Okay, let's get to the heart of the matter. Is Brian McLaren's Exposition of John 14:6 sound? There is one interpretive issue and one theological issue that require comment.
First, McLaren proposes that when Jesus says "no one comes to the Father, but through Me," the "no one" to which Jesus refers are the eleven disciples reclining at table with Him (pp. 9-10). He believes that this is the meaning which best fits the context. There are two problems with this view: (1) Jesus did not use a second person construction in 14:6. He says "no one comes" not "none of you come." The fact that He does not use "you" in John 14:6 tells us that He is making a statement that is applicable to a broader audience. It is relevant to the eleven, but also to a larger circle of which they are but a part.
(Here's an optional note for those with an interest in the original language: In Greek, a verb is inflected according to person and number and a subject pronoun is thereby embedded in the verb. The addition of a subject noun or pronoun, especially in an initial position, identifies and/or emphasizes the subject. If Jesus intended to refer to the disciples, He would do so using a verb form that is inflected with a second person ending and, for emphasis, would place a second person pronoun in an emphatic initial position - See the very next verse where the verb form has been inflected to the second person because Jesus is making a statement that is relevant to the eleven.)
(2) Jesus himself identifies this larger circle. In the prayer found in John 17 (which is part of a single literary and narrative unit that spans chapters 13-17), Jesus indicates that His thoughts on this evening have not only been on the eleven but "those also who believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20). It seems clear to me that when Jesus says "no one comes to the Father, but through Me," He is making a general statement. The breadth of its applicability perfectly fits with Jesus' concern for all believers expressed later on this very night.
Does this conclusion run rough-shod over McLaren's contextual considerations? I don't think so. McLaren is using "context" to limit the applicability of Jesus' statement to only those physically present at the time it was uttered. I would simply note that (1) Jesus sometimes answers a question by citing a principle that has relevance to more than the specific occasion or audience that raised the question. Sometimes the answer Jesus gives is bigger than the question. (2) Further, John, the writer of this gospel, informs us that he is intentionally selecting narrative material that pertains to believers in general.
Simply put, "no one" in John 14:6 means no one! Here's an example. If a child says to his assembled playmates, "no one may come into my tree-house," his meaning is clear. He is not limiting his exclusion to only those present. He wants no one, including but not limited to present company, to stay out of his tree-house.
Now let's consider the second issue, the theological one. McLaren suggests that the traditional view of John 14:6 is at odds with 14:9 which he considers the "dynamic core" of this passage. He says of verse 9: "Here the irony becomes nearly unbearable (to me), as we contrast this statement with the conventional interpretation of verse 6" (p. 11). He is saying that 14:6 cannot possibly be about "exclusion" when 14:9 is such a clear declaration of a "theology of inclusion." (This term is not his, but I think it captures the idea.) So this objection to the traditional view of John 14:6 is more theological - it is based upon a doctrine which McLaren finds outside of 14:6 which limits how it should be understood. In all fairness, "Scripture interprets Scripture" is a recognized principle of biblical interpretation. Is it applicable here?
McLaren believes that "Jesus way has been compassion, healing, acceptance, forgiveness, inclusion, and love from beginning to end" (p. 11). I do not disagree that Jesus' earthly ministry was the perfect personification of love. But for McLaren, a "theology of inclusion" and the "exclusivity of Christ" are mutually exclusive. They are like two roads headed in opposite directions.
Scripture finds no contradiction between the fact of Jesus' proactive love and His exclusivity as mediator. Note the interplay and complementarity of these two themes in 1 Tim. 2:4-5: "[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Theme One: God earnestly seeks the salvation of all men. Theme Two: Jesus alone is the mediator who can reconcile all men to God.
So, this looks like a case where McLaren is seeing a conflict that Scripture does not! Indeed, a passage like 1 Tim. 2:4-5 provides a reasonable explanation for the ardency of Jesus' unprejudiced pursuit of all men. He is the sole and sufficient solution to their greatest problem!
Bottom line: I remain convinced that John 14:6 is a simple and clear declaration of the need for all men to come to Jesus as their Savior.
This article is brilliant! You have put clear words to what was only mushy hunches and misgivings I had upon reading McLaren's article. Kudos for cutting to the heart of the matter with a gracious and fair treatment!
Posted by: RLF | October 18, 2007 at 10:09 AM