John 6: Exegesis and "Acceptable Doctrine"

In the comments section of my last post on John 6, I have received some interaction from Todd Saunders. Initially, Todd had made some general statements about the exegetical method. I continued to respond by asking him to be specific, asking him what “limitations” he saw being performed in my exposition. I knew that he disagreed with my conclusions, but he had not told me how his disagreements were based in the text. To tell you the truth, I still have basically no idea what alternative Todd is wanting me to take. To use the words of Steve, I have no reason to believe that Todd isn’t giving me a recipe for fudge brownies with coconut frosting. So a note to commenters: if you disagree with something I have said or a method I use, please be specific. Don’t just make generic statements that cannot be demonstrated. Interact with what I have actually written. That is what happens in honest two-way dialogue.

Anyway, Todd has finally begun to specify his comments and has given me his general idea concerning the text of John 6. Looking at his exposition, I now understand why his argument lies in the exegetical method. It certainly does not lie in the text. Ultimately, Todd must reject Sola Scriptura and the clarity of Scripture. He may not do this in word, but he does it in deed. To reject the notion that the context of Scripture does not have the ability to sufficiently and clearly tell us what the Biblical authors intended is to reject the notion that the theopneustos Scriptures are in and of themselves sufficient to equip the man of God for every good work. This is not Biblical thinking.

However, I’d like us to look at Todd’s comments on this passage. He does well in the context. He rightly tells us that Jesus detected in the crowd a seeking for more physical signs and miracles, with no concern with who Christ is. After all he had done, they still did not believe. It is simply amazing how someone can do so well in some passages of Scripture, but when the topic changes to the sovereignty of God and his elective purpose in grace, all exegetical ability is lost. This isn’t because Todd isn’t a good exegete. Like I said, he did just fine with the context. It is because everything in man wants to resist the notion that God is free in how he redeems. Libertarian, synergistic freedom is a precious treasure to some. It not easy to let go. But it is my hope that we let the passage say what it is saying, that we be honest with the Word of God, and embrace the teaching of Christ as truth. Let’s see what Todd has to say about the core of this passage:

They continue to demand more and better signs. He say, “you have seen me and yet do not believe”, telling them He has already shown Himself to be from God and now they must believe. When Jesus says, “But I said to you that you have seen me but do not yet believe.” He is referring to the specific members of His audience who are simply not persuaded, by what they have seen, that He is the Messiah.

This is very important. Jesus detects unbelief in his audience. They do not accept him for who he really is, as Messiah. This (v. 36) is the foundation for the following verses (v. 37-65). Jesus is about to explain unbelief. He is about to tell us why people can, despite what he has taught, still refuse to believe. He is about to tell us that their disbelief does not rest in the authority of his teaching but in their inability to believe. This is the foundation of the passage, and any exposition that does not exegete the passage in light of Jesus’ explanation of unbelief turns the passage on its head.

…He says “All that the Father gives to me will come to me,…”.

He may be talking about power and authority, which he had not yet received in it’s entirety, coming to Him from God. After all He is standing in front of them appearing as an ordinary man with only His words and His deeds pointing to His coming from God. He is pointing to the involvement of the Father, and there is a giving by the father, at the heart of this, and they should not defy the Father by not coming to the One whom He has sent. That is what it is saying to me. It will not say the same thing to everyone accept that the one true God is involved in all that Jesus is telling them.

He may be using that turn of phrase to point back again to the Father and away from the man of flesh standing in front of them to reinforce that this is all about the Father and whatever they get by coming to Jesus is all about the Father and the realm of His control. Jesus is again pointing out He is not there asking them to do something on His own accord that will place them in Him, but rather, with Him in the Father.

And here is where the text begins to be destroyed. Notice how Todd generalizes Jesus’ very plain and very specific statements. He also de-personalizes them. Who is Jesus talking about? Is he not talking about real people? Is he not talking about a specific group? Todd states, “He is pointing to the involvement of the Father, and there is a giving by the father, at the heart of this, and they should not defy the Father by not coming to the One whom He has sent. That is what it is saying to me.” How does this address v. 37? Yes, Jesus points to the involvement of the Father, but Jesus is especially pointing to the number of people who are given to Son by the Father. Does Todd deny that the Father is giving people here? Notice how personal the text is: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. ” Coming to the Son is paralleled in this text with believing in the Son (v. 40). And those who come are the very ones who are given. What does the Father give to the Son in this text? He gives the Son a number of people who will in turn believe in the Son. And notice that the Father gives a specific number to the Son rather than every single person in the world, for all who are given will come.

The Jews of the crowd He is addressing are aware of the hardening of Israel because it was intimated to them by the prophets. He may be tailoring this remark with those Jews in mind, one cannot know for sure. God has mercy on whomever He wills and hardens whomever He wills.

Where did this come from? Yeah, here’s the Libertarian tip: if a passage clearly presents the sovereignty of God or the efficacy of grace, just dismiss it with a hyper-Dispensational hermeneutic and still claim that you are attributing to God the freedom to sovereignly dispense grace as he pleases.

This remark could have a variety of subtle messages intended by Jesus. It certainly is unsupported enough to draw any specific ideas from except, at the very least, that the Father is in control.

“A variety of subtle messages intended by Jesus”? How’s about we just be honest, Todd. You reject the clear implications of this verse, and you know it. Let’s not make ambiguous and untrue statements such as “Well, we don’t really know what Jesus means here. We can speculate, but we can’t be certain.” Remember folks, Todd rejects the clarity of Scripture. He rejects the exegetical method. So we should not be surprised if he is willing to chuck out the clarity of Scripture here in order to hold on to the precious concept of Libertarian freedom. All who are given will come, Todd. How could Jesus be clearer?

Then the following phrase, “…and the one who comes to me I will certainly not caste out.” By referring to “the one” He means person. And He will caste away no soul, no specific kind mentioned, who comes to Him in believe.

Notice how Todd divides v. 37 into two sections. He agrees that the second half (”and whoever comes to me I will never cast out”) is alluding to a specific person who believes in Christ and is raised up on the last day. So what of the one who is given to the Son by the Father? Is Todd really missing the presented order of Christ? All who are given will come, and the one who comes will never be cast out. What is this saying? Obviously, the one who is given will never be cast out. So it is the giving of the Father that determines man’s coming and man’s never being cast out. The giving of the Father always results in the coming of the one given.

It is a much encompassing broad staement, much like the one two sentences before it where Jesus states, “…he who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.” In mid-sentence he completely strays from the concept of hunger, which He just explained, to thirst, which requires a whole different explanation to really couple it with the first. The whole statement is true by itself, but is really quite unstructured and is an example of how many different points Jesus can pack into a statement.

Todd continues to add ambiguity to the passage. How does his interpretation of v. 37 fit with v. 38-65? Coming and never being cast out is not an ambiguous concept. Has Todd considered the following verses? Verse 37 precedes v. 40. It is the foundation for the rest of the passage. The giving of the Father is the most ultimate action here, and it determines everything else. And the passage is very specific concerning what is involved in being given, what is involved in being drawn, what is involved in coming and believing, and what is involved in being raised.

Jesus says, “I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” He says that to prepare His next point which is “…that of all He has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” His point is that He is doing the work of the Father and that there is security in what He is asking them to do. The Father does the giving in everything, Jesus is sent from Him to do His will, and therfore, Jesus has all the power of God and loses nothing in whatever He does or has control over on God’s behalf. He is instilling in them the confidence in His power to act on behalf of the Father.

The passage continues to be destroyed as Todd continues to de-personalize the text. Where is Todd getting this material? It certainly is not coming from the text! His mistake is undeniable: he divorces the first half of v. 37 from the second half. He divorces “All that the Father gives me will come to me” from “And whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” The one who comes is a person. The one who is given is a person. Jesus is not alluding to some ambiguous ability that the Father has given to the Son. Jesus is referring to the specific group of people who are given to the Son by the Father and who will in turn believe in the Son and be raised up on the last day.

Is Jesus really attempting to instill confidence in those who are hearing him? Maybe if they are believers. But what if they are not believers? What if they are rejecting the truth that Jesus has presented? Remember, Jesus is explaining unbelief. He is telling us how, despite the authority of his teaching, there are those present who do not believe. He does this by contrasting them with those who do believe, those who have been given to the Son by the Father. He contrasts them with those who have not been given and as a consequence do not believe. This is what the text states.

“Everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him…” is an invitation and a promise to everyone to come and believe.

Perhaps it is if we rip v. 40 out of its context. Yes, it is a promise to those who believe. But, more importantly, it is the consequence of being given to the Son by the Father. Remember, Todd, what you stated in the beginning of your exegesis. Jesus is explaining unbelief. Why have those who are present not believed? Why have they not come to the son? Because they have not been given to the Son by the Father. Todd, please explain v. 40 on the basis of its preceding verses. Don’t isolate v. 40 from the rest of the text.

“Noone who can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

He’s is highlighting the Father’s ultimate control and involement, Jesus does the raiseing up, but the Father is there doing the drawing. They should know the Father very well from the holy and ancient scriptures they had available to them, and Jesus always brings attention to his involvement in this plan, that Jesus is proposing to carry out which is not entirely His but involes the Father. He appears to be answering their direct skepticism in which their remarks to Him seem to be saying to Jesus,”Oh, so you’re telling us that you came down out of heaven, eh?”

Todd again shows that if you miss the context and foundation of a passage, you will miss everything else that is presented after it. Todd, in his actions, demonstrates to us the importance of consistent exegesis. Todd: the limitation is not in the exegetical method. The limitation is when we fail to perform exegesis consistently.

Todd’s exposition tells us that it is the role of the Father to draw. That’s great. But what about Jesus’ statement of inability? What about the fact that no one can come unless he is drawn? What about the fact that the one who is drawn is the same one who is raised (”Father draws him, him I will raise”)? What about Jesus’ purpose in explaining unbelief? Todd fails to note the majority of the content that this text presents. This is because the majority of the content is against his position. Is the problem with exegetics, Todd? Or is the problem with ignoring clear and consistent exegesis? We see no “deadlock” here, Todd.

To which He follows up with “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to me.” Jesus suggests here, to me, that the way the Father draws them is through His teaching through His word.

Again, it’s the truth, but it’s not the full truth. Let’s not isolate this verse apart from the preceding context. Context is foundation, Todd. I know that you, rejecting the exegetical method, disagree with me on this. But Jesus’ statements here weren’t meant to be ripped apart from what he stated a couple verses ago. I’m sure you would hate it if I interpreted what you write in that manner. Who is drawn? Who is raised? Who is given? Who comes? This is our concern, Todd. All who are given will come. None who come will be cast out. No one can come unless he is drawn. All who are drawn will come, and will be raised. This is the group who is taught by God. This is the group on which the entire focus of the text lies.

Not everyone will understand. The devil will interfere with some. Some of Israel has been hardened. And then there is this unclear nature of an elect which is not mapped out in God’s word to the point where we can create acceptable doctrine out of it. Nor is there any indication in God’s word that we need to create elaborate doctrine out of it.

I need a little more time to adequately show you my doubts with the ways you’ve handled John 6.

How does this fit in with the context of John 6:36-65? Todd states, “And then there is this unclear nature of an elect which is not mapped out in God’s word to the point where we can create acceptable doctrine out of it.” Todd, once again, rejects the clarity of God’s Word. He specifically adds ambiguity to the statements of Jesus, rips each verse out of its context, de-personalizes every action that the Father does to His elect, fails to address the majority of what is presented in the text, and yet still concludes that we cannot “create acceptable doctrine” here. Amazing.

Evan May.