# No one can come to me...

#### Theo1689

##### Well-known member
So we've been talking about diagramming Bible verses in a couple of these threads, and it occurred to me to diagram John 6:44, to see if doing so could add any new insight into what the verse says. So I diagrammed the English text and the Greek text (I'm a member of a NT Greek diagramming group on Facebook).

Basically, the structure looks like this:

1) "No one can come to me"
2) ........"unless"
3)..................."The Father who sent me draw him"
4)........................"and"
5)..................."I will raise him up at the last day."

We have a main clause ("no one can come to me") and two subordinate clauses ("The father who sent me draw him", and "I will raise him up..."). Both subordinate clauses are subordinate to the main clause.

Neither subordinate clause is subordinate to the other.
In fact, they are connected by a coordinating conjunction ("and"), which puts them on the same level.

Now it could be understood that in the case of "no one can come to me" being negated, both subordinate clauses would then be true, since they are coordinated with each other. This seems to be intuitive (and I tend to lean this way), but it's not strictly true in a logical sense. It could be read that each of the two subordinate clauses needs to be true independently, for the man to come.

What I find especially interesting is that in the two subordinate clauses, one action is done by the Father ("draws him") and one action is done by the Son ("will raise him up"). I cannot fathom that the Father and the Son would be at odds with one another, and the Father draw someone whom the Son decides not to raise up. The Father and the Son are one in purpose, they are working for the same goal.

Further, if one wishes to add an extra criteria ("the him must accept Christ", or "the him must agree to be drawn"), it is found nowhere in the passage.

Last edited:

#### Theo1689

##### Well-known member
1) "No one can come to me"
2) ........"unless"
3)..................."The Father who sent me draw him"
4)........................"and"
5)..................."I will raise him up at the last day."

This is why I like sentence diagramming, since it forces you to really think about each word in Scripture, and the relationships between the clauses, and what is trying to be conveyed. I try to do this anyway, but this brings up more issues, and more ways to look at things.

For instance, we have two subordinate clauses, one done by the Father ("drawing"), and one done by the Son ("raising"). Further, one action happens prior to the coming, while the other happens after:

drawing --> coming --> raising

Now, even if you want to interpret the two subordinate clauses as being independent, and the Godhead not being united in purpose, it is saying that in order to come to Jesus (or even merely be ABLE to come, according to some), two things must happen:

1) God must draw you;
2) Christ must raise you up.

If those two things happen, then the result is "you CAN come".
So if Christ is going to raise you up on the last day, is it possible that while you "could" come, you chose "not" to?

I don't see how.

Awesome!

#### Sethproton

##### Well-known member
So we've been talking about diagramming Bible verses in a couple of these threads, and it occurred to me to diagram John 6:44, to see if doing so could add any new insight into what the verse says. So I diagrammed the English text and the Greek text (I'm a member of a NT Greek diagramming group on Facebook).

Basically, the structure looks like this:

1) "No one can come to me"
2) ........"unless"
3)..................."The Father who sent me draw him"
4)........................"and"
5)..................."I will raise him up at the last day."

We have a main clause ("no one can come to me") and two subordinate clauses ("The father who sent me draw him", and "I will raise him up..."). Both subordinate clauses are subordinate to the main clause.

Neither subordinate clause is subordinate to the other.
In fact, they are connected by a coordinating conjunction ("and"), which puts them on the same level.

Now it could be understood that in the case of "no one can come to me" being negated, both subordinate clauses would then be true, since they are coordinated with each other. This seems to be intuitive (and I tend to lean this way), but it's not strictly true in a logical sense. It could be read that each of the two subordinate clauses needs to be true independently, for the man to come.

What I find especially interesting is that in the two subordinate clauses, one action is done by the Father ("draws him") and one action is done by the Son ("will raise him up"). I cannot fathom that the Father and the Son would be at odds with one another, and the Father draw someone whom the Son decides not to raise up. The Father and the Son are one in purpose, they are working for the same goal.

Further, if one wishes to add an extra criteria ("the him must accept Christ", or "the him must agree to be drawn"), it is found nowhere in the passage.
the translaters of the NASB disagree with your analysis.
The clue is the semicolon which follows "the Father who sent me draws him;"
The semicolon tells us they do not consider the last phrase subordinate, meaning it does not modify or complete the first phrase.
The middle phrase is subordinate, connected to the first, but the last phrase about being lifted up is independent.

The second phrase, the subordinate one. explains how a person is able to come
The third, the independent one, explains what happens when a person comes

#### Theo1689

##### Well-known member
the translaters of the NASB disagree with your analysis.

Really?
I don't recall them ever telling me that.

The clue is the semicolon which follows "the Father who sent me draws him;"
The semicolon tells us they do not consider the last phrase subordinate, meaning it does not modify or complete the first phrase.

Okay, Seth... Do you just make up stuff as you go along?

Please link to a grammar website that teaches that a semi-colon turns a coordinating clause into a subordinate clause. If you can do so, I'll learn something. If you can't, you need to stop making stuff up and simply admit that you're wrong.

(Btw, just so you know, the underlying Greek doesn't have a semi-colon.)

#### Sethproton

##### Well-known member
Really?
I don't recall them ever telling me that.

Okay, Seth... Do you just make up stuff as you go along?

Please link to a grammar website that teaches that a semi-colon turns a coordinating clause into a subordinate clause. If you can do so, I'll learn something. If you can't, you need to stop making stuff up and simply admit that you're wrong.

(Btw, just so you know, the underlying Greek doesn't have a semi-colon.)
Yes, we all know the Greek does not have punctuation.
And a semi-colon does not turn one kind of phrase into another, it indicates what the phrase is.
The idea that you think I made up the function of a semi-colon is difficult to know how to discuss.

#### Theo1689

##### Well-known member
Yes, we all know the Greek does not have punctuation.

Wrong again.
Isn't it interesting that every time you post, you can't get anything correct?

Yes, Greek certainly does have punctuation, and those of us who actually learn the language (ie. not you) have to learn what periods, commas, colons, semi-colons, and question marks look like in Greek.

But what you are probably thinking of is that many of our uncial manuscripts don't contain punctuation (or even spaces between words, for that matter).

So you have to do a lot of twisting to explain how a non-existent semi-colon can indicate the type of phrase. In actual fact it is the conjunctions which indicate the type of clause you have.

And a semi-colon does not turn one kind of phrase into another, it indicates what the phrase is.
The idea that you think I made up the function of a semi-colon is difficult to know how to discuss.

You are correct about one thing, however. The fact that you made up this "rule" out of whole cloth makes it difficult (even impossible) to discuss, or demonstrate from authoritative sources.

#### Sethproton

##### Well-known member
Wrong again.
Isn't it interesting that every time you post, you can't get anything correct?

Yes, Greek certainly does have punctuation, and those of us who actually learn the language (ie. not you) have to learn what periods, commas, colons, semi-colons, and question marks look like in Greek.

But what you are probably thinking of is that many of our uncial manuscripts don't contain punctuation (or even spaces between words, for that matter).

So you have to do a lot of twisting to explain how a non-existent semi-colon can indicate the type of phrase. In actual fact it is the conjunctions which indicate the type of clause you have.

You are correct about one thing, however. The fact that you made up this "rule" out of whole cloth makes it difficult (even impossible) to discuss, or demonstrate from authoritative sources.
Still the point is the NASB uses a semi-colon to separate the last clause as independent.
They could be doing it in error. But it is a highly regarded translation

#### Theo1689

##### Well-known member
Still the point is the NASB uses a semi-colon to separate the last clause as independent.

No, the point is that you still haven't demonstrated that a semi-colon means "an independent clause.

They could be doing it in error. But it is a highly regarded translation

It's a highly regarded translation that you clearly don't understand.

#### Sethproton

##### Well-known member
No, the point is that you still haven't demonstrated that a semi-colon means "an independent clause.

It's a highly regarded translation that you clearly don't understand.
You are a college professor and you don't know that a semi-colon before a clause indicates it is independent?
why would I need to demonstrate to you the rules of punctuation?

#### Theo1689

##### Well-known member
You are a college professor

I am?!

and you don't know that a semi-colon before a clause indicates it is independent?

You're right...
I don't "know" that a semi-colon (which doesn't exist in the Greek) before a clause indicates it is independent.

Just like I don't "know" that the moon is made out of green cheese...
Just like I don't "know" that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Just like I don't "know" that the Earth is flat.

why would I need to demonstrate to you the rules of punctuation?

To show that your claim isn't bogus.

#### Sethproton

##### Well-known member
I am?!

You're right...
I don't "know" that a semi-colon (which doesn't exist in the Greek) before a clause indicates it is independent.

Just like I don't "know" that the moon is made out of green cheese...
Just like I don't "know" that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Just like I don't "know" that the Earth is flat.

To show that your claim isn't bogus.
You don't believe me when I tell you the rules of punctuation, so you would need to research it for yourself
The proof is I told you the truth, a semi-colon before a clause indicates it is idependent instead of subordinate
And that has nothing to do with Greek, but what i already told you: the translators of the NASB thought that a semi-colon was appropriate there to indicate it was an independent clause

#### Theo1689

##### Well-known member
You don't believe me when I tell you the rules of punctuation, so you would need to research it for yourself

I have.
I can't find your bogus imaginary "rule" anywhere.
That's why I asked you for a link to an authoritative source that allegedly teaches it.
You are apparently unable to provide one either.
So we can agree that no such "rule" exists.

The proof is I told you the truth, a semi-colon before a clause indicates it is idependent instead of subordinate

So I have to take your biased, ignorant word for it?
Sorry, not happening.
If it were a valid rule, you'd be able to document it.
But you can't.

And that has nothing to do with Greek, but what i already told you: the translators of the NASB thought that a semi-colon was appropriate there to indicate it was an independent clause

Please QUOTE where the NASB translators claimed, "indicate it was an independent clause". You can't just put bogus words in their mouths!

#### Sethproton

##### Well-known member
I have.
I can't find your bogus imaginary "rule" anywhere.
That's why I asked you for a link to an authoritative source that allegedly teaches it.
You are apparently unable to provide one either.
So we can agree that no such "rule" exists.

So I have to take your biased, ignorant word for it?
Sorry, not happening.
If it were a valid rule, you'd be able to document it.
But you can't.

Please QUOTE where the NASB translators claimed, "indicate it was an independent clause". You can't just put bogus words in their mouths!
ok

#### squirrelyguy

##### Well-known member
Could the reason for Jesus' statement in John 6:44 be related to the Messianic secret? In other words, the reason Jesus attempted to keep Himself and His miracles hidden from certain people was because it would have jeopardized His mission otherwise (1 Cor. 2:8). But after His resurrection and ascension, the command is to go out into the world and preach the gospel to every creature...so there is no need for Him to remain hidden to everyone but a select few any longer. Guess what? This conforms to what Jesus says in John 12:32, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."

G

#### guest1

##### Guest
a semi-colon before a clause indicates it is idependent instead of subordinate
Why would any human being ever take your word for the above ?

Cite your source for the above " alleged " rule ?

next............................

#### Sethproton

##### Well-known member
Could the reason for Jesus' statement in John 6:44 be related to the Messianic secret? In other words, the reason Jesus attempted to keep Himself and His miracles hidden from certain people was because it would have jeopardized His mission otherwise (1 Cor. 2:8). But after His resurrection and ascension, the command is to go out into the world and preach the gospel to every creature...so there is no need for Him to remain hidden to everyone but a select few any longer. Guess what? This conforms to what Jesus says in John 12:32, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."
I also understand that is a part of what was going on.

#### Reformedguy

##### Well-known member
You are a college professor and you don't know that a semi-colon before a clause indicates it is independent?
why would I need to demonstrate to you the rules of punctuation?
So this is another thread where you just blurt out something you cannot back up?

T

#### TomFL

##### Guest
So we've been talking about diagramming Bible verses in a couple of these threads, and it occurred to me to diagram John 6:44, to see if doing so could add any new insight into what the verse says. So I diagrammed the English text and the Greek text (I'm a member of a NT Greek diagramming group on Facebook).

Basically, the structure looks like this:

1) "No one can come to me"
2) ........"unless"
3)..................."The Father who sent me draw him"
4)........................"and"
5)..................."I will raise him up at the last day."

We have a main clause ("no one can come to me") and two subordinate clauses ("The father who sent me draw him", and "I will raise him up..."). Both subordinate clauses are subordinate to the main clause.

Neither subordinate clause is subordinate to the other.
In fact, they are connected by a coordinating conjunction ("and"), which puts them on the same level.

Now it could be understood that in the case of "no one can come to me" being negated, both subordinate clauses would then be true, since they are coordinated with each other. This seems to be intuitive (and I tend to lean this way), but it's not strictly true in a logical sense. It could be read that each of the two subordinate clauses needs to be true independently, for the man to come.

What I find especially interesting is that in the two subordinate clauses, one action is done by the Father ("draws him") and one action is done by the Son ("will raise him up"). I cannot fathom that the Father and the Son would be at odds with one another, and the Father draw someone whom the Son decides not to raise up. The Father and the Son are one in purpose, they are working for the same goal.

Further, if one wishes to add an extra criteria ("the him must accept Christ", or "the him must agree to be drawn"), it is found nowhere in the passage.
Lets fill in some missing information

Verse 45

(John 6:45 KJV)

“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”

Seems one must hear and learn before one comes to the son

No hearing no coming

No learning no coming

#### Sethproton

##### Well-known member
So this is another thread where you just blurt out something you cannot back up?
Theo is a teacher, he has said so many times. maybe high school, not college? Doesn't change that he is a teacher.
So I would expect him to know the rules of semi-colon use. Most of us not in that profession do not remember what we earned about semi-colon use. If you don't know and don't want to look it up, I can do that for you and post what I find about how to use semicolons. There are a few uses for them.