

Since the word "ambiguous" itself is ambiguous, let's stop using that term here.

OK. "If not" for ἐὰν μή is clear and understandable.

BTW, I did not use the word in the OP.

Acknowledged. You brought it up in another thread about using "unless" for "if not" in this same verse and your OP in this thread highlighted "unless" from BDAG, which I responded to.