DRAWN BY THE FATHER:
A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44
by

FERNANDO MIRANDA

B.Th., Universidad Evangélica del Paraguay, 2013

Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of

MASTER OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

in the

FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

April 2022
© Fernando Miranda, 2022

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

ii

Abstract
The meaning of the drawing of the Father in John 6:44 has been debated among
scholars in biblical commentaries and lexicons. Most interpretations of the use of ἕλκω (draw)
in John 6:44 have focused more on current systematic theological debates as the framework to
define the idea of the drawing of the Father. Although there has been valuable work on it, an
accurate lexicological study of the word ἕλκω in connection with an exegetical study that
focuses on the literary context of the gospel of John is still missing.
This thesis applies lexicological methodologies such as diachronic and synchronic
approaches to get a valid definition of the drawing of the Father which would lead to a better
understanding, not only of this divine action, but also of an important mechanism that unites
the ministry Jesus and the revelation of the Father in the law of Moses.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

iii

Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... v
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
Research problem and thesis statement .................................................................................. 2
Thesis outline .......................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 1: Methodology and Literature review .................................................................... 7
1.1 Lexicological methodologies ............................................................................................ 7
1.1.1 Diachronic approach ................................................................................................ 14
1.1.2. Synchronic approach ............................................................................................... 16
1.2. Literature review ............................................................................................................ 18
1.2.1. Dictionaries and Lexicons ....................................................................................... 18
1.2.2. Biblical commentaries ............................................................................................. 21
1.3. Summation and Need for the Current Study .................................................................. 24
Chapter 2: Diachronic study of ἕλκω ................................................................................... 26
2.1. Classical Greek Philosophy and Poetry. ........................................................................ 26
2.2. Non-biblical Hellenistic Judaism. .................................................................................. 30
2.3. Apocrypha ...................................................................................................................... 34
2.4. The Septuagint ............................................................................................................... 37
2.5. New Testament .............................................................................................................. 44
2.6. Evaluation and Conclusion ............................................................................................ 45
Chapter 3: Synchronic study of ἕλκω ................................................................................... 51
3.1. Syntagmatic sense relation............................................................................................. 51
3.2. Literary Context ............................................................................................................. 59

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

iv

3.3. Syntagmatic-paradigmatic relation ................................................................................ 68
Chapter 4: Theological conclusions ...................................................................................... 73
4.1. Consequential effect as an answer to soteriological determinism in John .................... 73
4.2. The identity of the Johannine community ..................................................................... 77
4.3 Johannine dualism........................................................................................................... 80
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 87

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

v

Acknowledgements
First, I am grateful to my wife Miriam for all her support through this long process.
Your words and actions were always a source of strength in difficult times, not only through
the thesis, but through all the time we spent in Canada. Thank you for never allowing me to
consider quitting the task. I will always be in debt for your patience and love.
Dr. Jonathan Numada provided valuable insight and guidance throughout the research
process. It has been a privilege to work with you. You have been also very professional and
understanding during this time.
Thanks to Eben-Ezer Menonnite church for being our spiritual home for three years.
All your hospitality and economic support was vital for our time in Canada. May God bless
you in all.
To my family in Paraguay, thanks for your encouragement from distance. I am proud
to share this achievement with you and recognize the values that you taught me.
Finally, all the glory and honor goes to God. He is the reason, the inspiration and
sustainer of my life. All my personal and academic flaws are sustained by his grace and mercy
knowing that he can use anyone for his glory.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

1

Introduction
The meaning of the word ἕλκω in John 6:44 has been a point of debate among biblical
scholars that has resulted in different approaches and, consequently, different results. It is
striking that previous studies have not employed lexical semantics in their methodology. This
does not mean that there has not been any valid knowledge in the understanding of the
Father’s drawing in the gospel of John. Biblical commentators made valid points in their
emphasis on the literary context of John 6:44, however, they do not use lexical semantics in
the pursuit of the meaning of ἕλκω. Also, dictionaries and lexicons provide good information
about the uses of ἕλκω in different writings, but they fall short on the literary context and its
particular use in John 6:44. It is argued in this research that lexical semantics can provide
valid principles and methodologies to have an accurate understanding of the use and meaning
of ἕλκω.
Lexicology or lexical semantics, as defined by David Black, “deals with the
development of valid principles and methods for word study.”1 This does not mean that every
lexicographical study will use the same methods because words are used in different senses, in
various genres and with different purposes. That is why David Black expressed that students
“should not be disturbed to find so many different and sometimes competing linguistic
activities. This is the hallmark of a living, vigorous, and growing science.”2 The bottom line is
that lexicology “includes thinking through theoretical issues related to words (lexemes).”3
Therefore, the challenge for this research, and any other with the same kind of interest, is to

1

David Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications,
2nd ed. Kindle edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), 249.
2
Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, 251.
3
Constantine Campbell, Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 72.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

2

define correctly what are the lexicological principles and methods that the word study’s
objectives require and would bring a solution to the research problem.
Research problem and thesis statement
In 1994 Moises Silva affirmed that there has been considerable progress in the proper
use and interpretation of language since James Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language, but
nobody should be deluded in believing that linguistics and exegesis have been genuinely
integrated in modern biblical scholarship.4 In the case of ἕλκω in John 6:44, it seems that there
has been some interaction between linguistics and exegesis, but a full integration is still to
occur. This is not surprising mainly because biblical commentaries are normally designed to
provide a general exposition of the ideas of the text and this exposition is usually subjected to
the social, cultural and theological context of the commentator. This does not mean that
biblical commentaries are not good resources to find out the meaning of words because they
are normally careful in taking into account the literary context and the overall theology of the
particular book.
The full integration still to occur is seen when some commentaries do not even bother
to explain or to comment on the meaning of ἕλκω,5 showing that they were not interested in it
or found it unnecessary to focus on it. However, when they do deal with it, the comments are
mostly limited to or influenced by current systematic theological debates. One example of
this is the book Drawn by the Father by James White, who explores the teachings of John
6:35-45 having the verse 44 as the climax of the book. Although this book is a non-peer

4

Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics, Rev. and expanded ed.
Kindle edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), loc. 227.
5
Merril Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948), 121.
Tenney only states that “the Jews” did not come to Jesus because they were not drawn by the Father. Bruce
Milne, The Message of John (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 112. Milne just points that the
Father is the only one who can enable people to respond to the Son. Kenneth Grayston, The Gospel of John
(London: Epworth Press, 1990), 98. Grayston asserts merely that John 6:44 is in connexion with 6:37.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

3

reviewed commentary, it is the only one that focuses on the concept of the Father’s drawing in
John.
When James White gets to John 6:44-45 he raises two questions: What is the nature of
this drawing and how does the Father do it?6 White makes some good exegetical points7 and
provides a helpful discussion about the usage of ἕλκω in John, differentiating the literal and
metaphorical sense.8 However, he ultimately answers these questions by showing the
inconsistencies of other interpretations, turning the explanation of the meaning of one word
into a theological debate, rather than an exegetical or lexicological study. He does this when
he explains the similar use of ἕλκω in John 12:32 and says “many have used this verse to
attempt to blunt the force of John 6:44, hoping to find here a ‘wooing’ idea rather than the
sovereign call of the Spirit of God in a person’s life.”9 He then explains why his perspective is
better than other interpretations, but his explanation is already limited by a theological debate
between the “wooing” position and the sovereign call of the Spirit of God10, not relying on the
literary context of John or linguistic principles of study.
The same thing occurs with the commentary of Grant Osborne, though he argues more
in line with the “wooing” position. He says that although the verb ἕλκω implies the intrinsic
inability of men to believe in Jesus, John 6:44 does not teach the reformed idea of irresistible
grace. Osborne only explains why this reformed doctrine is not possible based upon John
12:32, where Jesus says that he will draw (ἑλκύσω) all to himself, making the drawing of the

6

James White, Drawn by The Father (New York: Great Christian Books, 2016), 73; 77.
White rightly points to the repetition of thought in 6:65 and the use of “giving by the Father” instead of “drawn
by the Father”. However, based only upon different Bible translations of the word δίδωμι in 6:65, he concludes
that “the ‘drawing’ is restated in terms of it “being given to them” or of the Father ‘enabling’ men to come to
Christ.” White, Drawn by The Father, 73-74.
8
Ibid., 74.
9
Ibid., 74.
10
Ibid., 74- 75.
7

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

4

Father and Jesus universal and not only for the elect.11 The problem with this kind of approach
is that White and Osborne will only have to prove that their theological positions are more
suitable than that of their adversaries. This does not mean that they do not provide some valid
arguments to the conversation, but the conversation is limited by the categories set in a
contemporary theological debate and not by the use of ἕλκω in John 6:44.
There are more examples of interpreting this passage through the lens of a theological
debate. John Calvin, who defines this drawing as God’s enlightenment to bend and form
people to the obedience of Christ, turning men from unwillingness to willingness, considers
that this is a metaphor and not a literal drawing.12 In his commentary, C. K. Barrett represents
this idea when he comments that God’s drawing “consist[s] in teaching, the inward teaching
which God gives to those whom he chooses and so directs to Jesus.”13 John Calvin believed
that this teaching “consists not only in the outward word but also in the secret operation of the
Holy Spirit.”14 Commenting on John 6:44, Calvin made this clear when he said that “not all
are drawn, but that God honours with this grace those whom He has elected.”15 So for some
commentators, there is an emphasis on God’s predestination and operation in changing the
will of the people as the means of drawing them to Jesus.
Contrary to Calvin, other scholars argue that the drawing of the Father does not entail
God’s pre-destination to come to Jesus. Ramsey Michaels affirms that no one is dragged to

11

Grant R. Osborne, John Verse by Verse, Osborne New Testament Commentaries (Ashland: Lexham Press,
2018), chap. 10, section 7 " Debate with the Jews (6:41–46)". Accessed February 17, 2020,
https://eds-b-ebscohost com.ezproxy.student.twu.ca/eds/ebookviewer/ebook/ZTAwMHhuYV9f
MTgwMjExMV9fQU41?sid=70502d65-729a-4c33-a6f7-d3f0598cf72c@pdc-v-sessmgr02&vid=0&forma
t=EK&rid=1
12
John Calvin, The Gospel According to St. John, Calvin’s commentaries (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Pub., 1959-1961., 1959), 164.
13
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek
Text, 2nd ed. (London: Westminster Press, 1978), 296.
14
Calvin, The Gospel According to St. John, 164.
15
Ibid., 164.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

5

Jesus forcibly against one’s will because God’s drawing is his teaching through his Son. He
cites John 5:37 “the Father who sent me… has testified about me” to argue that to “hear from
the Father” is to hear Jesus.16 Although it does not totally eliminate the strength of the
argument, the phrase “no one is dragged to Jesus forcibly against one’s will” already gets into
a theological debate. George Beasley-Murray cites and agrees with Bultmann’s interpretation
in that being drawn by God happens when a man abandons his own way of salvation and starts
to “hear” and “learn” from the Father and therefore being drawn by him as the fulfilment of
the quote in John 6:45.17 Again, these are good points based upon the literary context, but
there is no mention of linguistic principles and integration of them with the exegesis.
In this research the author plans to demonstrate that the sense of ἑλκω in John 6:44 is
God’s action of bringing people to salvation with love and kindness. The referent of ἑλκω is
God’s teaching through the law to those who are willing to learn and hear from him (John
6:45). Those who learned and heard from the Farther are able to recognize Jesus as the one
sent from above.
Thesis outline
Chapter one will lay out the lexicological methodologies of this research such as
diachronic and synchronic approach. Then it will expose the flaws of the most important
dictionaries and biblical commentaries that deal with the definition of ἕλκω in John 6:44 as
the justification for the study. Chapter two presents the diachronic study that will be explored

16

J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2010), 386-387.
17
George Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 93.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

6

the uses of ἕλκω on select authors of classical Greek philosophy and poetry18, Septuagint19,
the Apocrypha, New Testament and some non-biblical Hellenistic Jewish writings. This
process will provide enough information to determine what was the philosophical-theological
context or contexts which influenced the author of John when he wrote about the Father´s
drawing. Chapter three presents the synchronic approach which examines a word without
considering its changes through time (diachronic study), but as it existed in a particular
writing and occasion.20 This approach will be the most important part of the research because
its objective is to define the meaning of ἕλκω in a particular text (John 6:44) and for their
audience which the gospel was written to. Finally, chapter four will discuss the theological
conclusions of the research in relation to soteriological determinism in John and the identity of
the Johannine community.

Greek philosophers from the Classical period (500 BC to 330 BC) will be covered because their use of ἕλκω is
closest to the use of the gospel of John. On the other hand, Greek historians will not be covered because they
have a different genre and themes in comparison to John that focus more on theological and philosophical issues,
more in line with Classical Greek philosophers. A clear example is The Histories of Herodotus, where ἕλκω is
used 39 times all in the literal sense to explain physical activities of drawing stones, ships, men, horses and others
(see on TLG). Apart of the 214 occurrences in the Classical Greek period that will be cover in this study, Perseus
digital library shows 1890 occurrences that are not covered in this study because there is not enough space to
cover all the data. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to affirm that the diachronic study is representative of
overall data. For example, in Discourses of Epictectus there are, as the classical Greek period (see below), literal
usage of ἕλκω in 1.29.22, 2.16.20, 3.22.33, 22.30 as physical dragging of people and metaphorical usage in 1.2.3,
1.2.23 and 2.20.15 as being attracted by an idea or internal force. See in Epictetus, Discourses, Loeb Classical
Library: books 1-2, translated by W.A. Oldfather (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925).
19
The Hebrew words translated as ἕλκω in the LXX will also be examined as part of the diachronic study. The
LXX translates 13 different Hebrew words as ἕλκω. The word with more occurrences is ‫ מָ שְך‬māšak
(8), followed by ‫ שָ לף‬šālap (5), ‫ שָ אף‬šā’ap (3) and ‫ זָכר‬zākar (2). ‫ מָ שָ ה‬māšāh, ‫ ירש‬yaraš, ‫ ָגלָה‬gālâ, ‫ שָ דד‬sādad, ‫ִמיץ‬
mîṣ, ‫ זָרח‬zāraḥ, ‫ נּוף‬nûp, ‫ ְנפק‬nĕpaq and ‫ אָ סף‬ʾāsap are translated as ἕλκω once each.
20
Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, loc. 169.
18

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

7

Chapter 1: Methodology and Literature review
1.1 Lexicological methodologies
This research aims to provide an accurate definition of ἕλκω in John 6:44 and the main
objective to reach this goal to define the sense and referent of this Greek word with accurate
lexicological methodologies. Having said that, the ultimate purpose of this research is more
concerned with the idea of the Father’s drawing in John 6:44 and not on the word ἕλκω itself.
Moises Silva points out that it is not reasonable to base a study primarily on a word if the goal
is to define an idea. Instead, the focus should be in how the word relates to its particular
context.21 As James Barr asserted, “theological thought of the type found in the NT has its
characteristic linguistic expression not in the word individually but in the word-combination
or sentence.”22 In consequence, this research will make a survey of the uses of ἕλκω in
different texts, but it will be completed when the theological thought of the Father’s drawing
in John 6:44 is defined.
This research assumes the validity of the lexical semantic theory developed by Charles
Ogden and Ivor Richards in The Meaning of Meaning about the difference between symbol,
sense and referent.23 Based upon this lexical semantic theory, Constantine Campbell defines a
symbol as the word used by the writer or speaker to communicate their idea, in this case, the
written word ἕλκω. The sense is the image or concept that appeared in the mind of John and
his audience when ἕλκω was used and finally, the referent is the actual thing or action in the
real world denoted by the symbol.24

21

Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, loc. 293.
James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 233.
23
Charles Ogden and Ivor Richards, The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon
Thought and of the Science of Symbolism (New York: Brace & Co., 1945).
24
Campbell, Advances in the Study of Greek, 73.
22

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

8

The work of Ogden and Richards belongs to semiotics, which is the study of signs.
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) and Charles Peirce (1839–1914) are considered the
founders of what, is currently understood as semiotics.25 The main difference between these
two is that Saussure offered a “dyadic” or two-part model to understand signs: a) 'signifier' the form which the sign takes; and b) the 'signified' - the concept it represents.26 Odgen and
Richard actually criticized this position because it neglects “entirely the things for which signs
stand.”27 So, they opted for a triadic or three-part model very similar to Peirce’s original
model which is described as: a) Representamen: the form which the sign takes; b) Interpretant:
the sense that the sign brings to the interpreter or reader and c) the object: the actual entity to
which the sign refers.28
It is important to keep in mind that a symbol can have different senses and referents
depending on the context and the intention of the author. This literary phenomenon is what
lexicographers call polysemy, that is, the phenomenon of one symbol with several senses.29 It
can also be the case that different symbols would have the same referent but do not
necessarily overlap in sense. As James Barr explains, “an object or event may be signified by
word a or by word b. This does not mean that a means b … the identity of the object to which
different designations are given does not imply that these designations have the same semantic
value.”30 These different possible situations emphasize the vital importance of thinking
carefully about the lexicological methods and principles that an exegete chooses.

25

Daniel Chandler, Semiotics: The Basics, 3rd ed (New York: Routledge, 2017), 2-3.
Ibid., 13
27
Charles Ogden and Ivor Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, 8.
28
Chandler, Semiotics¸ 29.
29
Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, 114.
30
Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 217-218.
26

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

9

In the case of ἕλκω, some theologians do not take into account these kinds of
possibilities. For example, a short article called “Man’s Radical Fallenness” by Ligonier
Ministries,31 the teaching fellowship of the deceased R. C. Sproul, declares that the word
“draw” in John 6:44 cannot mean that God is wooing or enticing people to come to Jesus.
Rather, the drawing of the Father refers to God dragging people against their fallen will to
Jesus because “the same word translated as ‘draw’ in John 6:44 is found in Acts 16:19 and
James 2:6 where the apostolic authors speak of someone being ‘dragged’ somewhere.”32
In lexicological terms, the Ligonier document commits the error of “illegitimate
totality transfer,” which is the practice of incorrectly transferring all the possible meanings of
one symbol into a particular text.33 The document does not cite every occurrence of ἕλκω in
the New Testament, but its error is to assume that the meaning of a word in a particular case is
determined by its general meaning or usage.34 D.A. Carson asserts that “the fallacy in this
instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of a word in a specific context is much
broader than the context itself allows.”35 This happens because the Ligonier document
provides a definition of ἕλκω in John 6:44 based upon the usages of ἕλκω in Acts 16:19 and
James 2:6, and not the context of John 6:44. The error in the definition of ἕλκω is easily
demonstrable by identifying who are the subjects of ἕλκω and their intention. In John 6:44, the
Father is drawing people to Jesus, i.e., a good and loving God draws people to the savior. In
Acts 16:19, Paul and Silas are being dragged to be punished because they healed a woman,

31

Despite this article not being peer-reviewed scholarly literature, it represents how this theme is treated at a
popular level, making this research theologically necessary.
32
Ligonier Ministries, “Man’s Radical Fallenness”, accessed January 28, 2020,
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/mans-radical-fallenness/
33
Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, 266.
34
Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 218.
35
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 62.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

10

and in James 2:6 the poor are being dragged unjustly to court. In these two cases, bad people
are drawing others to punishment in an unfair manner.
James Barr makes the remark that critiquing interpretations like Ligonier’s document
on ἕλκω goes against the biblical-theological idea of “seeing the Bible as a whole” which is so
prevalent in popular writings. The people that hold that kind of hermeneutic will see as hostile
the linguistic reality that a word could have different meanings in different contexts.36 It is
better to acknowledge that in order to get the meaning of a word, the most important
information is provided primarily by the context because “the context does not merely help us
understand meaning, it virtually makes meaning.”37 This does not mean that it is not important
to examine other occurrences and uses of ἕλκω, but the immediate context has more
importance than other cases where ἕλκω was used.
So, how can the information gathered by the different occurrences of ἕλκω be helpful
for understanding its meaning in John 6:44? One theory that could be helpful is Michael
Hoey’s theory of lexical priming. This theory suggests that “as a word is acquired through
encounters with it in speech and writing, it becomes cumulatively loaded with the contexts
and co-texts in which it is encountered.”38 These encounters produce the action of priming,
that is, the psycholinguistic mechanism that each word produces inside of the listener’s mind.
When a certain word appears, it triggers other words or sets of words by accepting or rejecting
them from a syntactical relation.39 This means that when ἕλκω was used in John 6:44, even
though the word can have different meanings, it brought a certain idea that was formed in the

36

Barr, The Semantics of the Biblical Language, 218.
Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, 139.
38
Michael Hoey, Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language (New York: Taylor & Francis Group,
2005), 8.
39
Michael Pace and Katie Patterson, Lexical Priming: Applications and Advances, Studies in Corpus Linguistics,
vol. 79 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2017), 13.
37

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

11

mind of the listeners through the immediate context and the co-texts (different occurrences of
the word) in which the word was used and was compatible with the particular syntactical
relation to which they were listening (John 6:44).
It will be demonstrated in the conclusion of the second chapter that for the author and
original readers of the Fourth Gospel, the word ἕλκω carries a meaning influenced mainly by
its use in the Old Testament. Also, the word is loaded in meaning by its use in relation to the
subject who is performing the action, in this case the Father. This means that the word ἕλκω
would have a different semantic association in the reader’s mind depending on the subject of
the action. If another subject, rather than the Father, would have been used in John 6:44 the
meaning of ἕλκω would be different because of the unique concept of God in the mind of the
author and original audience of the Fourth Gospel. If the theory of lexical priming is not taken
into account and the illegitimate totality transfer error is committed, one might say that the
gospel of Mark teaches that Jesus cast out demons in the same way that the Spirit cast out
Jesus to the desert because in both events the verb ἐκβάλλω is used for both subjects (Mark
1:12, 34).
Another area where there seems to be confusion is in the contextual differences in its
use. To get the sense of ἕλκω, this research proposes that because of the particular
metaphorical use in John 6:44 (see discussion below about the metaphorical use), the scope of
study should focus on contexts similar to John 6:44. In other words, emphasis will be given to
the occurrences of ἕλκω where it mentions God’s action of bringing people towards a
blessing. For example, there would be little progress by looking at the occurrences where the
word ‫ שָ לף‬šālap was translated as ἕλκω in the LXX, because they all refer to the literal

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

12

drawing of a sword.40 On the contrary, progress would happen if the research examines the
occurrences where God is the subject of the action and the action, just like in John 6:44, has
the purpose of bringing people to a state of blessing or salvation (see discussion below), for
example Jer. 31:3 (LXX Jer. 38:3).
If this limitation is not applied, it could lead to errors in the conclusion. For example,
William Barclay concludes that God’s drawing always implies resistance because of the literal
usages of ἕλκω (John 18:10; 21:6, 11 and Acts 16:19).41 It is hard to understand how an
inanimate object (sword and net) can perform the action of resisting as a human does, but this
is what happens when emphasis is given to the word itself and not to the particular context and
usage. Nevertheless, this procedure must be done with extra caution so it does not fall into the
critique made by James Barr against TDNT of concentrating on the terminology in its
religious, philosophical and theological usages.42 This means that some uses of ἕλκω could
provide information about its use and meaning in John 6:44, but this will be determined by the
context.
Another feature in lexical semantics that is pertinent is the principle of lexical field.
This principle is related to the idea of lexical choice that refers to the action when “a lexeme is
used; its choice is meaningful against other possible options. To choose one lexeme is to
‘unchoose’ another.”43 So, the lexical field of ἕλκω would be all the words that could have
been used in its place in John 6:44. James Barr explains this procedure in his study of “image”
terminology as follows:
Rather than concentrating on the one word selem ‘image’ and trying to squeeze
from it alone a decisive oracle about its meaning…we look at a whole group of
40

Judges 20:2, 15, 17, 35 and 46.
William Barclay, The Gospel of John, Daily Study Bible Series (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1975), 220.
42
Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 219.
43
Campbell, Advances in the Study of Greek, 78.
41

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

13

words and hope that meaning may be indicated by the choice of one word rather
than another within this group. The basis for this procedure, then, is an approach
to meanings not as direct relations between one word and the referent which it
indicates, but as functions of choices within the lexical stock of a given language
at a given time; it is the choice, rather than the word itself, which signifies.44
Therefore, it is of vital importance to understand why the author of John picked the
word ἕλκω rather than other words because “the value of a word is first known when we mark
it off against the value of neighbouring and opposing words. Only as part of the whole does
the word have sense; for only in the field is there meaning.”45 Interestingly, Louw and Nida in
their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament provide two synonyms for ἕλκω: σύρω and
σπάω,46 that could well overlap its lexical field, but these two are synonyms only for the literal
usage of ἕλκω and not for the metaphorical use.47
All these different principles will be applied in two different approaches of lexical
semantics: diachronic and synchronic. It is important to indicate that in the field of biblical
studies, Moises Silva argues that priority should be given to the synchronic approach because
the main goal of the exegete is to know what a word meant in a specific state or stage, not how
it has changed through time from one state to another.48 However, the diachronic approach is
necessary to better understand the sense of a word because, in this case, ἕλκω did not come
from a vacuum but from different religious and philosophical usages that might have reflected
John’s use of the word.

James Barr, “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis: A Study of Terminology,” Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library 51, no. 1 (1968), 14.
45
Ferdinand Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye (New York:
Fontana, 1974), 116.
46
Johannes Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic
Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 205, 208.
47
In the New Testament, σύρω is use as: literal “drawing” of individuals (Acts 8:3; 14:19 and 17:6), “drawing” a
net (John 21:8) and a beast “drawing” stars (Rev 12:4). The verb σπάω appears twice in the New Testament
referring to the drawing of a sword (Mark 14:47 and Acts 16:27).
48
Moisés Silva, God, Language, and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics,
Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 44.
44

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

14

1.1.1 Diachronic approach
The diachronic approach views the study of words from a historical perspective. As
David Black affirms, “the aim is to follow the history of a word in its process of gradual
transformation with a view to better understanding its contextual meaning in the particular
document at hand.”49 So in this case, the aim is to study the way ἕλκω was used in different
writings through time with the purpose of gaining a better understanding of the sense that was
in the mind of John when he used ἕλκω in 6:44. This approach will include the words ἐξέλκω,
ἐφέλκω, περιέλκω and συνέλκω as well because it is the same verb with the prepositions ἐξ,
ἐφ, περι and συν prefixed in the verb. These ones are chosen because they are used in the New
and Old Testament.50
Mathewson and Emig call a preposition that can be prefixed to a verb a “proper
preposition” which can perform different functions. In the case of ἕλκω, a proper preposition
can add its basic local meaning.51 For example, the preposition ἐξ adds to the meaning of
ἕλκω the possible idea that the object of the action is being dragged to the outside. Bauer
defines this word as to “drag away, with connotation of initial reluctance”52 that seems to be
taking out from the uses of the word in different writings.
An important point needs to be made here about the range of words that will be
covered in this section. Because the use of ἕλκω in John 6:44 evokes more the general idea of
God attracting people to a place of blessing, this diachronic study will not only focus on the

49

Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, loc. 1687-1688.
Outside the New Testament are other cases where ἕλκω is used with other prefixes forming words like:
ἐνέλκω, ἀνθέλκω, ἀντιμεθέλκω, ἀντιπαρέλκω, ἀπέλκω, ἀφέλκω, διέλκω, εἰσέλκω, καθέλκω, κατέλκω, μεθέλκω,
προσέλκω, προσκαθέλκω, συγκαθέλκω, συνεφέλκω and ὑφέλκω.
51
David Mathewson and Elodie Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, Kindle edition (Grand Rapids: Baker
Publishing Group, 2016), loc. 3032.
52
Walter Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed.
F. W. Danker, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 308.
50

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

15

word ἕλκω but also on some words that are used in the same kind of context as John 6:44. For
example, Hosea 11:1-4 teaches that God led his people out of Egypt with kindness and love.
The Hebrew word for “led” is ‫ מָ שְך‬māšak, which is most often translated as ἕλκω in the LXX,
but in Hosea 11:4 ‫ מָ שְך‬māšak is translated as ἐκτείνω. In a basic word study, Hosea 11:4
would not have been mentioned in a study of ἕλκω because it is not used in the verse, but in
this case, it should be considered because it shares a similar use and context with John 6:44.
Even though John 6:44 and Hosea 11:4 do not use the same word, commentators point to the
relation between them.53 This is the case because “words are not labels for the content of
concepts. They are simply signs or symbols by which entities, activities, characteristics, and
relations are represented in the process of communication.”54
Etymology is normally a part of diachronic approaches. The study of etymology is
interested mainly in the origins of a particular word. This research will not be focusing on
etymology because it does not intend to discover the component parts of the word or the
earliest attested uses and meanings, but its interest is in the idea of the Father’s drawing in
John 6:44. In addition, as Moises Silva points out, “etymological research is of special value
for the translation of ancient documents written in poorly attested languages, such as Ugaritic.
Since Greek is richly attested, the study of etymology is not as important for the New
Testament as it is for the Old Testament … we pay regard to etymology only if it can be
shown that the biblical writers intended the word to be taken in its etymological sense.”55

53

Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 685;
Edwyn Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. Noel Davey, 2nd ed. (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), 296 and
Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker
Academic, 2004), 213.
54
Eugene Nida and Johannes Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament, Resources for Biblical
Study: no. 25 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 4.
55
Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, loc. 380-387.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

16

1.1.2. Synchronic approach
Saussure sustains the greater importance of the synchronic approach in contrast with the
diachronic when he states that “it is evident that the synchronic viewpoint predominates, for it
is the true and only reality to the community of speakers… The same is true of the linguist: if
he takes the diachronic perspective, he no longer observes language but rather a series of
events that modify it.”56
Within this approach, the first step to determine the meaning of ἕλκω in John 6:44 is to
do an exegesis of the text in its literary context. The importance of context cannot be over
emphasized since “among the diverse meanings a word possesses, the only one that will
emerge into consciousness is the one determined by the context.”57 Dealing with a word that
has multiple meanings, what really matters in communication is the final interpretation given
by the context.58 As has been said before, there are many lexicological principles that an
exegete can choose to apply to his interpretation in a particular passage. For this research
syntagmatic sense relations, literary context and syntagmatic-paradigmatic relation will be the
main principles to be applied in the interpretation of ἕλκω in John 6:44.59 The syntagmatic
sense relation refers to how the word ἕλκω relates to the other words in the sentence.60
Questions that would help to understand the particular collocation of ἕλκω will be answered,
such as: Who is the subject and direct object of the verb? What is its function in the sentence?

56

Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, 90.
Joseph Vendryes, Language: A Linguistic Introduction to History. Trans. Paul Radin (New York: Trubner &
Co., 1931), 177.
58
Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, loc. 1786.
59
The author concluded that these principles would be more helpful based upon his previous research on the text
and literary context of John 6:44. The principle of ambiguity would not be addressed because there is no sign that
the author of John intended to be ambiguous with the term ἕλκω. The principle of context of situation would not
be necessary because the literary context provides enough background information for the social-religious
situation where ἕλκω was used.
60
Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, loc. 1800.
57

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

17

Literary context is the broader literary circumstance where the syntagmatic sense relation
takes place providing the background information of the text.61
Literary context and syntagmatic sense relations are normally part of exegetical
studies, but not syntagmatic-paradigmatic relations. Before defining this principle, it is
important to explain why syntagmatic-paradigmatic relation is valid for this research. In John
6, it is quite clear that δίδωμι “to give”, overlaps in meaning with ἕλκω because both are used
in the same context and were interchanged in the same phrase. In John 6:44, Jesus said, “no
one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws (ἑλκύσῃ) them.” Then in 6:65, Jesus
reminds his disciples what he said in 6:44, “this is why I told you that no one can come to me
unless the Father has enabled (δεδομένον) them.” Murray Harris pointed out that ἑλκύσῃ
corresponds also to δίδωσιν in 6:37, understanding that the Father gives people to the Son by
drawing them to him,62 but 6:65 suggests that ἕλκω and δίδωμι are interchangeable and are not
different stages of the same process. The use of the word ἔρχομαι (to come) having the crowd
as the subjects and the action as going to Jesus represents a key point in this syntagmaticparadigmatic relation because it is used in the verses with close relations to ἕλκω and δίδωμι
in John 6 (vv. 37, 44 and 65).
This structural relation between ἕλκω and δίδωμι is what lexicographers call
paradigmatic and syntagmatic relation. Silva explains, “We may say that words are in
paradigmatic relation insofar as they can occupy the same slot in a particular context (or
syntagma); they are in syntagmatic relation if they can enter into combinations that form a
context.”63 In other words, paradigmatic relations are when a word can replace another in a

61

Ibid., loc. 1822.
Murray Harris, John, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament, ed. Andreas Köstenberger and Robert
Yarbrough (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2015), 137.
63
Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, loc. 1510.
62

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

18

sentence. Syntagmatic relations are the word’s relation with the words that appear in the
sentence where it is used. This means that the way in which John used ἕλκω and δίδωμι in
John 6 with the same syntagmatic relationship also put these words in a paradigmatic
relationship.
1.2. Literature review
1.2.1. Dictionaries and Lexicons
This section will examine the definitions given by dictionaries and lexicons with the
purpose of exploring what has been said about the meaning of ἕλκω and the imprecisions of
the definitions regarding the use the word in John 6:44. The Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains by Louw and Nida provides only two semantic
domains of ἕλκω where the word is used only in the literal sense64. The definitions are: 1) “to
pull or drag, requiring force because of the inertia of the object being dragged”65 and 2) “to
drag or pull by physical force, often implying resistance.”66 The dictionary gives these
definitions based upon John 18:10; 21:6 and Acts 16:19, leaving aside John 21:11; Acts 21:30,
James 2:6 that could well be included in these two definitions. However, there is no mention
of the occurrences in what appear to be metaphorical uses in John 6:44 and 12:32. This does
not mean that the approach and method of Louw and Nida’s lexicon are wrong; they just omit
one semantic domain of ἕλκω, making their work incomplete in this particular case.
In contrast, the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early
Christian Literature by Walter Bauer et al. mentions every single occurrence in the New
Testament and provides three different definitions of ἕλκω. For Bauer, ἕλκω in John 6:44

In this paper, the literal sense of ἕλκω refers to an actual physical dragging or pulling of objects or people in
contrast with the metaphorical sense that refers to an abstract metaphysical drawing of a particular being.
65
Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 208.
66
Ibid., 205.
64

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

19

belongs to the definition “to draw a person in the direction of values for inner life,”67 which
seems to be disconnected from the literary context of John 6:44, where the Father is drawing
people to a person for eternal salvation, i.e. Jesus, and not to values for inner life through the
natural desires of human beings.68 BDAG is an invaluable tool to determine the meaning of a
word in the New Testament, but “we fool ourselves if we do not admit that, by and large, he
got [his definitions] from previous dictionaries.”69
One interesting article on ἕλκω is offered in the Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament by Albrecht Oepke. It is interesting because this article affirms that its particular
concern is with the figurative use of ἕλκω in John 6:44 and 12:32. After establishing the literal
use of helkō in the New Testament and the Apocrypha, it surveys different figurative usages
of the word. It notes that the word helkō was used to indicate as drawing an object to a place
by magic (Theocr. 2,17), drawing people as by a magnet (Eubulos Fr., 77) and Plato used the
term in Phaedrus talking about how the inner influence of the will draws people in a certain
moral direction.70
The dictionary also compares two terms of modern Semitic culture, maĝdûb and ĝ
maĝnûn, based upon the book Dämonenglaube im lande der Bibel by Taufik Canaan. The
dictionary explains that “maĝdûb (from ĝadaba, ‘to draw’) is one who is drawn to God by an
irresistible and supernatural force, whereas the magnun is a person indwelt by demons. The

Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 318. The other two definitions are: 1) “to move an
object from one area to another in a pulling motion, draw.” and 2) “to appear to be pulled in a certain direction,
flow.” Ibid., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 318.
68
Bauer’s definition seems to be more in line with Plato’s use of the word that the dictionary itself cites. Some
examples are: “but when desire takes command in us and drags (ἕλκω) us without reasoning toward pleasure”
(Phaedrus, 238), and “nature; which draws (ἕλκω) every one, however unwilling and reluctant, to its own
purposes” (Epictetus, 2, 20, 15).
69
Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, loc. 1754.
70
Gerhard Kittel et al., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, article written by Albrecht Oepke. Trans.
Geoffrey William Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), 503.
67

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

20

former is holy, elected by God and filled with His grace; the latter is the dwelling place of a
devil or one of his fellows.”71 Then, the dictionary makes some comments about the use in
the LXX, where the word is not used mainly as drawing people out of deliverance (Jer 45:13;
2 Sam 22:17), but of drawing oneself in love. In the end, it suggests that the usage of the LXX
is developed in John with some influence from Gnosticism.72
The first thing to be said about the approach of TDNT is that it says nothing about the
usage of ἕλκω related to their particular concern, which is John 6:44 and 12:32. Silva points
out that “when a discussion depends primarily or solely on the vocabulary, one may conclude
either that the writer is not familiar with the contents of Scripture or that Scripture itself says
little or nothing on the subject.”73 TDNT does not offer any syntactical reference as to how
ἕλκω is used in John 6:44 or how it is that the usage of ἕλκω in John is influenced by the LXX
and Gnosticism. It seems that TDNT’s methodology does not have to bother with the context
of ἕλκω in John 6:44 to explain its meaning. David Black observes that this could be the case
because TDNT treats words as if they were concepts and therefore “it implies incorrectly that
the words themselves contain the various theological meanings assigned to them. But the
meaning of words, as we have seen, is determined from the way they are used in context.”74
To prove this point, he concludes with an example saying that “we learn much more about the
doctrine of the church from a study of the Book of Ephesians than from a word study of
ἐκκλησία.”75 In the same way, we would learn more about the doctrine of the Father’s

71

Ibid., 503.
Ibid., 503-504.
73
Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, loc. 367.
74
Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, loc. 1499.
75
Ibid., loc. 1501.
72

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

21

drawing through a study of the gospel of John than a word study based upon solely the word
ἕλκω.
1.2.2. Biblical commentaries
In the search for the meaning of ἕλκω in John 6:44, biblical commentators do not use
lexicographical terms, but they comment on what could be the sense and referent of ἕλκω in
other terms. Concerning the sense of the word, Craig Keener points out that Jesus explains the
Father’s action of bringing people to him by “using biblical language for God drawing Israel
to himself in the wilderness or the exile (Jer 31:3 [38:3 LXX]; Hos 11:4).”76 These two verses
present God’s action as an act of compassion, everlasting love (Jer 31:3) and human kindness
(Hos 11:4). These characteristics are in line with D.A. Carson’s commentary when he says
that the drawing of the Father “is not by the savage constraint of a rapist, but by the wonderful
wooing of a lover.”77 Interestingly, Carson based his commentary not on the last two verses,
but on the quote in John 6:45 from a paraphrase of Isaiah 54:13, “they will all be taught by
God.” This would have pointed the mind of the audience to the promise of the restoration of
Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile.78
Herman Ridderbos connects Isaiah 54:13 with Jeremiah 31:33-34 where both texts
have the idea of future salvation “where to a confused and needy Israel the promise is given
that God himself will impart to them the true knowledge of salvation that they so direly
lack.”79 So, the sense of ἕλκω seems to be in line with the idea of God’s loving action to bring

76

Keener, The Gospel of John, 685.
D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 293.
78
Ibid., 296.
79
Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 232-233.
77

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

22

people to salvation.80 Other texts that would reinforce this idea are 2 Sa 22:17 and Psalms
18:16 where read the same phrase: “He reached down from on high and took hold of me; he
drew me out of deep waters.” In both texts, King David praises God for saving him from the
hands of his enemies and Saul.
These two verses raise an interesting and important point about the use of ἕλκω in the
LXX. The use of ἕλκω in the LXX is hard to conceptualize, not only because it does not have
a single Hebrew equivalent, but it also translates a Hebrew verb in the same phrase and
context with different Greek words, of which ἕλκω is one of them. In Hebrew, 2 Samuel 22:17
and Psalms 18:16 reads ‫ י ְִשלח ִממָ רוֹם יִקָ חֵ נִ י י ְמשֵ נִ י ִממ ִים רבִ ים‬but the LXX translates the verb ‫י ְמשֵ נִ י‬
yamšēni in 2 Samuel 22:17 LXX as εἵλκυσέ, and in Psalm 18:16 (Psalm 17:17 LXX) as
προσελάβετό, which elsewhere can be translated as “take”, “receive” or “accept”.81 So, this
Hebrew line reads the same in 2 Samuel 22:17 and Psalm 18:16. The LXX instead, presents
different vocabulary in both verses in a way that it is not significant for the discussion.
This shows that the LXX did not have a specific Hebrew referent for ἕλκω or that
ἕλκω had a specific theological meaning in itself. Instead, this suggests that the different
referents or specific meanings of ἕλκω in translations change depending on the context and the
usage that the translator had in mind. This could just also by the result of the human factor in
the LXX, that is the many translators for different books in the LXX.
In respect to the specific referent in John 6:44, there are some general agreements
among commentators. Ramsey Michaels affirms that the quotation in John 6:45 “they all will
be taught by God” has the purpose of explaining Jesus’s metaphor of the Father’s drawing. A

80

For other commentaries that agree with this statement, see William Barclay, The Gospel of John, 220 and F. F.
Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), 156.
81
Frederick Danker, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (London: The University of
Chicago Press, 2009) 305.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

23

person is “drawn” to Jesus by being “taught by God.”82 In the same way, D.A. Carson says
that the drawing is “a teaching, an illumination implanted within the individual.”83 Others
point out that the Father draws through the proclamation of the cross (John 12:32-33)84 but
Carson claims that the contexts of these two passages are very different and the use of the
same verb is not determinative.85 The disagreement starts when they try to comment on the
nature of the drawing. Here is where the theological debate between predestination and human
free will are imposed upon the exegesis of John 6:44.
For example, Carson does not hesitate to classify the process of the Father giving and
drawing people to Jesus as predestinarian (John 6:37, 44)86 but fails to explain what he means
by this term. Emmanuel Tukasi shares this opinion by saying “the responses of the characters
to Jesus in John are predetermined by not just the fulfillment of the Scripture but also an
outworking of the prior election of the Father in the giving of some to the Son.”87 The sole
argument by Carson is that the combination of verses 37 and 44, by the repetition of the verb
“to come”, proves that the Father’s drawing is not for every single individual, because
otherwise, this would imply the salvation of all human beings. Those who are given and
drawn inevitably come to Jesus and without these divine actions it is impossible for them to
come. So, if all people do not come, it means that not all people are given or drawn by the
Father and therefore are unable to even come to Jesus.88 Even if their argument is correct, and

82

Michaels, The Gospel of John, 386. See also, Köstenberger, John, 214 and Ridderbos, The Gospel According
to John, 233.
83
Carson, The Gospel According to John, 293.
84
Keener, The Gospel of John, 685 and Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, , vol. 2 (New
York: Seabury Press, 1980), 50.
85
D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension, New
Foundations Theological Library (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), 185.
86
Carson, The Gospel According to John, 290.
87
Tukasi, Emmanuel. 2005. "Determinism and Petitionary Prayer in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Ideological
Reading of John and the Rule of Community (1QS)" PhD diss., University of London, 175.
88
Carson, The Gospel According to John, 293.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

24

I agree with it, that does not entail a predetermined election from eternity past or that the
process of giving and drawing of the Father prohibits any kind of human choice. If the key for
the combination of the verses is the verb “to come”, why do they not include in their argument
John 6:45 that mentions that those who have heard and learned from the Father come to Jesus?
In the end, Carson admits that “despite the strong predestinarian strain, it must be
insisted with no less vigor that John emphasizes the responsibility of people to come to Jesus,
and can excoriate them for refusing to do so (e.g., John 5:40).”89 This conclusion entails a
tension in the compatibility or logical coherence between God’s sovereignty and human free
will. In contrast, this research will labor to demonstrate that it is not necessary to argue for a
tension in the gospel of John when an accurate exegesis is done. As stated below, the drawing
is God’s teaching available for Jesus’s audience and anyone who heard and learned from the
Father is part of those to whom the Father has given and those who are drawn by him. As
Keener says, “the Father’s witness should, therefore, be sufficient to bring those who are truly
the remnant of God’s people to Jesus.”90 In other words, “anyone who chooses to do the will
of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.”
(John 7:17) If somebody did not learn from the Father and does not want to do his will, he/she
will be unable to come to Jesus in the same way that if Jesus’s audience did not believe in
Moses, how are they going to believe what Jesus says? (John 5:47).
1.3. Summation and Need for the Current Study
The task of this chapter has been to highlight the ambiguities of the lexicons and the
imprecision of most biblical commentaries without exaggerating, as there needs to be a right
and clear interpretation of ἕλκω with accurate lexicological and theological methodologies

89
90

Ibid., 293.
Keener, The Gospel of John, 685-686.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

25

because John 6:44 addresses soteriology, Christology, human inability and more. The
importance and urgency of this kind of work is highlighted by Louw and Nida when they say,
“in no area of New Testament studies is there such a dearth of valid information and such a
wealth of misinformation as in lexical semantics.”91 The material available in biblical
commentaries and lexicons, not only demonstrate the disconnection between biblical theology
and lexical semantics. They also show that an accurate definition of ἕλκω is still lacking in
academia.
Also, the author argues that, when the research is finished, a correct understanding of the
ἕλκω in John 6:44 will bring more light for resolving the tension between the sovereignty of
God and human free will in the gospel of John, simply because this verse has been a key point
in the debates. Finally, this research will aim to be a resource for future biblical studies related
to lexical semantics which Christians so deeply need in order to understand and apply the
word of God.

91

Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament, 1.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

26

Chapter 2: Diachronic study of ἕλκω
2.1. Classical Greek Philosophy and Poetry
In historical terms, the classical period of Greece started with the end of the Persian
wars in 479 BC, marking the end of the archaic period,92 and ended in 323 BC with the death
of Alexander the Great. David Black argues that the language of the classical period, that
began with the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer around 800 BC, is generally Attic Greek in terms
of extant Greek literature. Attic Greek was the language of Greek literature in general,
including the philosophers and poets from the classical period.93 This information is essential
because the language from the Attic Greek, modified by encounters with other languages,
provided the basis for the Koine Greek which was used by the author of the gospel of John.94
Therefore, this chapter will survey the types of uses of ἕλκω in Greek philosophers and poets
from the classical period of Greece.95
The use of the word ἕλκω presents a wide range of meaning that can be divided into
literal uses and other connotations that point to different abstract actions in classical Greek
philosophy and poetry. The follow categories used to describe the uses of ἕλκω are the result
of this diachronic study, although they may have similarity with other descriptions in
dictionaries (see below).
In my review of its uses, I found that ἕλκω is mostly used to describe the movement of
subjects and objects in two different contexts: a) violent dragging of people and corpses and b)
drawing, hauling or moving people, animals or objects. In the first context of the usage, the

92

David Sacks, Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World, rev. by Lisa Brody (New York: Facts on File Inc.,
2005), xi-xii.
93
Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, loc. 1847.
94
Ibid., loc. 1852
95
All the quotes of the survey of classical Greek philosophy and poetry are from “Perseus Digital Library,” ed.
Gregory R. Crane. http:// www.perseus.tufts.edu/.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

27

Iliad of Homer (800 BC)96 describes the Trojan children are being hauled (ἑλκομένας) away
covered violently by the Achaeans (22.65), a man began to drag (ἕλκε) a Trojan towards the
Achaeans (3.370) and the warrior Idomeneus dragged (εἷλκε) Othryoneus by the foot through
a great battle (13.383).97 In Odyssey (725 BC), Odysseus seized his enemy by the foot and
dragged (ἕλκε) him (18.101).98 In Trojan Women of Euripides (415 BC), Aias dragged (εἷλκε)
away Cassandra against her will (70) and in Heracleidae (430 BC), a man who does not
respect the gods drags (ἕλκει) Iolaus by force from the steps of the altar (79).99 In Hellenica of
Xenophon (410 BC), Satyrus dragged (εἷλκον) Theramenes away from the altar100 and
Demosthenes, dealing with different court trials, used ἕλκω to refer to possible violent
dragging by the State as acts of justice against wrongdoers101 and by civilians as acts of
injustice against other civilians.102 In the case of dragging human corpses, the Corinthians
dragged (ἑλκύσαντες) the bodies to the wall (Hellenica 7.1.19)103 and, in a dramatic scene,
Achilles dragged the corpse of Hector, the prince of Troy (Iliad 24.15, 24.52 and 24.417).
Continuing with the results of my review, another use of ἕλκω in the literal sense is
drawing, hauling or moving people, animals or objects. In the Hymn 4 to Hermes (750 BC),
Hephaestus dragged (εἷλκε) out two cows with long horns (4.116)104 and in Hymn 2 to

96

This date, and the following ones, refers to the approximate year when the literature was written.
A.T. Murray, Homer: The Iliad, Loeb Classical Library:170 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924). Cf.
also in Iliad 4.465, 10.15, 11.258-259, 16.406, 18.156.
98
A.T. Murray, Homer: Odyssey, Loeb Classical Library: 104 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919). See
also in Odyssey 18.10-12, 21.300, 16.276.
99
David Kovacs, Euripides IV, Loeb Classical Library: 10 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999). See
also in Heracleidae 225; Hippolytus 1084; Andromacha 108 and Hecuba 1282. David Kovacs, Euripides II,
Loeb Classical Library: 484 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995).
100
Xenophon. Xenophon, translated by Carleton L. Brownson (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986).
101
A.T. Murray, Demosthenes (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939), Against Androtion 22.56 and 22.53.
102
Against Midias 21.221, Against Pantaenetus 37.42, Against Evergus and Mnesibulus 47.59 and Against
Conon 54.20.
103
For similar use, see also Iliad 17.289, 17.393, 18.537, 22.398 and Hippolytus 1221, 1237.
104
Homer and Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns and Homerica, translated by Hugh G. Evelyn-White (Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1914). Cf. also Cyropaedia 1.6.39 of Xenophon.
97

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

28

Demeter (750 BC), it mentions that in the fields the oxen drew (εἷλκον) many ploughs
(2.308).105 In Heracles (415 BC), Euripides mentions a loving wife drawing her babes along
as they cling to her legs (446)106 and in Ion, Creusa was drawing her tutor to the temple
because he had a dim sight (738).107 Lastly, ἕλκω is also used to refer to the action of drawing
objects, even those as small as a ticket in a raffle.108 In the Iliad it is translated as “pulling” a
ship (14.76), ship-timber (17.743) and a chariot (23.533).109 It is also translated in different
actions that sailors can perform in a ship, like for example in Hellenica, as “towed” a ship
(6.2.36) and in the Hymn 7 to Dionysus as mark the wind and help hoist sail (ἕλκεο) on the
ship (7.26, 7.32). This kind of use of ἕλκω is also present in the court trials of Demosthenes
(Against Polycles 50.22 and 50.32.), the poems of Euripides (Iphiniea Taurica 1427 and
Rhesus 576) and Xenophon (Hellenica 6.2.36). In regards to the use of different weapons for
battle, in the Iliad it mentions the drawing of a sword (1.194), an arrow (4.213), a bow (4.122)
and a spear (5.665).110
In abstract uses of ἕλκω there are three different connotations: 1) Inward forces or
desires that draw a person to moral tensions denoting a psychological struggle between good
and evil, 2) drawing of the soul by the senses or desires of the body during intellectual enquiry
denoting how biological elements influence an individual’s pursuit of knowledge and 3)

105

Ibid., for other mentions of this sort see Iliad 10.353, 17.743, 20.404, 22.465, 23.518, 24.324; Odyssey 13.32;
Works and days 469 of Hesiod and Trojan Women 670.
106
David Kovacs, Suppliant women: Electra; Heracles, Loeb Classical Library: 9 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2015).
107
For similar use see also in Iliad 17.136; Odyssey 19.506; Trojan Women 280, Hippolytus 1361; Phoenissae
303; Anabasis 5.2.15; Memmoralibia 3.6.1 and 3.11.18.
108
H. Rackman, Aristotle: in 23 Volumes (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952) Athenian Constitution
64.1.
109
For other examples see Iliad 2.165, 9.683, 14.97,14.100; Odyssey 2.416, 3.153, 15.291
110
For other examples of the use of weapons see Iliad 11.239, 11.398, 11.457, 11.583, 16.504; Odyssey 21.419
and Anabasis 4.2.28.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

29

drawing people to make determinations through different means.111 These three uses of ἕλκω
are conclusions from the analysis of the author of this research. The first group is related to
the idea of Plato that human beings, in the moment of making moral decisions, have pulling
forces that draw them to either good or evil. This is clear in the three uses of ἕλκω in Laws
(400 BC), but especially in this next quote:
But this we do know, that these inward affections of ours, like sinews or cords,
drag us along and, being opposed to each other, pull one against the other to
opposite actions; and herein lies the dividing line between goodness and badness.
For, as our argument declares, there is one of these pulling (ἕλξεων) forces
which every man should always follow and [know] how leave holds of,
counteracting thereby the pull of the other sinews.112
These inward forces do not casually determine what a person will do because it is
stated that it is necessary for the individual man to grasp the most valuable of these inward
pulling (ἕλξεων) forces and to live in accordance with it.113 The second use of ἕλκω points to
the difficulties that the soul has when it engages in an investigation through the senses of the
body. The first category relates to the moral tensions caused by theses inward forces, but in
this case, it is the soul that is being drawn by the physical body during the enquiry, influencing
the final results of the investigation. A quote in Phaedo (360 BC) explains this dynamic:
Haven't we also said some time ago that when the soul makes use of the body to
investigate something, be it through hearing or seeing or some other sense—for
to investigate something through the body is to do it through the senses—it is
dragged (ἕλκεται) by the body to the things that are never the same, and the soul
itself strays and is confused and dizzy, as if it were drunk, in so far as it is in
contact with that kind of thing?114

111

There are some quotes that do not fit in these four groups. One is in Symposium 1.9 of Xenophon that
mentions a physical attraction due to the beauty of Autolycus that compelled (εἷλκε) everyone to look at him.
Another particular use is in Theatetus 195c where ἕλκω refers to a person who extent the time of his argument
with the only purpose of sounding smart.
112
Plato, Plato in Twelve Volumes, trans. Harold Fowler, vol. 7 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966),
Laws 1.644e. See also Laws 8.837b. These pulling tendencies can also bring “drawing” towards philosophy
(Republic 494e.1) and “draw” to virtue (Republic 547b.2).
113
Ibid., Laws 1.645b.
114
Ibid., Phaedo 79c.6. See also Phaedo 81c.10 and 94b.9.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

30

Another example is in Phaedrus (375 BC) where it says, “when opinion leads through
reason toward the best and is more powerful, its power is called self-restraint, but when desire
irrationally drags (ἑλκούσης) us toward pleasures and rules within us, its rule is called
excess.”115 The third group of the use of ἕλκω refers to drawing people to make decisions or
conclusions through different means. This is seen when Plato talks about how Pericles drew
(εἵλκυσεν) principles for the art of speaking from the teachings of Anaxagoras.116 An
individual attracted (ἕλκεσθαι) by an argument and urgent persuasion to make him agree with
an opinion,117 Plato being pulled (ἑλκόντων) by the entreaties of the Sicilians and Italians so
Plato would agree with them,118 when teachers attract (ἑλκόντων) hearers towards the life that
is right119 and arguments based upon love can persuade (ἕλκειν) the multitude to the true.120
This use seems to carry the characteristic of meditating by the person who is being drawn in
order to get to a final state in the mind or in reality.
2.2. Non-biblical Hellenistic Judaism
This section will cover the two Hellenistic Jewish writers who are most relevant for
our research: the philosopher Philo of Alexandria and the historian Flavius Josephus. They
differ from other Hellenistic Jewish writers in that they are contemporaneous to the
beginnings of the early Church and they were the two major Jewish prose writers of the
Hellenistic age.121 Although both are useful for this research, Philo´s writings are more vital
because his themes and style are more similar to the gospel of John than Josephus´s writings,

115

Ibid., Phaedrus 238a.1. For other uses of the same sort see also Republic 439d.1 and 577e.
Ibid., Phaedo 270a.
117
Ibid., Sophist 256d-265e.
118
Ibid., Epistles 7.339d.
119
Ibid., Laws 10.890a.
120
Ibid., Republic 458d.
121
James Barr, “Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism.
Volume 2: The Hellenistic Age, eds. W.D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2008), 104.
116

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

31

who is more concerned with historical facts than philosophical and theological reflections.122
David Scholer affirms that “Philo is significant for lexical and conceptual terms and ideas that
are reflected in the language of the New Testament.”123 This is because Philo is discussed in
most of the articles of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and The New
International Dictionary of New Testament Theology has about 500 references to specific
citations of Philo.124
Philo used ἕλκω fifteen times mostly referring to an inner force that leads people to
internal values or moral decisions denoting a psychological struggle between good and evil in
a person,125 similar to one use in classical Greek philosophy and one of BDAG’s definitions
(see above). Some examples of this are: attracted (εἵλκυσται) willingly or unwillingly by the
temptations of pleasure (Husbandry 1:103), being drawn (ἑλκόμεθα) by every kind of passion
either willingly or in spite of the individuals (Drunkenness 1:63), draw (ἕλξω) threats to
oneself (Embassy 1:262), being drawn (ἀνθέλκεται) by piety to good deeds towards others
(QG 4:202), men being drawn (ἕλκοντας) to a downfall of problems caused by the pursuing of
unlimited desires of lust (Posterity 1:116), souls being dragged (ἑλκυσθεῖσαι) downwards by
the heavy burden of the flesh (Giants. 10:31),126 the mind is being drawn (εἱλκυσμένης)
upwards to truth (Heir 1:70) and desires dragging (ἑλκούσης) us by force to the pursuit of
present pleasures (Moses 2:139).

122

Josephus´s writings are included in the survey despite being historical in genre because, different from
Herodotus´s The Histories, they use ἕλκω in both in the literal and metaphorical sense and they are
chronologically remarkably close to the writings of the Gospel of John.
123
Philo of Alexandria. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by C. D. Yonge. E-book
edition (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), In foreword: “An Introduction to Philo Judaeus of
Alexandria”.
124
Ibid., in foreword: “An Introduction to Philo Judaeus of Alexandria”.
125
There is only one use of ἕλκω that does not fit in this definition. The quote is in On Abraham 1:65 where talks
about a longing (ἑλχθέντες) for a union with one´s kids.
126
This quote also reflects the influence of Plato’s dynamic between soul and flesh on Philo. Cf. Phaedo 79c.6,
81c.10 and 94b.9.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

32

The use of ἕλκω in the last quote is similar to the one in Plato’s writings on the subject
of inner forces that draw a person to moral principles or values. In Husbandry 1:103 and
Drunkenness 1:63 there is the fight against the two wills inside of humans just like in Laws
1.644e and 1.645b of Plato. Both philosophers concur that humans should escape from these
passions (On Husbandry 1:103) and always follow the pulling force that leads to goodness
(Laws 1.644e). This influence and Philo’s goal of proving that the best of Greek philosophy
agreed with the Hebrew Scriptures, show the influence of Plato´s thought in the writings of
Philo. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy some Jews believed that Plato
was inspired by Moses’s writings. It is supposed that this idea was popularized by Aristobulus
of Paneas, a Jewish philosopher from the second century BC. However, Philo associated this
idea with prudence (Spec. 2.164-167).127
The other occasions of ἕλκω refer to different literal drawings of people or objects like
a dragging (ἕλκουσιν) noise of thunder (Abraham 1:161), dragged (ἕλκεται) a person
downwards by the ornament around his neck (Joseph 1:150), dragging (ἕλκει) the enemy
violently with halters around their necks (Moses 2:252), men being dragged (εἷλκον) by force
as prisoners (Flaccus 1:70), officers dragging (εἷλκον) a man by force in spite of all his
resistance (Flaccus 1:188) and a wire attracted (ἕλκεσθαι) by a magnet (Rewards 1:58). The
literal use in Philo’s writings shows no real distinction with the literal use of ἕλκω in Greek
philosophy or poetry.
Flavius Josephus’s use of ἕλκω can be divided in four groups: 1) the action of
weighing metals and gold, 2) literal drawing of people or objects, 3) drawing an army or

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. “Philo of Alexandria,” accessed February 17, 2021,
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/philo/>.
127

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

33

person by trickery and 4) the act of provoking an action against another.128 These uses of ἕλκω
are also conclusions from the analysis of the research’s author. The first one is found in the
Antiquities of the Jews, where ἕλκω is used for the action of weighing (εἷλκον) two hundred
shekels of silver or gold (A.J. 3.221), the crown of the king of the Ammonites, whose weight
(ἕλκοντα) was a talent of gold (A.J. 5.33) and Absalom´s hair that weighed (ἕλκουσαν) two
hundred shekels (A.J. 7.161.).129
As expected, the second group has more appearances in Josephus than any other
because of the historical genre of his writings. Note that this literal drawing of people or
objects is also the most occurrent category in the classical Greek period, especially in Homer
and the historical accounts of Herodotus. This use appears nine times in Antiquities of the
Jews and The Wars of the Jews combined as follows: the brethren and children of Aminadab
draw (ἕλκειν) the ark (A.J. 7.79), Herod drew (προέλκων) a young man to a lonely place (A.J.
15.53), Claudius was carried (ἕλκεσθαι) to execution (A.J. 19.221), Herod pulled (εἷλκεν) the
houses of his enemies into pieces (J.W. 1.338), innocent people were led (εἷλκεν) to torture
(J.W. 1.591), Manahem was drawn (ἐξείλκυσαν) out to be tortured (J.W. 2.448), animals were
led (ἑλκομένου) to be sacrificed (J.W. 4.170), big fishes are drawn (ἕλκουσιν) into a ship by
labourers (J.W. 4.480), the Romans almost draw (εἵλκυσαν) fire upon the temple (J.W. 5.444)
and pulled (εἷλκον) money out of bowels (J.W. 5.560).

128

There are two uses that do not fit with these groups that are in Antiquities of the Jews 13.234 where a siege is
being drawn out into length as extended in time more than necessary and Antiquities of the Jews 8:47 where
Solomon drew (ἐξεῖλκεν) demons out through his nostrils.
129
Flavius Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whiston (London: Thomas Nelson
Publisher, 1873). Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon contains one category with similar occurrences in
Herodotus and Eupolis. See Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. by Henry Stuart Jones,
9th ed. (London: Clarendon Press, 1996), 535.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

34

The third group defined as drawing an army or person by trickery has four
occurrences. Three occasions indicate enticement as a battle strategy: Joshua made his
enemies believe he retired, and by that means, he drew (ἕλκει) them a great way from the city
(A.J. 5.45); Apollonius made as if he was retiring from the battle, and so drew (ἕλκει)
Jonathan into the plain (A.J. 13.92); and when Placidus enticed (ἑλκύσας) the Romans to
pursue him a great way along the plain (J.W. 4.60). In the fourth instanve trickery is used,
when Dellius talked extravagantly, and said that the young men, Anthony and Aristobulos
were very beautiful in such a way that they seemed not derived from men, but from God. His
purpose in doing so was to entice (ἑλκύσαι) them into lewd pleasures with him (A.J. 15.27).
Finally, the fourth category happens in three occurrences, two of them deal with the
cause of the war between Rome and the Jews, at least in some detail. In his introduction to
The Wars of the Jews Josephus explains that it was the seditious temper of a group of tyrants
among his countrymen that brought (εἵλκυσαν) the Roman power upon them and occasioned
the burning of their holy temple (J.W. 1.10-11). The people of Jerusalem quarrelled about the
Roman government, and brought (εἵλκυσαν) upon their settlement the Roman army led by
Pompey (J.W. 1.19). Then, there is one occasion where the provocation is done with the use of
calumnies in a spiteful manner to a group of young men with the intention of provoking
(προέλκοντες) violence against their father (A.J. 16:69).
2.3. Apocrypha
The Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books are writings that were included in the
LXX or in the Old Latin and Vulgate translations but are not part of the Hebrew Bible text
which is the canon for Judaism.130 These writings are included in this research because they

130

Michael Coogan et al., The New Oxford Annotated Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments, 4th ed.
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 1361.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

35

are close to the date, culture and theology of the gospel of John. Also, it is part of the
Septuagint that has a major influence in the sense of ἕλκω in John 6:44.
In the Apocrypha, ἕλκω appears twelve times and it can be easily divided into literal
use and abstract actions with different connotations just as the previous sections. In none of
the uses of ἕλκω in Apocrypha God is the subject of the verb, but here in one occurrence God
is related to the action of the drawing (Wisdom of Salomon 19:4). None of the revised usages
above had God in relation with the action of drawing.
Nine of these occurrences are in 1st, 3rd and 4th Maccabees, twice in Wisdom of
Solomon and once in Sirach. As in the classical Greek period and Non- biblical Hellenistic
Judaism, ἕλκω is used mostly in the literal sense all in Maccabees as follows: Simon brought
(εἵλκυσεν) forward his force against the army of Apollonius (1 Macc. 10:82), the friends and
bodyguards of the king Ptolemy dragged (ἐξείλκυσαν) the king out after seeing God’s
punishment on him (3 Macc. 2:23), many Jews were violently dragged (εἵλκοντο) away in
public because of Ptolemy’s genocidal decree (3 Macc. 4:7), babies who were drawing
(ἕλκοντα) their last milk from their mothers (3 Macc. 5:49), breaking (περιέλκω) fingers arms
and legs (4 Macc. 10:6) and guards tied up and dragged (εἷλκον) a man to the catapult to be
tortured (4 Macc. 11:9).
The abstract actions appear in 4 Maccabees, Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon as
follows: people not being attracted (ἐφέλκω) through melodies (4 Macc. 15:21) denoting the
lack of sympathy of people towards a suffering mother. This same mother, who endured the
torture and death of her seven sons, draws (ἕλκουσα) all that pain towards sympathy, showing
her willingness to suffer with her sons (4 Macc. 14:13). In the same context, many factors
were influencing (ἑλκόντων) the mother to suffer with her children out of her love for them (4

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

36

Macc. 15:11). Although these two uses are not exclusive compared with the other revised
writings, they show the action of the drawing as sympathy for the suffering of others in a
voluntary decision of bringing phycological suffering to oneself. Other examples are: happy is
the man who has not borne (εἵλκυσεν) the yoke of the tongue’s anger (Sirach 28:19),
describing the wellbeing of someone who did not suffer the consequences of gossip, a
multitude attracted (ἐφέλκω) by the charm work of a person who made an idol (Wisdom of
Solomon 14:20), illustrating the acceptance and admiration of the multitude towards a person
and a fate that evildoers deserved drew (εἷλκεν) them on to a terrible end (Wisdom of
Solomon 19:4) denoting the inevitable punishment of evildoers.
This last use could be misunderstood as a deterministic drawing of God that eliminates
human free will, but the context shows otherwise. In the context of Wisdom of Solomon 19:4,
the writer explains that the Egyptians released the Hebrews out of Egypt after they suffered
the death of their firstborns but later, they repented of this action and chased the Hebrews to
destroy them. The writer clarifies that all this was known by God beforehand (19:1) and this
happened so “they might fill up the punishment which was yet lacking to their torments.”
(19:4) So, God had foreknowledge of the fate of the Egyptians which was accomplished
through the free decisions of the Egyptians of pursuing “as fugitives those whom with
entreaties they had cast out.” (19:3) There is no sign that the Egyptians were forced to do what
caused their destruction, but there is the clarification that God knew what they would do and
he drew the Egyptians to their ultimate fate through their wicked decisions.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

37

2.4. The Septuagint131
In relation to vocabularies and their meaning, scholars have been discussing the
importance of the relationship and influence of the LXX on the NT. In his Greek-English
Lexicon, Walter Bauer affirmed: “as for the influence of the LXX, every page of this lexicon
shows that it outweighs all other influences on our literature.”132 However, there are different
opinions about what kind of influence the LXX has on the vocabulary of the NT. The
conclusion of what this influence is will have implications in the interpretation of Greek
words in the NT. These scholarly opinions are more focused in providing general principles
that go beyond the specificity of this research, but they are important to consider to avoid false
premises of study.133
Karen Jobes and Moises Silva warn that students who consult the LXX with the only
purpose of gaining more information about the NT face the danger of a great misuse of the
material because “the effort must be made to understand the Greek OT on its own terms
before using it for something else.”134 This presents the challenge of understanding the
linguistic dynamics in the LXX, specifically, in its use of ἕλκω. So, it is important to
acknowledge that, for the most part, the use of a lexeme is a matter of lexical choice and that
choice is limited by the lexical structure of the writer’s language135 or in this case, the Hebrew
and Greek languages. This means that because the LXX is a translation, it will not be enough
just to survey the occurrences of ἕλκω, but also to examine the Hebrew words translated as
ἕλκω.

131

For organizational reasons, the Septuagint (LXX) refers only to the translation of the Hebrew canon.
Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, xxii.
133
For a survey about this topic consult Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, loc. 692-853 and Karen Jobes
and Moises Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 184-189.
134
Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 184.
135
Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, loc. 835.
132

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

38

The examination of these Hebrew words does not have to be exhaustive instead, it
should be limited to their similarities to ἕλκω and to the purpose of this research. As
mentioned before, this research focuses on the concept of the drawing of the Father in John
6:44 and the uses that are similar to this context will provide progress to achieve the purpose
of the study. The examination of the uses of ἕλκω and the Hebrew words translated as ἕλκω
will bring light to the understanding of the drawing of the Father in John 6:44 because the
LXX and NT share conceptual unity while, at the same time, they could have linguistic
differences.136 The LXX was the Bible of the disciples of Jesus and the Church Fathers. As
Adolf Deissmann claimed, the books of the NT “in respect to their contents, are immensely
indebted to the Septuagint Bible.”137
In the LXX there are thirty-three occurrences of ἕλκω that can be divided literal use
and abstract actions as well.138 In the literal sense, the word occurs seventeen times where
physical objects and people are being drawn or pulled by animals or humans, just as the
category in the classical Greek period and Non-biblical Hellenistic Judaism. Examples of
humans drawing or pulling physically other humans are when the merchants of Midian drew
(ἐξείλκυσαν) and lifted Joseph out of the pit (Gn. 37:28), evildoers draw (ἑλκύσαι) the poor to
ravish them (Ps. 10:9 [LXX 9:30]), when Abdemelech and his men drew (εἵλκυσαν) Jeremiah
with ropes, and lifted him out of the dungeon (Jer.38:13 [LXX 45:13]). In relation to animals
or objects, ἕλκω is used to describe the drawing of a sword,139 someone who takes (ἕλκει)
away a garment (Pro. 30:33 [LXX 25:20]), the drawing (ἕλκοντες) of a pen (Jdg. 5:14),

136

Ibid., loc. 3202.
Adolf Deissmann, The Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future, trans. Lionel Strachan (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1908), 10.
138
There is one occasion where God’s punishment, describe as Destruction, is the subject of ἕλκω referring to
when a punishment brings (ἑλκύσαι) ruin to a house (Job 20:28). It is not clear if this use should be categorized
as metaphorical or literal.
139
Jdg. 20:2, 15, 17, 25, 35, 46.
137

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

39

drawing (ἕλκοντος) a saw in order to work (Is. 10:15), an ox drawing or working with a yoke
(Dt. 21:3 and Job 39:10) and a man pulling (εἵλκυσεν) fishes out of the water with a net (Hab.
1:15). Then there are two uses which refer to the sun draws (ἕλκει) back to its place (Ecc. 1:5)
and a fire rush (εἷλκεν) forth before the Ancient of days (Dn. 7:10).
In the abstract actions, ἕλκω is used fifteen times in different contexts having humans,
God and Satan as subjects of the verb. With humans as the subject, ἕλκω translates as:
drawing (ἕλκυσον) wisdom that is more valuable than gold and crystal (Job 28:18) describing
the action and value of gaining wisdom, breathing or panting (εἵλκυσα) as an expression of
longing for God’s commandments (Psa. 119:131 [LXX Psa. 118:131]; see also Jer. 14:6),
drawing or immersing (ἑλκύσαι) oneself into wine (Ecc. 2:3), denoting a big amount of wine
consumption, not longing to draw (ἐξελκύσῃς) the night near (Job 36:20), describing the
danger of being entice by evil, drawing (εἵλκυσάν) closer to his loved one (Sng. 1:4) and
David asking God not to draw (συνέλκω) his soul with sinners (Psa. 28:3 [LXX Psa. 27:3])
denoting a request to not be condemned.
With God as the subject, ἕλκω translates as: God drawing (εἵλκυσέν) an individual out
of deep waters (2 Sam. 22:17 LXX and Psa. 18:1), illustrating salvation from agony. God
draws (εἵλκυσά) his people with kindness and love (Jer. 31:3 [LXX Jer. 38:3]), denoting
salvation from exile and restoration of Israel. God causes the evildoer to vomit or draw out
(ἕλκων) the riches he swallowed (Job 20:15), denoting God’s judgement to the evildoer. God
is patient (εἵλκυσας) with his stubborn people (Neh. 9:30 [LXX Esd. B 19:30]), denoting
God’s love to his people. God strikes (ἕλκει) the Egyptians with diseases (Dt. 28:27 and 35),
showing God’s judgement and with the permission of God the Devil strikes (ἕλκει) Job (Job
2:7), denoting the Devil’s afflictions to Job.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

40

The Hebrew words translated as ἕλκω in the LXX are fourteen. The word with more
occurrences is ‫ מָ שְך‬māšak (8), followed by ‫ שָ לף‬šālap (5), ‫ שָ אף‬šā’ap (3) and ‫ זָכר‬zākar (2).
Then, ‫ מָ שָ ה‬māšāh, ‫ ירש‬yaraš, ‫ ָגלָה‬gālâ, ‫ שָ דד‬sādad, ‫ ִמיץ‬mîṣ, ‫ זָרח‬zāraḥ, ‫ נּוף‬nûp, ‫ נְפק‬nĕpaq and
‫ אָ סף‬ʾāsap are translated as ἕλκω once each. For the purpose of this study, the words with
relevance are ‫ מָ שְך‬māšak and ‫ מָ שָ ה‬māšāh because of their strong similarities with the use of
ἕλκω in John 6:44 in their translations to ἕλκω, contrary to the other words that are not related
to the idea of God bringing people to salvation.140
The word ‫ מָ שְך‬māšak has thirty-six occurrences in the Hebrew Bible; nine of those are
with God as the subject of the action. With God as the subject, ‫ מָ שְך‬māšak is translated twice
as ἕλκω in Jer 31:3 (LXX 38:3), “The Lord appeared to us in the past, saying: I have loved
you with an everlasting love; I have drawn (‫ שְךָמ‬māšak /ἕλκω) you with unfailing kindness”
and in Nehemiah 9:30 (LXX Esd B 19:30), “for many years you were patient (‫ מָ שְך‬māšak
/ἕλκω) with them. By your Spirit you warned them through your prophets. Yet they paid no
attention, so you gave them into the hands of the neighboring peoples.” In Jer. 31:3, the
prophet reminds Israel that in the past and present, they have found grace in the wilderness
that would ultimately bring their restoration from exile.141 This grace, everlasting love and
compassion are the components of God’s drawing towards his people. The process of
liberating Israel from captivity was done through the destruction of the nations who oppressed
Israel (Jer. 30:11) and punishment to Israel because of its sins with the purpose of healing the
wounds that God himself did to them (Jer. 30:13-14). These two acts of justice from God are

140

With the use of a Hebrew-Greek interlinear, anyone can revise the verses where the other Hebrew words were
translated as ἕλκω and the reason why they do not fit with the context of John 6:44. Because all the uses of ἕλκω
in the LXX where already mentioned above, the author decided that it was unnecessary to revise them all again
with their Hebrew equivalent.
141
Jack Lundbom, Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible: Vol. 21,
1st ed. (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 413.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

41

the means by which he performed his kind and lovely drawing and made his people say: “You
disciplined me like an unruly calf, and I have been disciplined. Restore me, and I will return,
because you are the Lord my God” (Jer. 31:18). God’s punishment, judgement, wrath, mercy
and love acted together in the restoration of Israel expressed as a lovely and kind drawing.
This kind of treatment and irony is seen also in Hosea 2:13-14 where it says “I will punish her
for the days she burned incense to the Baals…. Therefore, I am now going to allure her; I will
lead her into the wilderness and speak tenderly to her.”
In Nehemiah 9:30, the Israelites gathered to confess their sins to a God that showed his
patience by calling them by his Spirit through the prophets. The patience of God is seen in not
destroying or abandoning his people although they turned away from his commandments and
blessings many times (Neh. 9:31). Instead, God was calling them to go back to his
commandments repeatedly because of his love and faithfulness. Although here there is a
similar scenario with Jeremiah 31:3 because God once again abandoned his people so other
nations can ruled over them (Neh. 9:28), in this case ἕλκω is used to express the tolerance of
God in light of the arrogance and disobedience of his people, not in the process of healing and
restoring them. But the scene or sense of the action is present in both, that is, the desire of
bringing his people back to him.
The other occurrences of ‫ מָ שְך‬māšak with God as the subject do not have the same
context as John 6:44142, except Hosea 11:4 where it says “I led (‫ שְךָמ‬māšak /ἐκτείνω) them
with cords of human kindness, with ties of love. To them I was like one who lifts a little child

In Jdg. 4:7, God will lead Sisera’s army to Barak’s hand for their destruction. In Ezk. 12:28, none of God’s
words will be delayed. In Psalms 28:3, David asks not to be dragged away with the wicked. In Psalm 36:10,
David prays that God will continue to love those who know him. In Psalms 85:5, the psalmist asks the question:
Will you prolong your anger through all generations? In Job 24:22, God drags away the mighty by his power;
though they become established, they have no assurance of life.
142

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

42

to the cheek, and I bent down to feed them.” This verse shares connections with Jer. 31:3 and
Nehemiah 9:30 because of the word ‫ מָ שְך‬māšak and its use with God as the subject of a lovely
action with the purpose of saving his people. These three occurrences have the commonality
of God having good will towards his unfaithful people and the divine action motivated by love
of bringing them back to a correct relationship to himself through various means.
If one follows the literary narrative of each occurrence in Jeremiah and Hosea, God
draws his people through judgment in exile and grace in restoration. A clear example of this is
Jeremiah 31:10 where it says: “He who scattered Israel will gather them and will watch over
his flock like a shepherd”. In Nehemiah, the patience of God is showed by calling his people
back to him by his Spirit through the prophets (Nehemiah 9:30). With this information in
mind, it seems that biblical commentators are not aware of or do not bother to comment about
the vocabulary relationship of ‫ מָ שְך‬māšak and ἕλκω regarding God’s salvific actions, but as
indicated before, they do comment on the relationship of Jesus’s drawing in John 6:44 and the
Father’s drawing or guidance in Hosea 11:4 even though ‫ מָ שְך‬māšak is not translated as ἕλκω.
The other word is ‫ מָ שָ ה‬māšāh occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible in Exodus
2:10, 2 Sa. 22:17 and Psalms 18:16. In Exodus, the word is used when Pharaoh’s daughter
named the baby she drew (‫ שָ הָמ‬māšāh) out of the river as Moses (‫ שֶׁ הֹמ‬mōše). In linguistic
terms, Carol Meyers explains that the name of Moses is a symbol that points to his dual
identity as a Hebrew and Egyptian. The Egyptian word for Moses (“child of”) is an element
found in the names of Egyptian rulers such as Thutmoses and Ahmoses. On the other hand,
Moses has a Hebrew origin from the word ‫ מָ שָ ה‬māšāh that means "to draw out” (of the

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

43

water).143 This Hebrew origin makes sense with the other two uses of ‫ מָ שָ ה‬māšāh in the
Hebrew Bible because they both also refer to action of draw people out of waters.
2 Sam 22:17 and Psalms 18:16 raise an interesting and important point about the use of
ἕλκω in the LXX. The use of ἕλκω in the LXX has many interesting characteristics because it
has different uses, but it also has the particularity that it translates the same Hebrew word in
the same phrase and type of context with different Greek words. In the Hebrew Bible, 2
Samuel 22:17 and Psalms 18:16 read ‫ י ְִשלח ִממָ רוֹם יִקָ חֵ נִ י י ְמשֵ נִ י ִממ ִים רבִ ים‬being translated in the
NIV as “He reached down from on high and took hold of me; he drew me out of deep waters.”
This expression of worship to God happened when King David praised God for saving him
from the hands of his enemies and Saul. Interestingly, the LXX translates the verb ‫י ְמשֵ נִ י‬
yamšēni in Samuel 22:17 LXX as εἵλκυσέ, and in Psalm 18:16 (Psalm 17:17 LXX) as
προσελάβετό, normally translated as take, receive or accept.
This shows that the translators of the LXX did not have a specific referent for ἕλκω or,
more importantly, that the word itself had a specific theological meaning. It is a mistake to
impose a meaning on a word which is absent in the context. If that were the case, the fact of
having two different translations of ‫ י ְמשֵ נִ י‬yamšēni in 2 Sam. 22:17 and Psalm 17:17 would
result in the lost of the theological meaning of the verse in Greek. If TDNT wants to continue
with its definition of ἕλκω, it would be forced to say that προσλαμβάνω and ἕλκω share the
same theological idea in themselves, which would discredit their lexicological presupposition
that words in themselves contain various theological meanings. Instead, this suggests that the
different referents or specific meanings of ἕλκω in translations can have many different

143

Carol Meyers, Exodus, New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Ed. Ben Witherington (New York: Cambridge
University press, 2005), 44.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

44

possibilities depending on the context and the usage that the translator wanted to communicate
to his audience.
2.5. New Testament
In the New Testament there are nine occurrences of the word ἕλκω, three of them are
used metaphorically and the other six literally. The distinction is made by actions taking place
in the spiritual/abstract realm and the physical/natural realm. In the metaphorical use, the
drawing could be classified as mental and moral. God and Jesus are drawing people to eternal
salvation (John 6:44, 12:32) and during temptation evil desires draw people to deception
(James 1:14). In the literal sense, the drawing is performed with physical objects where a
sword is being drawn by Peter (John 18:10) and a net is being drawn by Jesus’s disciples
(John 21:6 and 21:11). People are also the direct object of the verb when Paul and Silas were
dragged in Philippi (Acts 16:19), Paul was dragged in Jerusalem (Acts 21:30) and the rich
drag the poor into the court in an unjustly manner (James 2:6). All these usages are similar to
those mentioned before.
It is interesting to notice though that James 1:14 uses of ἐξέλκω is similar to Philo and
Plato in dealing with drawing abstract moral principles or values. James deals mainly with
morals and faith using aphorisms to express its life’s principles of faith. Frank Thielman
argues that the best ancient examples of the genre of James are Proverbs and Sirach.144 That
the same use of ἐξέλκω is present in Greek Philosophy, Non-biblical Hellenistic Judaism and
a Christian-Jewish writing demonstrates that this word is not exclusive for a specific
worldview with a unique meaning. Although the three of them agree that the desire to do evil
comes from the desires of humans, James clarifies that “every good and perfect gift is from

144

Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2005), 499.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

45

above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights” (James 1:17) in the context of
persevering in what is right and good during temptation. James presents the contrast that bad
desires come from humans, not from God (James 1:13) and every good gift comes from God,
implying that it does not come from humans.145 The James 1:14 passage uses ἐξέλκω, which is
referred to as another word besides ἕλκω in BDAG and in this research it is referred as
another occurrence of ἕλκω.
Plato, to the contrary, did not even know if living creatures were contrived as simple
toys by the gods or if humans even have a serious purpose for their existence (Laws 1.644c),
but put the whole responsibility of choosing the right path in life upon humans. Men can
merely be wise enough to choose to follow or be drawn by the right pulling force and that
decision is the difference between good and evil (Laws 1.644e). The main difference between
Plato and James is that the former does not mention God in the moral decision process of
human beings and the other points to God as the source of every good and perfect gift, which
includes moral goodness. In terms of lexical semantics, it would be wrong to impose the
worldview of the Greeks on the teachings of James just because they share the same usage of
ἕλκω. As argued before, the meaning and usage of a word cannot be disconnected from its
context.
2.6. Evaluation and Conclusion
This diachronic study, from Homer’s Illiad to the Gospel of John, concludes that ἕλκω
was used in different ways, resulting in variety in its meaning. This plurality of meanings is
not a unique characteristic of ἕλκω. Virtually every single word throughout time, cultures,
genres and writers has different usages and meanings. Having said that, there are some

145

Douglas Moo, The Letter of James (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000), 159-160.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

46

common usages throughout all the writings that were surveyed. This survey revised a total of
214 quotes where ἕλκω was used in the selected writings. The literal usage of drawing or
hauling of people or objects is the most common usage of ἕλκω with 135 occurrences
(63.1%). The second most common is the metaphorical use of drawing moral principles or
values through different methods with 38 occurrences (17.8%). In relation to John 6:44 there
are only three other occurrences that share a similar use and context with it (John 12:32, Jer.
31:3 LXX Jer. 38:3 and Neh. 9:30 LXX Esd B 19:30), resulting in 1.9% of all the revised
occurrences. Therefore, in relation with other writings, the use of ἕλκω in John 6:44 is rare
and particular.
The diachronic study basically agrees with the definitions provided by BDAG,
although there are some differences. The first definition refers to the literal drawing as “to
move an object from one area to another in a pulling motion.”146 The dictionary makes the
comment that this action is “with the implication that the object being moved is incapable of
propelling itself or in the case of persons is unwilling to do so voluntarily, in either case with
implication of exertion on the part of the mover.”147 Even though in the lexicon there is a
limited survey of writings, this definition is accurate for what was observed in this study.
Regarding objects and people as the direct object, the action of the drawing had the
implication of incapability or unwillingness to be moved from one place to the other. The only
case that would not fit exactly with this definition is the one in Ion 738 of Euripides
mentioned above, where Creusa was drawing her tutor to the temple because he had a dim
sight. Her tutor was probably incapable of going to the temple by himself, but there is no sign
of resistance or opposition.

146
147

Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 318.
Ibid., 318.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

47

What relation does this usage have on John 6:44? Does it mean that the Father’s
drawing implies the incapability of the ones who are being drawn to Jesus? Not at all, because
these examples in Greek philosophy and poetry are in the literal sense and John 6:44 is in the
metaphorical sense. Also, there was not any occurrence where God literally dragged a person,
even though that would not be determinative evidence to conclude that John 6:44 implies total
incapability of human beings. In summary, ἕλκω is mostly used in the literal sense but this has
no implication for John 6:44 because it is used in a different manner.
The second definition of BDAG, where it cites the use of John 6:44, is “to draw a
person in the direction of values for inner life.”148 This is an accurate and concise definition of
the metaphorical sense but falls short in mentioning other uses with fewer occurrences.
Occurrences like in Phaedo149 where it mentions the dynamic where the soul is being dragged
by the body when the former is trying to investigate something through the bodily senses. This
use does not necessarily follow the purpose of achieving values for inner life because it simply
points out the Platonic idea of the relationship and dynamics of the soul and the body. For
example, in Phaedo 94b.9 where Plato discusses the effects of the natural necessities of the
body, like hunger and thirst, on the enquiries of the soul raises the question: Does the soul
investigate by following the affections of the body or by opposing them? Another use of ἕλκω
is bringing forth conclusions or applications from arguments, not mentioned in BDAG, but it
is present in the Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek under the definition of “draw a conclusion,
deduce, infer.”150

148

Ibid., 318.
Plato, Plato in Twelve volumes, Phaedo 79c.6, 81c.10 and 94b.9.
150
Franco Montanari et al., The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2015), 663.
149

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

48

In relation to John 6:44, it was already mentioned above that Bauer’s definition seems
to be disconnected from the literary context of John 6:44, where the Father is drawing people
to a person for eternal salvation, i.e., Jesus, and not to values for inner life through the natural
desires of human beings. Some could say that going to Jesus is, in a way, a decision
concerning values because believing in Jesus implies a change in a person’s internal values.
However, this is not the way in which the gospel of John describes the idea of “going to
Jesus” (see below) and it is totally disconnected with the moral discernment of the Greeks.
In non-biblical Hellenistic Jewish writings, there are some usages not found in Greek
philosophy and poetry but, at the same time, the use of ἕλκω shows a strong influence of the
later to the former, especially in Philo’s writings. Josephus used ἕλκω as the action of
weighing metals and gold, drawing an army by trickery and the act of provoking an action
against another. All these uses are not found in the revised material of Greek philosophy and
poetry. There could be occurrences of those kinds of uses which the author of this research is
not aware of, but what can be said is that they would not be as common as in Josephus’s
writings. The occurrences of ἕλκω in the context of Philo’s moral dynamics shows an strong
similarity with Plato’s moral ideas. This could mean either that ἕλκω was normally used when
the topic was about morals or ethics, but it could also be just that this repetition of vocabulary
is due because of the influence of Plato on Philo and Philo’s aim of showing the compatibility
between Hebrew Scriptures with the ideas of Greek philosophy.
The pieces of writing that share the most similar usage and context of John 6:44 are
LXX Jeremiah 38:3 and LXX Esd B 19:30 because they: 1) have God (the Father) as the
subject, 2) the action has the purpose of bringing people to a state of salvation or blessing,
either eternal (John 6:44), in the present time (Neh. 9:30) or in future time as an eschatological

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

49

promise (Jer. 31:3) and 3) the action of the drawing is motivated by God’s love. Even though
Hosea 11:4 does not use the word ἕλκω, it is also a verse that brings light to this research
because it shares the same points mentioned above and uses the word ‫ מָ שְך‬māšak in the
Hebrew Scriptures, which is translated as ἕλκω more times than any other Hebrew word.
Because of the close connections between these three passages with John 6:44, any
interpretation of ἕλκω, should consider these connections. Through this method it would be
possible to accurately differentiate the various uses of ἕλκω with the one in John 6:44. As was
seen in the LXX, ἕλκω was used by people, God and even Satan as the subjects of the action.
By no means, would ἕλκω have the same image in the mind of the readers when God is
drawing his people with love to restore them (Jer. 31:3) and when Satan is striking Job with
God’s permission (Job 2:7).
The use of ἕλκω in John 12:32 shares the same sense as John 6:44, but without the
referent. The sense of salvation through the drawing of the Father and Jesus is present in both
divine actions, but the means by which the action is displayed is different. In one case, the
Father draws people through his teaching and in the other case, Jesus will draw people to him
through his death on the cross. Also, the Father´s drawing is already happening in the
narrative and Jesus´s drawing will happen after his death.
It is neither the philosophical Greek world, nor non-biblical Hellenistic writings that
bring understanding to the sense of ἕλκω in John 6:44, but rather the examples of the loving
drawing of the Father mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures and LXX. The divine drawing of
God would have been the psycho-linguistic image that was present in the mind of the readers
of the Gospel of John. Going back to the lexical semantic theory of lexical priming by
Michael Hoey, when ἕλκω was used in John 6:44, the mind of the readers would had been

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

50

transported to the image when God drew his people with love and kindness. Therefore, the
sense of the word ἕλκω in John 6:44 is God’s loving action of bringing people to salvation.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

51

Chapter 3: Synchronic study of ἕλκω
3.1. Syntagmatic sense relation
This section will work on the most elemental level of interpretation of a word within a
synchronic approach, that is grammar. The basic grammatical categories such as verbs,
subjects, direct object, etc. will be explored in John 6:44-45 to understand the use of ἕλκω.
Also, because this research is about a Greek verb, this section discusses verbal aspect theory.
According to Stanley Porter, verbal aspect is “a semantic (meaning) category by which a
speaker or writer grammaticalizes (i.e., represents a meaning by choice of a word-form) a
perspective on an action by the selection of a particular tense-form in the verbal system”.151
Under this theory, the verb tense “indicates how the author chooses to conceive of or
view the action.”152 The actions can be viewed as perfective, imperfective and stative. The
first perspective presents the action as a complete whole, without explaining its development
or progress. The imperfective presents the action as developing in the discourse with more
details about its nature. And finally, the stative is viewed as an existing state of affairs. 153
There are other kinds of Greek semantic features based on the tense-form of the word such as
kind of action (Aktionsart) that will not be discussed in full in this section because, in
agreement with Mathewson and Emig, Greek verbs occur in a variety of contexts that cannot
be defined solely by their tense form.154 Although there will be a focus on categorizing the
syntagmatic sense relations, this section will not aim to discover the meaning of every word in
John 6:44 from its grammatical form or construction, since the meaning of words are mostly

151

Stanley Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, Studies
in Biblical Greek 1 (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 20-21. “Parentheses original.”
152
Mathewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, loc. 3684.
153
Ibid., loc. 3700.
154
Ibid., loc. 3689.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

52

determined by the immediate context. The goal is to see how the syntagmatic construction
helps to find the referent of the drawing of the Father.
In Greek, John 6:44 reads as follows: οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ
πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.155 The first thing to
categorize in this sentence is that it is a third class (see below) conditional clause, consisting
of two elements: “the protasis (the “if” part of the construction, usually introduced in Greek
with εἰ or ἐάν), which is the secondary or subordinate clause, and the apodosis (the “then”
part, though “then” is not necessarily expressed in Greek or English), which is the primary or
independent clause.”156 In other words, the protasis presents the condition for the fulfilment
expressed in the apodosis or as Brooks and Winbery explain, “the statement in the apodosis
becomes a reality only when the conditions stated in the protasis are met.”157 That’s why the
protasis is subordinated to the apodosis because it can not make sense by itself, but it is at the
same time the frame of reference to understand the primary clause (apodosis).158
Normally in the New Testament, a conditional clause begins with the protasis and then
is followed by the apodosis, but in the case of John 6:44 the opposite happens.159 According to
Mathewson and Emig this is a marked construction that gives to the protasis a greater
prominence.160 The first clause (apodosis) οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με “no one can come to
me” is the result of the unfulfillment of the second clause ἐὰν μὴ ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας

Some manuscripts do not include the preposition ἐν (P66.75, B C D L T W Θ) which does not represent a
mayor issue for this research. This paper will adopt the text from the Greek New Testament from the American
Bible Society, 5th edition.
156
Mathewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, loc. 7047-7050. “Parentheses original.”
157
J.A. Brooks and C.L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham: University Press of America,
1979), 183.
158
Mathewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, loc. 7072.
159
This occurs elsewhere in John’s gospel: 3:2, 3:27, 5:19, 6:65, 7:51, 8:24, 15:4, 15:6 and 16:7.
160
Ibid., loc. 7073.
155

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

53

με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν “unless the Father who sent me draws him”. It is easy to categorize this
verse as a conditional clause because of the use of the conjunction ἐὰν “if” which is
accompanied by the negative particle μὴ “not” which happens various times in the gospel of
John.161 Finally, the third clause in the sentence κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ
“and I will raise him up in the last day” is an independent clause that points to a consequence
or promise that, according to the author of the gospel, is to be realized if the protasis is
fulfilled. This is determined by the use of the future indicative active verb ἀναστήσω “will
raise up” in relation with a subjunctive verb (ἐλθεῖν), that according to Porter, carries “a
higher degree of expectation for fulfilment.”162 This argument is reinforced by John’s
Christology because it is Jesus, the one sent from heaven, that said that this event will happen
if the conditions of the protasis are achieved.
Grammarians clasiffy conditional clauses into one of the four classes and the one in
John 6:44 falls in the third class because of the use of ἐὰν and a verb in the subjective mood in
the protasis.163 Some grammarians affirm that this class of conditional clauses implies a great
probability of fulfilment of the apodosis,164 but Mathewson and Emig point out that the
problem with this classification is that the label fails to account for most occurrences in the
NT in which the fulfilment of the apodosis is not very probable. They affirm that “how (im)
probable or (un) likely it is that the condition will be fulfilled can be determined only by the

161

John 3:2, 3:3, 3:5, 3:27, 4:48, 5:19, 6:44, 6:53, 6:65, 7:51, 8:24, 12:24, 12:47, 13:8, 15:4, 15:6, 16:7 and
20:25.
162
Stanley Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994),
45.
163
For information about the classifications of conditional clauses, see Mathewson and Emig, Intermediate
Greek Grammar, loc. 7039-7254.
164
Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, 121. Harvey Dana and Julius Mantey, A Manual
Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 290 and David Black, It’s Still Greek to
Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate Greek (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 145.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

54

context, if at all, since many times the context itself is unclear.”165 James Boyer´s article in
Grace Theological Journal estimates that only 23% of all class 3 conditionals in the NT are
probable based on the context.166 Having said this, it will not be necessary in this case to
examine the broader literary context of John 6:44 because, as mentioned above, the third
clause of the verse reveals that the fulfilment of the apodosis is not only possible, but very
probable due to the promise of being raised by Jesus on the last day. If the fulfilment of the
apodosis would not have been possible, it would make no sense for Jesus to promise to raise
those who came to him as the result of being drawn by the Father.
There are three characters in John 6:44: Jesus, the Father and the undefined character
categorized as οὐδεὶς “no one” and αὐτόν “him”. In the three clauses mentioned above, Jesus
is mentioned three times, twice as the indirect object and once as the subject. The Father is
mentioned just once as the subject and the undefined character is mentioned three times, twice
as the direct object and once as the subject. As can be seen, the grammatical subject and object
change many times, therefore it is better to study them by their relation to the action of the
Father’s drawing.
It is asserted in the first clause that οὐδεὶς is able to come to Jesus. The basic point
here is that the subject is unable to come to Jesus without the divine action of the Father
described in the next clause of the verse. For the way the conditional clause is constructed,
coming to Jesus is the crucial event in this verse. The end goal is not only to be drawn by the
Father, but to come to Jesus to be raised up on the last day. The use of ἔρχομαι “to come” in
John 6:44-45 refers to believing that Jesus is the one sent by the Father. In John 6:44, the

Mathewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, loc. 7183. “Parentheses original.”
James Boyer, “Third (and Fourth) Class Conditions,” Grace Theological Journal 3, no. 2 (Winona Lake:
Grace Theological Seminary:1982), 163– 175. Accessed February 06, 2021.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/03-2_163.pdf
165
166

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

55

tense-form of ἔρχομαι is aorist/infinitive/active (ἐλθεῖν), accompanied by the verb δύναται
“can” in present/indicative/middle voice. So, each verb has a different aspect, but they both
provide information to determine their exact use. First, the verb δύναται is imperfective
suggesting that the ability to come is viewed as a non complete or unchangeable ability of the
subject. This is clear because the second clause of the verse refers to the process that could
change this inability, i.e., the drawing of the Father.
Second, the verb ἐλθεῖν is perfective in aspect pointing to the complete action of
believing that Jesus is the one sent by the Father. The infinitive ἐλθεῖν functions as a
complement to the idea that the finite verb δύναται is referring to, specifying that the inability
refers to the particular event of coming to Jesus. Due to its aspect, the focus here is not in
explaining how the “coming” occurs, but why it does not occur and what is necessary for that
to happen. In joining these two verbs together, the author wanted to affirm that the state of
inability to come to Jesus was not a completed and unchangeable state of the subject, but that
it could change given the right circumstances. So, the emphasis in John 6:44 is given to the
inability of the subject and how this state can be reversed by the drawing of the Father.
In John 6:44 there is a negative perspective of the “coming” related to the inability of
some, but in verse 45 the “coming” is expressed in a positive perspective. The tense-form of
ἔρχεται in 6:45 is present/indicative/middle making it imperfective in aspect. It is important to
notice that this kind of use of the present participle is known as omnitemporal or gnomic
present because it reflects unrestricted temporal action that could happen at any time and in

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

56

many occasions.167 Porter points out that this use refers to “recurring actions, especially those
which recur in nature,”168 but they are also used in proverbial or universal contexts.169
This change of tense-form in comparison with its use in 6:44 presents the “coming” as
a consequential action in the present time of the narrative or, gnomic present speaking to a
general principle that is always true, as the result of previous actions (heard and learned from
the Father) by the subject. This is determined by the relation of ἔρχεται with the verbs
ἀκούσας “heard” and μαθὼν “learned” which are aorist circumstantial participles making
them perfective in aspect and viewed as complete actions. These two aorist verbs could be
seen also as gnomic aorist because they are presented as timeless actions that could have
happened at any time.
Based upon verbal aspect at John 6:44, a person is able to ‘come’ (ἔρχεται) to Jesus
(imperfect and gnomic present) because he/she ‘heard’ (ἀκούσας) and ‘learned’ (μαθὼν) from
the Father (perfective and complete actions). The ability to come depends on how people dealt
with God’s teaching prior to their encounter with Jesus. It is important to mention that Stanley
Porter argues that participles, in this case ἀκούσας and μαθὼν, in themselves indicate verbal
aspect and not time.170 Nonetheless, they do have a temporal relationship with the context and,
in the case of aorist participles, they indicate actions that precede the main verb in the clause,
that is, coming to Jesus.171 Therefore, according to the tense-forms of the verbs in John 6:4445, the actions of hearing and learning from the Father precede the action of coming to Jesus

167

Mathewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, loc. 4076.
Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 32.
169
Mathewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, 4076.
170
Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 181.
171
Mathewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, 6557.
168

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

57

because the “coming” is presented as the necessary result of the previous actions of hearing
and learning from the Father.
Another point to be made about the use of ἔρχομαι is that it is the only verb that is
repeated in John 6:44-45. This repetition and connection show that the drawing of the Father
and the actions of hearing/learning from him refer to same event, even though they are
described from negative (6:44) and positive (6:45) perspectives. Nonetheless, the end result is
the same: those who are drawn by the Father come to Jesus and those who have heard and
learned from the Father also come to Jesus. In lexicological terms, the meaning of ἕλκω in
John 6:44 is explained mainly by its relationship with the uses of the word ἔρχομαι in John
6:44-45 because this word connects the drawing with the teaching of the Father and the
hearing/learning of the ones who come to Jesus. It would be hard to argue that the drawing
and hearing/learning processes are two different events because they both have coming to
Jesus as the end result and the Father´s actions (drawing and teaching) as the means by which
one gains this ability. Therefore, it can be concluded that the drawing of the Father is
explained in John 6:45 simply as his teaching. This conclusion, as stated above, is affirmed by
various biblical commentators although they do not necessarily examine the grammar of these
verses.172
The last verb to be discussed indicates that the Father’s teaching was fulfilling what
the prophets said. Jesus said that the drawing of the Father was foretold by the prophets and
has its fulfilment in that event. “They will be all (ἔσονται) taught by God” is a plausible
paraphrase from Is. 54:13 that also alludes to Jer. 31:33-34. That is probably why Jesus said,
“it is written in the prophets” and not only in Isaiah, referring to a general idea of prophetic

172

Michaels, The Gospel of John, 386; Köstenberger, John, 214; Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John, 233
and Carson, The Gospel According to John, 293.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

58

OT teaching.173 In both OT texts it is announced that as part of the restoration of Israel, God´s
eschatological people would learn from him directly. Jeremiah says that God´s people will
know him (Jer. 31:34) because they will have God’s law in their hearts. So, God’s
eschatological people are those who will be taught by God himself. The text does not clarify
how this teaching happens, but it would be fair to say that it happens mainly through the
teaching of the Torah given the strong emphasis that the gospel gives to it. Also, according to
Köstenberger, it was held in Judaism that when someone learns from the Torah they are
actually learning from God himself.174 One of the texts that he uses to support this is the
messianic parallel of Psalm of Solomon where it says about the future just and faithful king
that “he shall rule over them as a righteous king, taught by God” (17:32). This eschatological
king is contrasted to the unrighteous and unfaithful current king who is described as “a
transgressor of the Law” (17:20). So, the eschatological king will be taught by God unlike the
bad king who disobeys the Law. The Law is the means by which God will teach.
The actions of ἀκούσας and μαθὼν in John 6:45 show that this divine teaching has
been fulfilled prior to the time of the narrative. This is important because it implies that the
drawing of the Father, i.e., his teaching, was already happening before the coming of Jesus.
What the coming of Jesus brings to this situation is the manifestation of God’s eschatological
people, i.e., those who have been taught by the Father, who identify Jesus as one with the
Father (Jn. 10:30).
This presents some sort of consequentialist process for Jesus’s audience, not excluding
personal responsibility, but rather demonstrate a result in their belief system based on their
previous actions. The positive or negative reaction to Jesus’s message is not causally

173
174

Köstenberger, John¸ 214.
Ibid., 215.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

59

determined by God in the sense that people´s decisions do not have any direct influence on the
event of believing or rejecting Jesus. Rather, they have responsibility in learning from the
Father, and if they do not do that, they render themselves unable to come to Jesus.
In conclusion, this examination of the syntagmatic sense relations shows that John
6:44-45 presents: 1) a conditional clause that contains the apodosis “no one can come to me”
with the protasis “unless the Father who sent me, draws him” and a third clause “and I will
raise him up on the last day.” 2) The fulfilment of the apodosis is probable because of the
content of the third clause that promises a positive result for the fulfilment of the apodosis. 3)
Jesus’s audience can gain the ability to come to him only if the Father draws them. 4) Because
of the uses of the verb “to come” (ἔρχομαι), the tense-form of “heard” (ἀκούσας) and “learn”
(μαθὼν) in 6:44-45 and their relationship with the word “draw” (ἑλκύσῃ) in 6:44, the ability to

believe in Jesus is available to anyone if they learn from the Father. 5) Therefore, God’s
teaching is the referent of the drawing of the Father.
3.2. Literary Context
This section will explore the literary context of the gospel of John that is pertinent to
the task of this research. First, there will be an examination of the use of the word ἔρχομαι that
shares the same context as John 6:44-45, to determine the meaning of it in John and to see if
there is a common use that could bring light to the concept of the drawing of the Father.
Second, there will be a discussion about other passages where the idea of consequential effect
(see below) appears with the goal of proving this is one of the main themes in the gospel.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

60

The use of the verb ἔρχομαι (to come) in the gospel of John refers mostly to175: 1) the
literal movement of people from one place to another,176 2) Jesus’s coming to the world, sent
by the Father,177 3) the coming of the hour or time for the fulfilment of various spiritual events
and 4) believing or rejecting Jesus as the light and the one sent by the Father.178 This last
action includes the one in John 6:44 and therefore, it will be the focus of the investigation.
This section will only examine John 3:20-21 and 5:40 because the other passages will be
discussed below for their relation with the syntagmatic-paradigmatic relation between δίδωμι
and ἕλκω.
The first occurrences of the fourth usage are in Jesus’s discourse after or while talking
with Nicodemus in John 3:20-21. There he says: “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and
will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever does what is
truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been
done in God.” The action of coming or not coming to the light, i.e., Jesus (see John 1:9-10), is
determined by the former actions of the individuals. Those who do evil (πράσσων), do not
come and those who do (ποιῶν) what is truth, come to the light. Both verbs are present
participles suggesting that each action was a repeated activity by the subjects that began
before their encounter with Jesus. Also, these verbs are gnomic present because they are
presented as timeless actions in a proverbial manner.

175

This is not a exhaustive list but it is a general description of the most common uses in the gospel of John.
John 1:29, 1:39, 1:46, 1:47, 3:22, 3:26, 4:5, 4:7, 4:16, 4:27, 4:30, 4:40, 4:45, 4:46, 4:54, 5:7, 6:5, 6:15, 6:17,
6:23, 6:24, 7:27, 7:37, 7:41, 7:42, 7:45, 7:50, 8:2, 9:7, 10:41, 11:17, 11:19, 11:20, 11:29, 11:30, 11:32, 11:34,
11:38, 11:45, 11:48, 11:56, 12:1, 12:9, 12:12, 12:22, 13:1, 13:6, 18:3, 18:4, 19:32, 19:33, 19:38, 19:39, 20:1,
20:2, 20:3, 20:4, 20:6, 20:8, 20:18, 20:19, 20:24, 20:26, 21:3, 21:8 and 21:13.
177
John 1:9, 1:15, 1:27, 1:30, 3:2, 3:19, 3:31, 4:25, 5:43, 6:14, 7:28, 7:31, 8:14, 8:42, 9:39, 11:27, 12:13, 12:15,
12:27, 12:46, 12:47, 15:22, 16:28 and 18:37.
178
John 3:20, 3:21, 5:40, 6:35, 6:37, 6:44, 6:45 and 6:65.
176

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

61

Therefore, here is presented a universal principle in the context of the fourth gospel: a
person’s acceptance or rejection of the light depends on his/her previous actions. The evil
doers are afraid that their deeds will be exposed by the light and those who do what is truth
come to the light so it may be seen that their works have been done (εἰργασμένα) in God (John
3:21). The participle εἰργασμένα “done” is accompanied by the present indicative ἐστιν “is”
forming a periphrastic participle, which is the combination of a form of the auxiliary verb εἰμί
and a participle. Porter argues that the participle communicates the meaning, and the auxiliary
verb communicates the attitude of the speaker in relation to the action through the mood of the
verb.179 First, the participle εἰργασμένα is stative in aspect and perfect in tense pointing to two
things: 1) prominence and 2) past actions with a result in the present. The perfect tense is
sometimes used to give prominence to certain actions in a discourse because it is rare in a
narrative.180 This makes sense in this case because the action is part of a clause that explains
why is it that those who did good come to the light, that is, in order to manifest that they were
living in accordance with God’s will. And second, the perfect tense sometimes refers to a past
action with results in the present time when the context allows such interpretation. The good
works that have been done (εἰργασμένα) by this particular people have the result of believing
in Jesus. In the case of ἐστιν, which is indicative in mood, indicates the author’s perception of
reality.181 He truly believed that this people were coming to Jesus as a consequence of living
in accordance with God’s will.
Another important point here is the parameter by which Jesus asserts, not only who
comes, but also what constitutes good and evil. Doing the truth is to perform one’s deeds in

179

Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 45.
Mathewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, 4239.
181
Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 45.
180

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

62

accordance with the will of God and doing evil is to do the opposite of God’s will. This means
that the parameter of good and evil is God’s will and people are being exposed by what they
have done regarding this parameter. So, as Craig Keener argues, Jesus is confronting not only
people’s response to him in the present time, but also their character.182 F. F. Bruce comments
on this saying “those who were truly children of God would recognize their Father’s message
on the lips of Jesus. But these people were manifestly incapable of such recognition; this
showed that they did not know him who they claimed as their Father.”183 How people behave
in relation to what God has determined to be good or evil is what determines a person’s
decision about Jesus. This process is what the author of this research defines as consequential
effect, arguing, that it is present not only here and in John 6:44-45 in the concept of the
Father’s drawing, but also in various other passages in the gospel of John.
In John 5:40, Jesus said to “the Jews” (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) that they were unwilling to come
(ἐλθεῖν) to him in the context of believing or rejecting him as the one sent by the Father. That
Jesus said they were unwilling (οὐ θέλετε) to come strongly suggests human decision is a
factor in the action of believing in Christ. The encounter began because “the Jews” judged
Jesus’s healing of an invalid person as against the law of Moses because it happened on a
Sabbath day (John 5:10). So, they began to persecute Jesus and he reacted with an
explanation of why his actions were justified (John 5:16-17). The fact that Jesus gave an
explanation shows that what “the Jews” were saying had a valid point. In their judgement, a
fellow Jew was breaking the law of God and they were demanding punishment for it. So,
Jesus’s explanation was that he was not a mere human, but the one sent by the Father. He was
not doing anything by himself, but he was simply doing what he saw his Father do (John 5:19-

182
183

Keener, The Gospel of John, 572.
Bruce, The Gospel of John, 200.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

63

20). Later on, Jesus said that the works that he was doing (the recent healing of the invalid
person, for example), testified that the Father had sent him (John 5:36).
For the way the author presented the discourse, Jesus’s argument, supported by his
sign of healing, made “the Jews” inquire him about his healing on a Sabbath. In his defense
Jesus said to them, “my Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working”
(John 5:17). The reaction of “the Jews” was negative, to the point that they wanted to kill him
because Jesus was, not only breaking the Sabbath, but making himself equal to God (John
5:18). The dialogue got to the point where Jesus explains the reasons why they refuse to
believe in him. After asserting that they were unwilling to come to him to have life (John
5:40), Jesus points to a moral cause for their unbelief with a question: “How can (δύνασθε)
you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from
the only God?” (John 5:44). According to Jesus, it was not an intellectual reason or a zeal for
the obedience to the Law of Moses that was making them unable to believe, rather it was the
moral failure of not seeking the glory of God.
The point here is that the gospel of John mentions that the audience´s reaction to Jesus
is determined by previous actions regarding obedience to the Father. D. A. Carson comments
that the motivation of seeking honor among themselves (probably honor from other Rabbis)
and not seeking to glorify God was the reason why they were not able to believe in Jesus.184
This moral failure resulted in the state of not having the word of God dwelling in them,
although they studied Scripture diligently and missed the person who would bring them to
eternal life, even though they were searching for it in the Scriptures (5:38). Jesus’s argument
was that they thought that the Scriptures themselves were the source of eternal life, i.e., the

184

Carson, The Gospel According to John, 265.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

64

obedience to it was the source for eternal life, when in fact their purpose was to lead to the
knowledge of him.185 As Keener explains, the gospel of John presents Jesus as the Word in
flesh; rejecting him is to reject the Scripture so valuable for the audience.186 Again, the
unbelief of the audience was the result of nothing more than their moral failure to praise only
the Father, which resulted in not having his word dwelling in them and rejecting the Word
come in flesh.
One last example of this is Jesus’s reference to Moses as their source of hope. In John
5:45-46, Jesus said: “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is
Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he
wrote about me”. Craig Keener explains that Moses was viewed as the most righteous man by
Jewish people, and he was regarded as the most important supporter of their faith, so most
Jews would normally claim to be on Moses’s side in a particular polemic discussion in order
to win the case. Jesus’s argument was that “the Jews” claimed to have their hope in Moses and
not in whom Moses wrote about, they claimed to believe in Moses but their negative reaction
to Jesus’s affirmations demonstrated the contrary.187 Jesus concludes this argument with a
question: “But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I
say?” (John 5:47). The theme of inability is again present here and refers to impossibility of
recognition that Jesus is the one sent by God because of the failure to not believe in Moses.
Ridderbos’s comment that “as long as ‘the Jews’ did not understand that the Scriptures of
Moses taught the same faith that Jesus demanded from them, he would always remain for
them a stranger.”188 Jesus remained a stranger to those who failed to believe in what Moses

185

Calvin, The Gospel According to St. John, 139.
Keener, The Gospel of John, 659.
187
Ibid., 662.
188
Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John, 207.
186

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

65

wrote. According to Jesus the problem was not the amount or quality of his signs and
arguments, but their moral failure in not wanting the approval of God, that is his glory, but
rather their glory was found in the approval of man (5:41:44). So, in the quest for the reason
why “the Jews” rejected Jesus, Herman Ridderbos concludes:
If the Jews had "believed Moses" and had understood in its true meaning Moses'
reference to the one who was to come after him, they would not have rejected
Jesus as a blasphemer. They would have recognized in Jesus the bringer of
salvation predicted by Moses. But precisely this faith in Moses is what they lacked.
They were unable to view "the law given through Moses" in its reference to the
"grace and truth" that came "through Jesus Christ" (1:17).189
Another example is present in John 8:42-47. Here Jesus discussed with “the Jews” that
believed in him (John 8:31). Before going into this passage, it is important to clarify that the
gospel of John utilizes some anti-Jewish language (especially in John 8:44), but this should
not be interpreted out of its socio-religious context as a stereotyped form of argument.190 After
Jesus encouraged “the Jews” to remain in his teachings and promised them that the truth
would make them free, a hostile discussion started between them. Jesus knew that they did not
truly believe in his message because they wanted to kill him in reaction to his affirmations
(John 8:37). He pointed out that Abraham, from whom “the Jews” were claiming to be
offspring, would not try to kill the person who spoke the truth he heard from God (John 8:40).
So, Jesus asserts that they are not children of Abraham, but that they have another father and it

189

Ibid, 207
Keener, The Gospel of John, 762. Because John 8:44 has been a major cause of Christian anti-Judaism, the
author of this research denies that the expression “you are the sons of the devil” expresses anti-Jewish
discrimination. Rather, it is a stereotyped form of argument which was common in other early Jewish and early
Christian literature (1Q, T12P and 1 John). For modern readers, the dualism “sons of God or sons of the devil”
could represent radical categorizations that could lead to discrimination against Jewish people, but according to
Von Wahlde, Jesus´s opposition would not have understood this expression with animosity or bitterness, but
rather it was intended to express a strong conviction that the opponents were doing evil by not being faithful to
God. Urban C. von Wahlde “‘You Are of Your Father the Devil’ in Its Context: Stereotyped Apocalyptic
Polemic in John 8: 38– 47” in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, eds. R.
Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vanneuville (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001) 418– 444.
190

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

66

is here where Jesus tells them the real reason they were resisting him. Although “the Jews”
argued that God was their father (John 8:41), Jesus said that God was not their father and he
knew this because they refused to love him, the one whom God sent (John 8:42). Here again,
human inability is mentioned when Jesus said that they are unable (οὐ δύνασθε) to hear his
word and therefore could not understand him (John 8:43). Again, the author of the gospel
portrays Jesus as a stranger to the people who acted against the will of God, but the reason
was not intellectual, rather, it was moral.
According to Jesus, their rejection was an expression of hostility against God himself
for wanting to kill the one sent by God. Then, Jesus declared a spiritual principle in John’s
gospel, that is “whoever belongs to God hears what God says. For this reason you are not from
God, because you do not listen” (John 8:47). In other words, the fatherhood out of which a
person lives determines how that person ‘hears’ the words of Jesus.191 This connects with
what was being described above about consequential effect and brings a better understanding
of the coming or rejection of Jesus. Wayne Meeks in his article “The Man from Heaven in
Johannine Sectarianism” affirms that there is a lack of any logical explanation of how one
person is from God and another from the devil, and therefore the answer is to be found outside
the literary material of John (see below).192 But this is not the case if the consequentialist
process is taken into account.
Also, John 7:17 says “anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether
my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” It is hard to get a clearer
statement of the constant mechanism of consequential effect throughout the gospel of John.

191

Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John, 317.
Wayne Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 91, no. 3
(March 1972): 69, accessed August 12, 2020, https://doi-org.ezproxy.student.twu.ca/10.2307/3262920.
192

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

67

The person has a real choice to make (to do the will of God), and the consequence of that
choice is the ability to recognize that Jesus’s teachings come from God. Having taken into
account this literary context, it can be concluded with more confidence that the Father´s
drawing in John 6:44-45 is his teaching prior to the coming of Jesus and that those who hear
and learn from him, are able to recognize that Jesus’s teachings come from God. It can also be
concluded with more confidence that those who did not learn from the Father were unable to
come to Jesus even though they claimed to be faithful to the Father, Moses or Abraham. Their
rejection of Jesus was not determined by any other thing than their previous actions that went
against the will of the Father.
This would also explain the mechanism of how the “sheep” of Jesus are able to hear
his voice and those who are not his sheep are not able (John 10:26-27). If one lacks this
literary context as explained above, they would be forced to explain this mechanism with
predestinarian arguments. Morris explains that in John 10:26 “the predestinarian strain in this
Gospel comes out in the reason given for their failure”: ‘you are not my sheep.’ Christ's
‘sheep’ know him (v. 14), but the knowledge of Christ is not the natural possession of
anybody. Faith is always a gift of God.”193 Morris is right to point out that the knowledge of
Christ is not the natural possession of anybody, but by saying that faith is a gift of God and
suggesting that the status of “you are not my sheep” is due to predestination finds no support
in the literary context of John. Instead, with different vocabulary and narratives, the idea that
people could learn from God before the coming of Jesus and then judge if Jesus’s teachings
are or are not from God, is present in the occasions mentioned above throughout the fourth
gospel.

193

Leon, Morris. The Gospel According to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing, 1995), 515.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

68

3.3. Syntagmatic-paradigmatic relation
As was mentioned above, this research has argued that the verb δίδωμι (to give)
overlaps in meaning with ἕλκω in John 6 because both are used with the same word
combination on different occasions (verses 44 and 65). Note also, that Jesus at v. 65 is
repeating the same idea as v. 44 by saying “this is why I told you” and then reaffirming the
idea that the Father’s work is the means by which someone is able to believe in him. The way
in which John used ἕλκω and δίδωμι in John 6 with the same syntagmatic relationship also
puts these words into a paradigmatic relationship.
But, what kind of evidence is necessary to conclude that ἕλκω and δίδωμι have a
paradigmatic relation? Silva explains the necessary elements for a syntagmatic or
paradigmatic relation are as follows: “we may say that words are in paradigmatic relation
insofar as they can occupy the same slot in a particular context (or syntagma); they are in
syntagmatic relation if they can enter into combinations that form a context.”194 It has to be
clear that δίδωμι, not only was used with the same word combination as ἕλκω, but also that
the former has at least similarity in meaning with the latter.
In John 6:37 Jesus said that “all those the Father gives (δίδωσίν) me will come
(ἐρχόμενον) to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” and later on continued
saying that he shall lose none of all those that the Father gave him, but that he would raise
them up at the last day (v. 39). Here is the first time the verb δίδωμι is used with the Father as
the subject, Jesus as the indirect object and people as the direct object. The Father as giver of
different spiritual things is mentioned in various passages in John and it is mostly directed to

194

Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, loc. 1510.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

69

Jesus.195 But the most common one is when the Father gives people to Jesus (John 6:37, 39,
10:29; 17:2, 6, 9, 24 and 18:9).
These different usages provide valid information for the understanding of δίδωμι in
John 6 such as: 1) The ones who the Father gives to Jesus are also Jesus´s sheep (10:29), 2)
the Father’s giving results in their being raised up on the last day to eternal life (6:39 and
17:2), 3) Jesus recognizes that those who are given belonged to the Father (17:6, 9) and 4)
Jesus affirms that no one can snatch them out of his hand (10:28-29) and later the author of the
gospel says that Jesus fulfilled this promise (18:9). If the drawing and giving of the Father
refer to the same action, these four points should converge in the interpretation of John 6:4445. This means that there should not be any contradiction in the nature of these two divine
actions.
There are two arguments in favor of the paradigmatic relation between ἕλκω and
δίδωμι in John 6. First, the usage of the word ἔρχομαι referring to the action of believing in
Jesus connects the four occurrences of ἕλκω and δίδωμι in John 6 (verses 37, 39, 44, 45 and
65). In v. 37 Jesus said, “all that the Father gives (δίδωσίν), will come to me (ἥξει), in v. 39
Jesus said “I shall lose none of all those he has given (δέδωκέν) me, but raise them up at the
last day.” Note that the Father’s action of giving is related to Jesus’s action of raising those
who he received at the last day just as the drawing of the Father is connected to the same
action of Jesus in 6:44 (see below for John 6:65). This view is consistent with the
interpretation of John 6:44-45 that the drawing of the Father gives the ability to people to
come (ἔρχομαι) to Jesus and this drawing refers to the learning and hearing of the people who,

The Father gives to Jesus: “everything” that Jesus has (3:34-35, 13:3,17:7), all judgement (5:22, 5:27) to have
life in himself (5:26), works to finish (5:36, 17:4), anything Jesus ask (11:22), a commandment (12:49) and
authority over all people (17:2).
195

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

70

later on, will come (ἔρχομαι) to Jesus. It is consistent because the key point to unite the
drawing of the Father and his teaching is the similar use of the word ἔρχομαι in both verses.
Second, Jesus used ἕλκω and δίδωμι in the same clause on different occasions. In John
6:44, Jesus said, “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws (ἑλκύσῃ)
them.” Then in John 6:65, Jesus reminds his disciples what he said in John 6:44, “this is why I
told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled (δεδομένον) them.” Harris
pointed out that ἑλκύσῃ corresponds also to δίδωσιν in v. 37, understanding that the Father
gives people to the Son by drawing them to him,196 but v. 65 shows that ἕλκω and δίδωμι refer
to the same action of the Father and, therefore, they are not different stages of the same
process. Note also that conceptually both verbs involve movement in some way. So, based on
these two arguments, δίδωμι and ἕλκω in John 6 share the same meaning and referent because
they are used to express the same divine action of the Father. Mentioned above, the drawing
of the Father is his teaching (John 6:44-45), therefore, the adjective διδακτός “taught” not
only refers to those who learned and heard from the Father but also is in paradigmatic relation
with δίδωμι and ἕλκω.
The good side of this section is that it is not actually necessary to demonstrate that
there is a syntagmatic-paradigmatic relation because the repetition of thought of John 6:44 and
6:65 with δίδωμι occupying the slot of ἕλκω shows that both words can enter in combination
with the same clause and context. Of course, this does not mean that ἕλκω and δίδωμι have the
same meaning in other occurrences and not even in most of the rest of the gospel of John.
They only share this relation when they are used in the same context, that is, a metaphor for
God’s divine action of bringing people to Jesus. This seems to point to the idiolect of the

196

Harris, John, 137.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

71

author of John, the linguistic system that separates him/her from other people with the same
dialect,197 because ἕλκω and δίδωμι are not used in the same way in the other gospels.
Also, there is agreement among scholars that the giving and drawing of the Father
talks about the same divine action or at least, both actions are synonymous with bringing
people to Jesus. Emmanuel Tukasi affirms that John 6:44 contains the same teaching as John
6:37, expressed with a more blatant language. The reason is that v. 37 presents the action of
the Father in a positive manner and verse 44 just reaffirms it in a negative manner because
everyone is drawn and given by the Father. He concludes that “the same Father who has given
to the Son is also the one who has drawn those who respond to Jesus.”198 James White rightly
points to the repetition of thought in v. 65 and the use of “giving by the Father” instead of
“drawn by the Father” in v. 44 connecting them as a single divine action.199 Carson says that
v. 44 is the negative counterpart of v. 37, meaning that the divine action is first explained in a
positive manner (the Father giving people to Jesus) and then in a negative manner (people are
unable to come to Jesus without the divine action of the Father).200
The benefit of pointing out these sense relations is that by understanding the use of
δίδωμι in the gospel of John in relation with the Father giving people to Jesus, there is
important information about the idea of the Father´s drawing and giving. This relation brings a
better understanding of both divine actions, that is to say, an accurate concept of the Father´s
drawing would be incomplete without an understanding of the Father´s giving and vice versa.
Of the four points about the usages of δίδωμι in John mentioned above, the one that highlights
the most for this research is that the ones that come to Jesus through the giving of the Father,

197

Campbell, Advances in the Study of Greek, loc. 2916-2931.
Tukasi, “Determinism and Petitionary Prayer in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 166-167.
199
White, Drawn by the Father, 73-74.
200
Carson, The Gospel According to John, 293. See also, Keener, The Gospel of John, 685.
198

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

72

belonged to the Father before (John 17:6-9). This coheres with the idea that the ones coming
to Jesus gained this ability by learning and hearing from the Father (John 6:45) and that they
were doing what was good in the sight of God (John 3:21).
There is a clear relationship between those who were learning and hearing from God
and doing what was good according to his will before the coming of Jesus. The Father was
their God because they were living to please him with their works and he was their teacher
guiding them to Christ. This relationship was what allowed them to discern if Jesus´s teaching
was coming from God or just from himself because this would be clear for those who wanted
to do God´s will (John 7:17). As indicated before, the ones whom the Father gives to Jesus are
also Jesus´s sheep (John 10:29) and his sheep recognize his voice; He knows them, and they
follow him (John 10:27). How did the sheep recognize Jesus’s voice? The best answer is not
outside of the gospel of John such as Pauline´s predestination before the foundation of the
world or a gnostic analysis of some being from above and some from this earth. But rather, the
sheep know that Jesus is the one sent by the Father because what they heard and learned from
the Father is being taught by Jesus.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

73

Chapter 4: Theological conclusions
4.1. Consequential effect as an answer to soteriological determinism in John
In the first chapter of this research there is discussion about different interpretations of
the meaning of the drawing of the Father in John 6:44. Almost all scholars agree that it is not
easy to understand this divine action without confronting the problem of soteriological
determinism and human free will. As mentioned above, many just accept this tension and
therefore do not try to explain how both can stand together.
In soteriological terms, human free will is defined as the natural ability of people to
believe or reject divine messages or proclamations. In the gospel of John, the proclamation is
that Jesus is the one sent by the Father, the Messiah and the Son of God. Proponents of
soteriological determinism affirm that men are unable to believe this proclamation without a
causually deterministic divine action. This divine action is not passive, it is rather the active
cause that brings faith in a particular group or individual. It is deterministic because it is the
effective means that establishes belief in the chosen ones. They believe in Jesus only because
they were pre-determined by God to do so.
A good way to understand how the idea of consequential effect provides an answer to
soteriological determinism is to analyse one of the proponents of it. Emmanuel Tukasi in his
dissertation “Determinism and Petitionary Prayer in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls” affirms
that the gospel of John teaches soteriological determinism. He defines soteriological
determinism as the “will of God to dictate in advance the response of human beings to Jesus
and his message. This is also sometimes referred to as predestination or election.”201 He
concludes this based upon a study of John 6:37-66 with emphasis on the usage of the word

201

Tukasi, “Determinism and Petitionary Prayer in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls”, 162.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

74

δίδωμι. For Tukasi and me, the giving of the Father and his drawing point to the same divine
action.202 The aim is to know what is the Father’s action of giving people to Jesus and what is
its function in the gospel of John? Tukasi summarizes his position as follows:
The significant point about the disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence
for believing, in our assessment, is to show that the responses of the characters to
Jesus in John are predetermined by not just the fulfilment of the Scripture but
also an outworking of the prior election of the Father in the giving of some to the
Son. It is the giving by the Father which allows Jesus to speak of those who
believe as his own sheep.203
In relation to the consequential effect proposal of this research, Tukasi’s position
has only one difference: the concept of predestination as the explanation of how the
Father gave some people to Jesus. This research partially agrees with the affirmation
that “Johannine emphasis on the lack of faith of certain characters is strategic for his
theological orientation. It is to show that those who believe do not do so on their own
accord but in subsequence to the giving of some by the Father to the Son. For John,
unbelief is a symptom of exclusion of an audience by the Father from ‘the given
ones’.”204 We agree on the understanding of δίδωμι in John 6 and the dualism between
the “given ones” and those who are not given by the Father to Jesus. The only difference
with Tukasi is that human free will is not part of the process of the giving or belief in
Jesus. However, we both agree that “the ‘given ones’ belong to Jesus simply because
they belong to the Father.”205 This research agrees that there is an element of
determinism in the giving of the Father, but to propose soteriological determinism, is to

202

Ibid., 166-167.
Ibid., 175.
204
Ibid., 173-174.
205
Ibid., 176.
203

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

75

impose this concept upon the text. Nevertheless, there are many points of agreement in
comparison to other interpretations.
For example, Bultmann’s interpretation of the Father’s drawing denies
soteriological determinism, but it fails to acknowledge the work of the Father in
bringing people to Jesus. Human inability, for Bultmann, is the security of human
judgement through reason, which “the Jews” were unwilling to abandon. The only way
to overcome this inability is by letting faith rule over human judgement because the
latter is incapable of belief in the message of Jesus.206 George Beasley-Murray agrees
with Bultmann’s interpretation in that being drawn by God happens when a man
abandons his own way of salvation and starts to “hear” and “learn” from the Father.207
As Bultmann said “the ‘drawing’ by the Father occurs not, as it were, behind man’s
decision of faith, but in it.”208 So, it seems that Bultmann´s interpretation is shaped by
his particular view of humanity. Christopher Kiesling summarizes Bultmann’s view of
humanity based on the New Testament as follows:
Man is to be conceived, not as a being composed of body and soul and faculties,
but as a living unity continuously on the move. He is a thinking, willing subject,
ceaselessly in pursuit of life in some specific, concrete form. He is forever
choosing from among the possibilities open to him at the moment … To live
humanly is to be at every moment in a crisis of decision, because decision
determines a man's essential character, makes him a sinner or a just man …
Because man's essential being is to be in a crisis of decision, only the action
before man at the present moment is a genuine future.209

206

Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. George Murray (Philadelphia: The Westminster
press, 1971), 230-231.
207
Beasley-Murray, John, 93.
208
Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 232.
209
Christopher Kiesling, “Bultmann’s Moral Theology: Analysis and Appraisal,” in Theological Studies 30, no. 2
(May 1969): 225-248, accessed September 20, 2021,
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edo&AN=ejs40360824&site=eds-live&scope=site.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

So, in Bultmann’s thinking, humanity is constantly called to action and in the
case of John 6:44-45, they are called to recognize their limitation in judgement and have
faith in Jesus. This interpretation presents many problems: 1) It imposes a view of
human ability that it is not found in John’s gospel, 2) the emphasis of the drawing is on
the decision of humans to recognize their limitation and not on the active action of the
Father to bring them to Jesus, and finally 3) it fails to understand that human decision, in
relation to the Father’s will, was already in action before their encounter with Jesus.
There is no call to action in John 6:44-45; rather, it is presented as how previous actions
determined one’s belief or unbelief in Jesus.
On the other hand, Tukasi does not provide an explanation or comment about the
process of the Father’s giving and its relationship with predestination. That is to say,
soteriological determinism is assumed in the interpretation of the text, not demonstrated
by it. In my estimate, the idea of consequential effect provides almost everything that
Tukasi’s study concluded except his soteriological determinism and predestination. God
did not dictate who would believe in Jesus; rather, he enabled those who learned and
heard from him to believe in Jesus. John 7:17 would not make any sense if soteriological
determinism and predestination are true because Jesus pointed to people’s will to choose
to do the will of God as the means to discover if his teachings came from God or just
from himself.
Many theologians are comfortable affirming both divine sovereignty and human
free will. They would even use concepts as predestination or election to explain some
verses in the gospel. Commenting on John 6:44, Keener says that “like most of his

76

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

77

Jewish contemporaries, John felt no tension between predestination and free will.”210
Under consequential effect, there is still an element of determinism but without
eliminating human free will. It is deterministic because it determines who will believe in
Jesus and who will not. Those who learned and heard from the Father are determined by
their previous actions to believe in Jesus because Jesus and the Father are one. In
discussing the tension between divine sovereignty and free will, Harold Attridge
concludes that the reader of the gospel “learns that what one loves determines whether
one will accept the opportunity to accept or reject the revealer (12:43).”211 According to
the gospel of John, if someone believed the Father, he/she will believe in the Son. Also,
consequential effect does not eliminate human free will because the process of learning
and hearing the Father, i.e. his drawing, are presented as actions that anyone could have
done. There is no expression of human inability regarding these two actions, not like
coming to Jesus (John 6:44). So, consequential effect explains how God can determine
who will believe in Jesus without eliminating human free will.
4.2. The identity of the Johannine community
The hypothesis of this research has some implications for the identity of the Johannine
community, i.e., the original audience of the gospel. The hypothesis implies a dualism
between those who heard and learned from the Father, mainly through the Law, and were
drawn by him to Jesus and those who did not hear or learn from the Father were not drawn by
him. Through the Father’s teaching, those who learned from him gain the ability to recognize

210

Keener, The Gospel of John, 685.
Harold Attridge, “Genre,” in How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Douglas Estes and Ruth
Sheridan (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 21. Accessed in May 8, 2022, https://eds-p-ebscohost
com.twu.idm.oclc.org/eds/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzEzNjc0NDJfX0FO0?sid=9a2d82af-26cf-43e5-9aa28458e1a2a044@redis&vid=1&format=EB&rid=1.
211

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

78

Jesus as the Son of God. This would support the hypothesis that the identity of the Johannine
community is mainly Jewish, whether Palestinian Jews or from the Diaspora because of the
high importance to the Old Testament as the means of God’s teaching. Rodney Whitacre
argues that every explicit dispute between Jesus and his opponents in John refers to Moses
and/or the Law, both regarded the Torah as authoritative and therefore Jesus used Moses to
condemn his opponents on many occasions.212 Keener points out that all the disputes between
Jesus and his opposition have apologetic points of great interest for a Jewish audience.213
The hypothesis argues as well against some aspects of theories about the identity of the
Johannine community. For example, Edward Klink affirms correctly that Wayne Meeks’s
article “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism” argues that the descent/ascent
motif of Jesus comprises a myth by which the Johannine community made its identity of a
sectarian counter-culture “group” valid and stronger.214 One of the points of the
descent/ascent motif is that the Johannine Jesus’s heavenly origin in contrast with his
opponent’ earthly origin is the foundation upon which the Johannine community validated
their identity as a unique group that was from God because they heard the words of God
through Jesus (John 8:47). In contrast, their opponents were from this world since they did not
believe in Jesus because Satan was their father.
Concerning the research’s hypothesis, the main point of controversy is that Meeks
states that “the Fourth Gospel never provides us with the myth which explains how some men
could be from below and others from above.”215 He explains that the fourth gospel does not

212

Rodney Whitacre, Johannine Polemic: The Role of Tradition and Theology, Dissertation Series: Society of
Biblical Literature (Chico, CA: Scholar Press, 1982), 26-29.
213
Keener, The Gospel of John, 173.
214
Edward Klink, The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John, Society for New
Testament Studies Monograph Series: 141 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 30.
215
Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” 68.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

79

offer any logical explanation because the descent/ascent motif serves as a means of
communication with a functional purpose rather than a logical idea. One of the functions of
the metaphors, narratives and motifs in the fourth gospel is to produce either excessive
rejection or great acceptance and fascination.216 The point that some people believe in Jesus
and some do not is just stated in the gospel, but never explained. That’s why Meeks concludes
that the functional purpose of the descent/ascent motif is the best way to understand the fourth
gospel.
The research’s hypothesis provides a good explanation for this descent/ascent motif
because it argues that the means by which some believe in Jesus is by learning and hearing
from the Father, who teaches mainly through the Hebrew Bible. This consequentialist process
made them ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ “from God” and able to come to Jesus. The descent/ascent dualism
should not be understood with a Greek or gnostic worldview due to the Jewish motif of
faithfulness to God’s word as the means to recognise who are from this world and who are the
true sons of Israel, the chosen people of God. This is what the coming of Jesus did: it revealed
which people were learning from the Father and those who were just claiming to be obedient
and faithful to the Father. So, the results of this research reinforce the position that the
Johannine community was mainly Jewish in its sense of ethnic and also in its religious
identity. The opponents of Jesus had a great level of loyalty to Moses and the Torah which
were their authorities in their condemnation of Jesus. As Whitacre argues, every explicit
dispute in John makes reference to Moses and/or the Law and Jesus used Moses to condemn
his opponents.217

216
217

Ibid., 69.
Whitacre, Johannine Polemic, 28-29.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

80

All this does not imply that there were no Gentiles inside of the Johannine community
or that there is nothing relevant to Godfearers in the gospel of John because there is evidence
that Godfearers were attending the synagogues and therefore, they were interested in the Old
Testament (Acts 15:21). The Johannine polemic between Jesus and his opponents concerning
who was truly faithful to the Old Testament should have been of vital importance for the
Godfearers because whoever came out victorious from this polemic would have the approval
of the Law and the Prophets to bring Godfearers into their community. Also, the simple
mention in the gospel of John that some Greeks who went to worship at the festival wanted to
see Jesus (12:20-21) and Jesus’s words related to him drawing all people to himself after
dying on the cross (12:32-33) show not only that Jesus was of interest for some Gentiles, but
also that the fourth gospel is intended for them because what triggered Jesus’s proclamation of
the time of his glorification was the Greek’s desire to see him.218
4.3 Johannine dualism
This research’s thesis of consequential effect points in favor of what is known as
ethical dualism because there are two groups of people who stood in opposition based upon
their previous actions: those who heard and learned from the Father and those who did not.
Scholars have argued in favor of many types of dualism throughout Greek philosophy, Jewish
and Christian writings and John’s gospel have had various proposals to understand the
dualism within it. George Eldon Ladd emphasises that the dualism exists when some people
come to Jesus and some reject him, creating then the opposition among people due to their
ethical behaviour (believers and unbelievers).219 John Gammie explains that this type of

218

Carson, The Gospel according to John, 444.
George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, ed. Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Pub, 1993), 260.
219

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

81

dualism presents the opposition among two groups of people based upon their moral
behaviour, that is, righteous vs wicked or godly vs impious.220
It s worth notice that the understanding of John´s dualism changed when the Dead Sea
Scrolls were found. These writings showed that the religious and social background of John
was better understood in light of Jewish thought. Before this it was assumed that Greek
thought better explained John’s dualism. Paul Anderson explains this as follows:
Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, it was assumed that
Judaism was pervasively monistic (meaning that there is one power in the
heavens— God). Because Greek cosmology was dualistic, it was assumed that
John’s dualism must have been Hellenistic rather than Jewish. This led scholars
to assume that the Johannine tradition was Greek.221
So, the gospel of John is to be contrast with Jewish writings in order to get a better
idea of how the research´s thesis fits in the discussion. After an examination of Jewish
apocalyptic and sapiential literature, John Gammie concludes that ethical dualism is the
leading concept among other types of dualisms.222 This concept had variations and different
emphasises, for example, some sapiential traditions focus on the earthly destiny of the
righteous and ungodly, whereas some apocalyptic traditions focus more on the eschatological
destinies of each group.223 It seems that the emphasis of the gospel of John is related to show
who are the truly faithful to God through the obedience of the law of Moses prior to their
encounter with Jesus.

John Gammie, “Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature.” Journal of
Biblical Literature, 93, no. 3 (September 1974): 357, accessed October 19, 2021
https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=a89ae9e3-dd95-4824-89328d9f8ace0ff4%40redis
221
Paul Anderson, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John (Minneapolis: Fortress press,
2011), 37.
222
Gammie, “Spatial and Ethical Dualism“, 384.
223
Ibid., 378.
220

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

82

John Ashton argues also that John’s emphasis is ethical dualism and not a cosmic
dualism, like Gnosticism, explaining that people’s actions are what determine in which group
they will be. As with John Gammie, Ashton draws attention to the ethical dualism in Jewish
writings such as a rabbinic commentary on Genesis which could easily be understood as a
cosmic dualism between light and darkness, but the emphasis is on the morality of people: and
God divided the light from the darkness, i.e., the works of the righteous from the works of the
wicked, ‘‘and God called the light Day’’; this refers to the works of the righteous;
‘‘and darkness he called Night’’; this is the works of the wicked’ (Gen. Rab. 3: 8).224
Another example is the so-called Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 92–105), where it presents
with insistence an ethical dualism from beginning to end. In 1 Enoch 92:3-5 it says: “And the
righteous man will rise from sleep . . . and he will live in goodness and righteousness and will
walk in eternal light. And sins will be destroyed in darkness for ever and from that day will
never be seen.” Ashton affirms that the conclusion of the whole book is similar in 1 Enoch
108: 14–15: “And they will see those who were born in darkness thrown into darkness, while
the righteous shine. And the sinners will cry out as they see them shining, but they themselves
will go where the days and times have been written down for them.”225
This opposition between the good and the wicked is also found in Malachi 3:16-18, the
last of the biblical prophets:
Then those who feared the Lord spoke with one another, the Lord heeded and
heard them, and a book of remembrance was written before him of those who
feared the Lord and thought on his name. They shall be mine, says the Lord of
hosts, my special possession on the day when I act, and I will spare them as a
man spares his son who serves him. Then once more you shall distinguish
between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one
who does not serve him.

224
225

John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 390.
Ibid., 340.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

In light of this religious context, Ashton concludes that it is conceivable that the
fourth evangelist, “once he had pledged allegiance to Jesus, he could redeploy the
dualistic metaphors already familiar to him and apply them to the new situation in which
he found himself.”226 It seems that there are good reasons to believe that ethical dualism
was a known concept for the author of the fourth gospel. Not only that, but also it
matches with the idea of consequential effect presented above. Those who heard and
learned from God, are able to come to Jesus and therefore demonstrate that they were
living in accordance with the will of God (John 3:21). As Malachi says, there will be a
time when the righteous and the wicked will be distinguishable; when one who serves
God and one who does not serve him can be clearly seen (Malachi 3:18).
As mentioned above, some theologians have already pointed out some kind of
consequentialist mechanism in the gospel of John related to faith in Jesus, but without
labeling or systematizing it under a specific category. Another example is when Craig
Keener explains that “even before confronting Christ or the witness of his Spirit, the
prior condition of people’s hearts— visible only to God and Christ— has predisposed
them one way or the other.”227 Most of the passages quoted by Keener refer to a
predisposition of “the Jews” towards unbelief in Jesus such as not believing in the one
who sent him (5:38), not seeking the glory of God (5:44), not believing in Moses (5:4647) and they are not from God but from the devil (8:44-47). Only one quote presents
both predispositions of coming or rejecting the light (3:19-21), leaving the gospel of
John with the characterization of “the Jews” as people with the predisposition of
unbelief in Jesus. The reason why they do not believe is explained in the narrative.

226
227

Ibid., 394.
Keener, The Gospel of John, 327.

83

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

On the other hand, there are principles that could bring a positive predisposition
towards Jesus such as learning and hearing from the Father (6:45), choosing to do the
will of God (7:17), being on the side of the truth (18:37) and choosing to come to the
light (3:21). In the gospel narrative, there are characters in the gospel that had an
encounter with Jesus and then expressed faith in him and remain faithful, not as others
(8:31) such the Samaritan woman (4:1-29), other Samaritans that believed the testimony
of the woman and heard directly from Jesus (4:42), a royal official with a sick son
(4:54), a blind man from birth (9:35-38). However, there is no connection of the
characters with faith in Jesus with the principles that bring a good predisposition to
faith. It seems that the author wanted the implied reader to connect these people with the
moral principles which led them to have faith in Christ. In other words, there are direct
explanations of why “the Jews” did not believe in Jesus, but not a direct explanation of
why some characters did believe in Jesus. Why does the gospel of John present a
negative predisposition of “the Jews” and a positive predisposition of other characters?
The answer may be found in the author’s genre and style.
In the book How John Works? Harold Attridge explains that the genre of the
gospel of John is a drama that aims to provide an encounter between the implied reader
with the resurrected Christ. This is done by stimulating a dramatic identification of the
implied reader with a character.228 The implied reader had been informed in the
prologue of the gospel the “hypothesis” of the narrative, that Jesus is the true light that
gives light to everyone, the Word made flesh and the life of mankind. The author
presented this information in the beginning so it could prepare the readers to sympathize

228

Attridge, How John Works, 17.

84

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

85

with the characters that have an encounter with Jesus and ended with faith in him.229
However, the author did not only stimulate identification with the characters, but with
the moral principles as well. These principles are designed to bring encouragement and
affirmation to those who believed in Jesus so they know that when they chose faith, they
did it because they learned and heard from the Father (6:45), chose to do the will of God
(7:17), were practicing the truth (3:21) and were on the side of truth (18:37).
On the other side of the narrative, the author presented “the Jews” in such a way
that would discourage their behaviour and create a dissociation with the implied reader.
The author’s purpose in expressing clearly the reasons why “the Jews” did not believe in
Jesus could be understood as the greatest irony of gospel, which is mentioned in the
prologue “he came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (1:11)
and this reality is repeated throughout the narrative in their rejection to Jesus. They were
presented as people who studied the Scripture with diligence (5:39), consider themselves
disciples of Moses (5:45), sons of Abraham (8:33) and free from spiritual blindness
(9:40-41). Those who had all the information and identity to believe in the one sent by
the Father, failed to do so. In contrast, the author presented a divorced Samaritan
woman, a royal official and a blind man from birth who was expelled from the
synagogue as understanding and believing in Jesus. Those who were not supposed to be
his own ended being part of the people of God. Alan Culpepper defines the function of
“the Jews” in the narrative as the representatives of unbelief and misunderstanding
because they failed to grasp the message of Jesus in vital issues.230

229

Ibid, 15.
Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia, Fortress Press:
1983), 121.
230

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

86

In conclusion, the idea of consequential effect argues in favor of or is at least in
accordance with, the ethical dualism existing in Jewish apocalyptic, sapiential and prophetic
writings. This also points to a strong connection of the fourth gospel with a Jewish socioreligious context and reduces the possibilities of a dualism influenced by Greek philosophy.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

87

Bibliography
Anderson, Paul. The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John. Minneapolis:
Fortress press, 2011.
Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2007.
Attridge, Harold. “Genre.” In How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth Gospel, edited by
Douglas Estes and Ruth Sheridan, 07-22. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Accessed in May
8, 2022, https://edspebscohostcom.twu.idm.oclc.org/eds/ebookviewer/ebook/bm
YmtfXzEzNjc0NDJfX0FO0?sid=9a2d82f26cf43e59aa28458e1a2a044@redis&vid=
&format=EB&rid=1.
Barclay, William. The Gospel of John. Daily Study Bible Series. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew
Press, 1975.
James Boyer. “Third (and Fourth) Class Conditions.” Grace Theological Journal 3, no. 2.
Winona Lake: Grace Theological Seminary: 1982.
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1961.
_________. “Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age.” The Cambridge History of
Judaism. Volume 2: The Hellenistic Age. Editors: W.D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
_________. “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis: A Study of Terminology.” Bulletin of
the John Rylands Library 51, no. 1 (1968): 11-26.
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and
Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. London: Westminster Press, 1978.
Bauer, Walter et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. Edited by F. W. Danker, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2000.
Beasley-Murray, George. John. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987.
Black, David Alan. Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic
Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1995.
_________. It’s Still Greek to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate
Greek. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Brooks, J. A. and J.A. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek. Lanham: University Press of
America, 1979.
Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by George

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

88

Beasley-Murray. Philadelphia: The Westminster press, 1971.
Calvin, John. The Gospel According to St. John. Calvin’s commentaries. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 1959.
Campbell, Constantine. Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 2015.
Carson, D. A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in
Tension. New Foundations Theological Library. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981
_______. The Gospel According to John. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000.
_______. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.
Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: The Basics. Edition 3rd. New York: Routledge, 2017.
Coogan, Michael et al., The New Oxford Annotated Bible Containing the Old and New
Testaments. Edition 4th. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Culpepper, Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia,
Fortress Press: 1983.
Danker, Frederick. The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. London: The
Chicago University Press, 2009
Deissmann, Adolf. The Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future. Translated by
Lionel Strachan. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908.
Epictetus. Discourses. Translated by W.A. Oldfather. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1925.
Flavius Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus, Translated by William Whiston. London:
Thomas Nelson Publisher, 1873.
Gammie, John. “Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature.”
Journal of Biblical Literature, 93, no. 3. (September 1974): 356-85, accessed October
19, 2021 https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=a89ae9e3
dd95-4824-8932-8d9f8ace0ff4%40redis
Grayston, Kenneth. The Gospel of John. London: Epworth Press, 1990.
Harris, Murray, John: Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Edited by Andreas
Köstenberger and Robert Yarbrough. Nashville: B & H Academic, 2015.
Harvey, Dana and Julius Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New
York: Macmillan, 1955.
Hoey, Michael. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. New York: Taylor

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

89

& Francis Group, 2005.
Homer and Hesiod. The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. Translated by Hugh G. Evelyn
White. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1914.
Hoskyns, Edwyn. The Fourth Gospel. Edited by Noel Davey, 2nd ed. London: Faber and
Faber, 1947.
Jobes, Karen and Moises Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2000.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2003.
Kiesling, Christopher. “Bultmann’s Moral Theology: Analysis and Appraisal.” In Theological
Studies 30, no. 2. (May 1969): 225-248. Accessed September 20, 2021,
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edo&AN=ejs40360824&sit
=eds-live&scope=site.
Kittel, Gerhard et al. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey
Bromiley. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.
Klink, Edward. The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John.
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series: 141. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2007.
Kovacs, David. Euripides II: with an English translation. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1995.
________. Suppliant women: Electra; Heracles. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
2015.
________. Euripides IV: with an English translation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1999.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2004.
Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Edited by Donald A. Hagner. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 1993.
Ligonier Ministries. “Man's Radical Fallenness.” accessed January 28, 2020,
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/mans-radical-fallenness/.
Liddell, George et al. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised by Henry Stuart Jones, 9th edition.
London: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Lundbom, Jack. Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The
Anchor Bible: Volume 21, edition 1st. New York: Doubleday, 2004.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

90

Louw, Johannes and Eugene Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on
Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.
_____________. Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament. Resources for Biblical
Study: no. 25. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
Mathewson, David and Elodie Emig. Intermediate Greek Grammar. Kindle edition. Grand
Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2016.
Meeks, Wayne. “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism.” Journal of Biblical
Literature, 91, no. 3. (March 1972): 42-72. Accessed August 12, 2020, https://doiorg.ezproxy.student.twu.ca/10.2307/3262920.
Meyers, Carol. Exodus. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Edited by Ben Witherington.
New York: Cambridge University press, 2005.
Michaels, Ramsey. The Gospel of John. The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2010.
Milne, Bruce. The Message of John. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
Montanari, Franco et al., The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill,
2015.
Moo, Douglas. The Letter of James. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing, 1995.
Murray, A.T. Homer: The Iliad with and English Translation. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1924.
__________. Homer: Odyssea with and English Translation. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1919.
__________. Demosthenes with and English Translation. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1939.
Ogden, Charles and Richards, Ivor. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of
Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. New York: Brace & Co.,
1945.
Osborne, Grant R. John: Verse by Verse. Osborne New Testament Commentaries. Ashland:
Lexham Press, 2018. Accessed February 17, 2020, https://eds-b-ebscohost
com.ezproxy.student.twu.ca/eds/ebookviewer/ebook/ZTAwMHhuYV9f
MTgwMjExMV9fQU41?sid=70502d65-729a-4c33-a6f7-d3f0598cf72c@pdc-vsessmgr02&vid=0&forma t=EK&rid=
Pace, Michael and Katie Patterson. Lexical Priming: Applications and Advances. Studies in

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

91

Corpus Linguistics. Vol. 79. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company,
2017.
Perseus Digital Library. Edited by Gregory R. Crane. http:// www.perseus.tufts.edu/.
Philo of Alexandria. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by C. D.
Yonge. E-book edition. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.
Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes. Translated by Harold Fowler. Volume 9. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1966.
Porter, Stanley. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to the Tense
and Moood. Studies in Biblical Greek. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.
________. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. London: Sheffield Academic Press,
1994.
Rackman, Harris. Aristotle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952.
Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Sacks, David. Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World. Revised by Lisa Brody. New York:
Facts on File Inc., 2005.
Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert
Sechehaye. New York: Fontana, 1974.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St. John. 2nd vol. New York: Seabury
Press, 1968.
Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Rev.
and Expanded ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.
———. God, Language, and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics.
Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.
Tenney, Merril. John: The Gospel of Belief. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1948.
Thielman, Frank. Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Tukasi, Emmanuel O. “Determinism and Petitionary Prayer in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Ideological Reading of John and the Rule of Community (1QS).” PhD diss.,
University of London, 2005.
Vendryes, Josheph. Language: A Linguistic Introduction to History. Translated by Paul
Radin. New York: Trubner & Co., 1931.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

92

Von Wahlde, Urban C. “‘You Are of Your Father the Devil’ in Its Context: Stereotyped
Apocalyptic Polemic in John 8: 38– 47” in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel:
Papers of the Leuven Colloquium. Edited by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F.
Vanneuville. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001. Pages 418– 444
Whitacre, Rodney. Johannine Polemic: The Role of Tradition and Theology, Dissertation
Series: Society of Biblical Literature. Chico, CA: Scholar Press, 1982.
White, James R. Drawn by the Father. New York: Great Christian Books, 2016.
Xenophon. Xenophon. Translated by Carleton L. Brownson. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1986.

DRAWN BY THE FATHER: A LEXICOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDY OF JOHN 6:44

93

Curriculum Vitae
Fernando Miranda
Education
2009 – 2013

Bachelor of Theology, Universidad Evangélica del Paraguay, UEP.

Research and teaching interests
-

The gospel of John
New Testament theology
Lexical semantics
Apologetics

Professional experience
2014-2015

Professor of Christian Education and Music, Johannes Gutenberg Polytechnic
College.

2015-2016

Youth pastor, Shalom Menonnite Church (Filadelfia, Paraguay).

2020-present New Testament professor, Bible Institute Asunción (Mariano R.A., Paraguay)
Languages
-

Spanish
English