Response to Perry Robinson on John 6

The following is a response to Perry Robinson’s interpretation of John 6.

His main exegetical error is that he doesn’t recognize that vv.37, 39, and 40 are intended to be parallel statements. [See my exegesis of John 6:26-66, especially part one.]

Perry:
“In another forum I argued that John 6:37ff was to be interpreted Christologically as Christ the center of the text and the key to its correct interpretation. White thinks I am mistaken. Foolish me for thinking that Jesus was the center and hermenutical key of Scriptures! (John 5:39)”

Me:
This is the problem with Orthodox theology. No, I’m not saying that interpreting the Scriptures Christologically is wrong. What is wrong with Eastern Orthodox theology is that it forms all of its doctrine from Christology and Trinitarianism. For example, according to EO, the redemption of men was accomplished more by the Incarnation, Christ being enfleshed, than by His work on the cross. When you form your theology the way the Eastern Orthodox do, you start going into speculation since Christology was never meant to be an be-all end-all answer to such things as salvation, the eucharist, etc. There’s only so much information on Christology, and when we form every doctrine out of it, we end up adding to it in a direction in which *our reason* thinks it should go. There are many mysteries in Christology, and to form every doctrine from it is to go beyond that which is revealed.

Perry:
“I think the Scripture indicates that all are redeemed in Christ, otherwise they would not be raised and hence not be “in Christ.” (1 Cor 15:22, 2 Pet 2:1)”

Me:
The problem with appealing to these texts in order to interpret John 6 is that these texts are also disputed texts that are not interpreted in a common fashion so as to bridge the Reformed – EO divide. Once you use one (or several) disputed texts so as to interpret another disputed text, all you end up with is circular reasoning. [I’ll post an exegesis on both of these texts in the future.]

Perry:
“All are beneifited by God’s redemptive work but some enjoy it more fully than others. (1 Tim 4:10, John 10:10)”

Me:
Again, disputed texts.

Perry:
“I perfectly grant that Jesus is explaining in part the unbelief of some of the Jews but he is also pointing to His superiority despite their unbelief.”

Me:
Amen. A Calvinistic interpretation would easily yield that.

Perry:
“Just as all of Israel was redeemed in the Exodus and ate Manna, so this is also true here. This stiffles White’s theological importation of “elect” since the Bible indicates that Israel is “elect” in spite of unbelief. (Romans 11:2, 28)”

Me:
[Correct me if I have misinterpreted Mr. Robinson.] Here, Perry is trying to say that the “all” in vv.37, 39, and 40 is everyone since all of Israel ate the Manna, but some died. Thus, not all of the “all” would make it to heaven.

The problem with this is that Christ is telling them to eat the “bread which comes down out of heaven” so that they will *have life by believing in Him (v.29)*. So, it is not that all will eat this bread but some will perish (i.e. not be saved) like the in wilderness. Instead, by partaking of this “bread”, the person who does so will have “eternal life” (v.27). These are believers, members of the covenant. The whole passage is about belief and unbelief in Him. There is nothing about the restoration of all creation.

Christ does indeed show His superiority to Moses. Whereas the manna from Moses only sustained physical sustenance but was incapable of keeping all the Israelites in the Covenant, the “bread” which Christ gives (i.e. His crucifixion) will cause those who partake of it to “not die” (v.50) but “live forever” (v.51) and have “eternal life” (v.54). Christ is superior in that the "bread" that He gives will keep those who receive it in the covenant forever and not fail to do so.

Perry:
“What reason do I have for thinking so? Well first the conditions for membership in v. 39 and v.40 aren’t the same. There is no condition for belief in v. 39 but there is in 40.”

Me:
As I pointed out in my exegesis of this passage, all three statements (vv.37 and 38, v.39, and v.40) are equivalent. They are re-statements of God the Father’s will for the Son. In v.37, those given by the Father to the Son will come to Christ and never be cast out, and according to v.38, v.37 was the will of the Father for the Son. [“For” is an explanation word used to start an explanation of the previous verse.] Likewise, in v.39, the will of Him who sent Christ, the Father, was, that of all He gave Christ, that Christ lose none but raise it up on the last day. Lastly, in v.40, the will of the Father is that, of all who behold the Son and believe in Him, Christ will give them eternal life and raise them up on the last day.

Standard, consistent exegesis will bring one to the conclusion that these are equivalent, parallel statements. However, Perry has an overriding theological system that forces Him to eisegete this passage. He does the very thing he accuses Dr. White of doing.

There is *no* reason to assume that they are separate missions that the Father has given to the Son, and *every* reason to assume that these are parallel statements that build on top of each other.

So, Mr. Robinson is simply wrong. The “all” of vv.37, 39, and 40 are the exact same.

Perry:
“The promises not to lose any of them doesn’t do any work either because Christ doesn’t lose any of His Creation to the devil since He raises it all up for eternity. If the wicked do not derive their source of life from Christ and His Resurrection, from where does White think they derive it?”

Me:
There is nothing in John 6 about “Creation” as a whole. Perry is simply reading that into the text. First, I’ll note again that vv.37, 39, and 40 are parallel and equivalent statements. There’s no reason to see them as separate statements except when one has an overriding theology.

The whole of the passage (6:26-66) is about belief in Christ.

Perry:
“Moreover, I think White misconstrues the flow of the chapter. The section begins with contrasting the general and specific and then Jesus narrows the scope to that of a personal response, which is in part the point of consuming His flesh and blood.”

Me:
There’s nothing in John 6:26-66 about “general and specific”. It was all about belief and unbelief in Him.

Perry:
“Part of the problem is that White is presupposing that union with Christ only comes about via an extrinsic personal/volitional relation but I don’t think Scripture teaches this. First becaus if it were true only some of creation would be recapitulated in Christ, which is false. (Rom 8:19-28, Eph 1:11)”

Me:
No one denies that Christ will renew creation. However, we deny that He will *redeem* everyone to a degree. Eternal redemption was accomplished only for those in covenant with Him (Hebrews 9:12 and 15).

Perry:
“Second, it would imply that the wicked were not raised or that Christ wasn’t God since the hypostatic union would be an extrinsic and contingent relation such that it could be broken.”

Me:
White doesn’t deny that the wicked will be raised up on the last day. However, Jesus is stating that those who believe in Him will be raised up on the last day unto eternal life. The resurrection presented in John 6 is being presented as an *incentive* (for lack of a better word) for believing in Christ. This is the resurrection unto everlasting life, not the general resurrection (Daniel 12:2).

Perry:
“(This was the real theological basis of Annihilationalism/Conditional Immortality, which is why Arianism and the former usually go hand in hand-Socinianism, JW’s, Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. and why these views came out of Calvinism or some derivative thereof.)”

Me:
First of all, all of these groups deny Calvinism. They have more in common with Perry than with White.

Second, notice that he left Universalism out of that list. That’s because many of his church fathers held and promoted such a view (i.e. Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.).

Perry:
“Third, it would imply that not all were dead and that Christ didn’t die for all. (2 Cor 5:14) If White wishes to invoke Limited Atonement here, he is certainly free to do so, but it will imply that not all men were dead in Adam (1 Cor 15:22, Romans 5:18).”

Me:
The interpretation of these texts is disputed, namely the extent of the “all”. I’ll have to give an exegesis for these in the future.

Perry:
“And of course, it is well known that I have patristic warrant for interpreting the passage the way I do.”

Me:
Yes, many of the church fathers denied monergism. However, this begs a question under dispute. Namely, are the church fathers a greater authority for interpreting Scripture than a modern exegete? White and most Calvinists would simply view them like any other exegete of Scripture, interesting but nothing more.

Perry:
“Maximus the Confessor definately saw the passage this way and the refutation of monothelitism/monoenergism/monergism turned on this interpretation.”

Me:
Again, interpreting everything through Christology leads to speculation and seeing things that aren’t there since there’s only a handful of information on Christology. It only goes so far.

Perry:
“Now, White will probably dismiss these father and and early witness like Tertullian.”

Me:
Perry is assuming that Tertullian was a witness, a recipient of apostolic tradition which is the proper interpretation of Scripture. Of course, many Protestants on the web have noted the MANY divergent views on just about every theological topic in the writings of the earliest fathers. As White has said elsewhere, the only topic that the fathers agreed on was monotheism. Tertullian had no more “inside” knowledge than we do today.

Perry:
“This is why White’s exegetical methodology doesn’t float free of Christological assumptions but in fact depens on a Nestorian Christology.”

Me:
Again, interpreting everything through Christology leads to speculation and seeing things that aren’t there since there’s only a handful of information on Christology. It only goes so far.