“My flesh is true food”: the Lord’s Supper in St John’s Gospel
John H Friday 25th May, AD 2007
I’m about to go offline for a few days, and thought I would leave the following as a topic for discussion, as it’s one on which I have very little to offer but much that I would like to learn from others.
I’ve been having a short email correspondent with a BHT lurker, Mike, in which he referred to the “deafening silence” of St John’s gospel in relation to the Lord’s Supper. My reply included the following (written in haste late at night, so not the most coherent paragraph I’ve ever written!):
I’d say John’s gospel is the most sacramental of all the gospels. Water into wine? Water and blood flowing from Jesus’ side? “Born again of water and the Spirit”? “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood”? “Living water”? The strongest linking of Jesus’ death to the passover in any of the gospels?
Mike and I are agreed that John 6:53-58 refers to the Lord’s Supper, and Mike clarified his point by adding (emphasis added):
My point was more primitive – John doesn’t record the Last Supper itself. [...] Don’t you think that if the Eucharist is THE central focus of worship and forgiveness it is a curious omission for John not to have recorded it? Even as history?
Mike stressed that he is not being argumentative here, but asking out of sincere curiosity. So out of the same sincere curiosity I throw this one open to the floor: all thoughts on the sacraments and St John’s Gospel (and feel free to add in Revelation and the Johannine Epistles, while you’re at it) are welcome, especially any suggestions on the specific issue of the absence of an institution narrative.
- Tags: Gospels, St John's Gospel
- Categories: Biblical Interpretation , Lord's Supper , Sacraments
- Comments(20)
[...] To provide me with some holiday reading, I’d be grateful for any thoughts people have on the subject of what St John’s Gospel has to say about the Lord’s Supper, and particularly the “deafening silence” as regards the institution of the Supper. [...]
It is hard for me to understand how anyone with their ears really open to the text can fail to hear the many sacramental allusions in John 6. Within one chapter John alludes to or explicitly mentions the OT sacrifices (‘bread of God’), the Passover, the Eucharistic action (v.11), the tree of life (‘eating and living forever’) and the manna. When just about every sacramental food the Bible ever speaks about (many of which are elsewhere clearly aligned with the Eucharist) is mentioned it seems that one has to try very hard to avoid seeing the Eucharist in the chapter. I have discussed this subject at length in this post and its comments.
There is a problem with predicating everything said of Jesus’s flesh in John 6 of the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament.
It is this: it says
1) that unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.
Now if that is the Eucharist, one can then say that it is necessary for salvation. At least it is as necessary as baptism. But in churches which do not practice both infant baptism and infant communion (i.e. all Catholic and Protestant churches) vast numbers of Christians in good standing have died without eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood in the Eucharist. Do all these infant Christians have no life in them?
2) It also says if you do eat His flesh and drink His blood, you will never die. That’s a promise of eternal life. Taken literally and applied to the Eucharist it means, anyone who has partaken is guaranteed salvation. Once saved, always saved. Now no one who actually believes in the real identification actually believes that either.
For these two reasons, Luther believed John 6 was not talking about sacramental communion.
Yet it certainly seems right as Al said, to read it as referring to Holy Communion.
Are there ways we could “get around” the categoricalness of the no Communion no salvation, get Communion get salvation passages? Certainly the phrase, “it’s the spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing, my words are spirit and life,” (another typical example of the John-style, rituals mean nothing if you don’t believe theme) can work against scenario 2. But what about 1?
CPA: As regards #2, I think the nature of the gospel itself is to sound like “Once saved, always saved”. The same objection you make could be made to “He who believes and is baptised will be saved”.
The fact that people can and do fall away from faith does not mean we need to hedge statements of the gospel with conditions of the “…unless you stop believing, of course” variety.
As for #1, well, I don’t exclude a metaphorical application of those words, but I still think the primary reference is to the Lord’s Supper. IIRC the Lutheran confessions (the AC? the Apology?) state that the sacraments are “ordinarily necessary” to salvation, the point being, “Yeah, of course people can be saved without them, but that’s not something you should be relying on if you can help it”.
And Jesus’ words are addressed to those (“you”) who are in a position to make a choice about accepting or rejecting the salvation offered to them in the Supper. Perhaps Aslan’s “I tell no-one any story but his own” applies here.
I’m much more interested in the implications of what would happen if you introduced real blood into a kosher meal like the passover. Western tradition has maintained the usage of unleavened bread due to the historical co-incidence of the last supper and the feast of unleavened bread. If this association is as important as a lot of churches have made it, then the introduction of blood that under Levitical law must be drained away and not consumed makes for an extremely interesting spin on Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.
Michael Cahill makes his argument in 2002 at:
Cahill, Michael J. (Winter 2002)Drinking blood at a kosher Eucharist? The sound of scholarly silence. In Biblical Theology Bulletin, 32, p168(14). Retrieved May 13, 2007, from Expanded Academic ASAP via Thomson Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A94771784&source=gale&userGroupName=61scc&version=1.0
I still haven’t quite figured it out, but it is nevertheless an interesting avenue of investigation.
Sorry about that link by the way, I didn’t realise it would only point to our library’s front end to the journals. If you could edit the link out, that would probably be helpful.
what would happen if you introduced real blood into a kosher meal like the passover…that under Levitical law must be drained away and not consumed…
The Lord’s Supper is not just a recapitulation of a Passover meal or even merely the fulfillment of a Passover meal. It is the New Covenant. A new thing. The “rules” have changed.
“This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. (Luke 22.20)
Cahill is misjudging the situation entirely. But you have drawn attention to an important aspect of the theology of the Sacrament (and also the Gospel of John) – that is is not just the antitype of the Passover but of the Levitical sacrifices as well. Thus understanding the theology of the Temple as a type is essential for a robust Incarnational and Sacramental theology. This is where John’s Gospel comes to the fore. In it the theme of the Temple – which has now become the very fleshly body of Jesus – plays a great role.
In answer to Mike’s question, “Don’t you think that if the Eucharist is THE central focus of worship and forgiveness it is a curious omission for John not to have recorded it? Even as history?” I would be inclined to suggest that it is precisely *because* of the centrality of the Eucharist in the early Church that John can leave such a deafening silence. As Raymond Brown points out, “It may be that certain things are not mentioned by John, not because the evangelist disagrees with them but because he presupposes them.” The omission of the Supper is a narrative hole that practically demands to be filled. John does something similar with Jesus’ baptism in chapter 1. The Baptizer refers to having seen the Spirit descend upon Jesus, but the actual baptism is neither depicted nor mentioned. I would contend that it is only within the context of a community shaped by these two events (i.e., the baptism of Jesus and the Last Supper) that such omissions make sense. Brown argues that, compared to the Synoptics, John’s Gospel can be seen shifting the narrative focus, so that the discrete events that institute the sacraments move into the background, while the theological connection between the sacraments and the whole of Jesus’ ministry moves into the foreground. Looking at John 6 in this light might address CPA’s concerns. It may be that the reference to the sacrament in this passage is an indirect one. John describes the saving nature of faith in the Crucified in terms that consciously recall the Words of Institution, thereby providing a theological commentary on the sacrament.
Since you asked about sacraments more generally, I’d like to throw out a line on baptism in 1 John. Well, I just want to be different.
I’m sure you’re aware, John, of the location of baptism as one of the three testimonies (the Spirit = the Spirit, the blood = the cross and the water = baptism) in the first Johannine epistle. And all three are God’s testimony, not man’s. And so they testify together that we are his children. The really interesting thing is the JFB commentary on 1 John 5:8, which carries some comment on this, that these three testimonies are shown in the life of Christ, who by the Spirit’s power, crucifixion and baptism, was shown to be the Son of God. So our union with Christ is manifest even in this.
I often reflect on the fact that God hasn’t just left us with one source of assurance, lest, in our sinfulness, we be so blinded as to doubt completely his goodness towards us.
My question–to add to the mix: What if the gospel accounts were actually meant to be together? Then you wouldn’t expect all the accounts to repeat the very same things.
After looking at the four accounts, like four different perspectives of a diamond, then the most important question would therefore NOT be–what EXACTLY did Jesus do say? Most importantly is why is he considered a saviour, and what is the gospel/good news?
“Jesus is said to be of the line of David. This is supposed to be important as some fulfillment of prophecy that Jesus would be the Messianic king. Well, that’s what we think. But actually John NEVER mentions it. So it can’t be all that important, can it?”
Well maybe this is another cae of something being so massive a fact John assumes we know it.
In fact by having the Pharisees say (correctly) that the Messiah can’t be born in Galilee but never telling us where Jesus was born, John is either 1) casting doubt on Jesus’s messianic claims; or 2) assuming that the reader is already familiar with the other gospels and/or the whole body of traditions about Jesus’s life, sayings, and work that went into those gospels.
The second is the obvious choice, and makes it likewise impossible that John’s readers would not already know and be “expecting” a Last Supper narrative.
I suspect that, rather than explicitly teaching the institution of Eucharist in his gospel, John wants his readers to read his gospel Eucharistically, in terms of the practice of the Eucharist, which is well-established within their churches. We don’t so much read the Eucharist out of John’s gospel as John’s gospel out of the Eucharist.
John isn’t writing to a group of blank slates, but to people who are active members of worshipping communities. The gospel is intimately related to worship and quite possibly had a previous sermonic form. The gospel would probably not be encountered by most Christians outside of the context of public hearing in gathered worship. It would have been read aloud and the Eucharistic allusions would be quite obvious in a way that they are not to many of us. We tend to encounter the gospel primarily in private reading, outside of the context of gathered worship and so we are far less likely to pick up on the allusions.
Jesus is the true vine and the wine-giver. He is the grain of wheat that falls into the ground and He is the true bread. He is the one who is true food for the people of God.
I’d also like to add a little to the mix.
In John Chapter 6, Jesus identified himself as “bread from heaven” and told the people that “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day.” (6:54) Jesus was not recommending cannabalism – the words he spoke were “spirit and life.” (6:63) The interpretation of his words is in its spirit. To eat Jesus spiritually is to partake of the Word of Eternal Life, sent as a gift (grace) from heaven. It is noteworthy that some of his disciples did not understand what his words really meant and so “went back and walked no more with him.” (6:64) The misunderstanding of these disciples is essentially the same misunderstanding responsible for the doctrine of Transubstantiation. To accept this doctrine is to be chastised by Jesus, just as they were.
Paul deals with the question in 1 Cor. 10:16-21. He speaks of those who partake of the “table of the Lord” as being “one loaf” and “one bread.” Jesus and his followers are of ONE spiritual flesh and blood. It follows logically, therefore, that if the flesh and blood of Jesus is consumed when the bread and wine of the Eucharist is consumed, then those who hold to the doctrine of Transubstantiation are actually eating themselves.
Vynette,
I think that we should beware of using John 6:61-63 to evacuate the rest of the passage of its import. In the statements of these verses Jesus is answering the objections of verses 41-42 and 52. Verse 62 addresses the first objection; verse 63 addresses the objection of verse 52.
We must eat the flesh of Christ. However, the mere flesh of Christ is just normal human flesh. It has no magical properties. The significance of Jesus’ flesh is that it bears the life of the Spirit. The flesh of Christ only has its significance when it is not severed from the Spirit-bearing person of Christ.
John,
I learnt this week that the vicar (vicar Jackson) of the congregation which I currently attend, St Pauls’ Lutheran in Saskatoon, will be over there in England quite soon, pastoring near you.
The world is a small place!
[...] Thanks to all those who contributed to the thread on the Lord’s Supper in John’s Gospel last week. Some stimulating holiday reading, and a number of points I want to investigate for myself in more detail. [...]
Regarding things left out of some gospel accounts and included in others, I would expect the writers of the gospels (under the direction of the Holy Spirit, of course) would have known something of the other works already. Luke attests to this quite plainly in Luke 1:1-4.
Why did Mark, Matthew, and Luke exclude the Lord’s statement that “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” that John records in John 20:29? My amateur opinion is that the Spirit directed John to include these words because at the time he was writing this account of the gospel, there were second- and third-generation Christians living who had started to doubt their faith because they had never seen Jesus, and they were trusting their souls to a specific interpretation of the Scriptures, some letters by a (dead) man named Paul, and — at the time — many varying gospel accounts.
I think the timeliness of John’s gospel, at the direction of God in His great Wisdom, speaks to why it is “so different” from the Synoptics. God recognized the growing pains of the very early Church and sought to strengthen them in faith with this mystagogical account of the gospel.
John chapter 6: 60 (not 6:64 as stated before) for me substantiates the Catholic belief. Please read it again. They left Him because they could not believe what he said is true (48-60). If it was symbolic etc, why would they have to stop following Him because of it?
oh yes and John 6:66 is where they stop following Him.
The following is from the Public Domain Book
“A New Literal Translation from the Original Greek, of All the Apostolical Epistles: With a Commentary, and Notes, Philological, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical, to which is Added a History of the Life of the Apostle Paul”
By James Macknight
Published by Thomas Wardle, 1841
40. Eat, Drink. As the Hebrews represented knowledge
and wisdom by meat and drink, they made use of
the phrases eating and drinking, to denote the operation
of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying
doctrine or instruction of any kind, so as to be strongly
moved thereby. Jer. xv. 16. ‘ Thy words were found,
and I did eat them.’ Ezek. iii. 1. ‘Son of man, &c.
eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel:’ Consider, understand, and get this roll by heart, and then go
and speak it to the house of Israel ; as is evident from ver.
4. ‘ Speak with my words to them.’ Prov. ix. 5. ‘ Come,
eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have
mingled. 6. Forsake the foolish and live, and go in the
way of understanding.’ John vi. 51. ‘ I am the living
bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat
of this bread, he shall live for ever.’ Hence, bread signifies
doctrine, also moral qualities, which are nourished
by sound doctrine. 1 Cor. v. 8. ‘ The unleavened bread
of sincerity and truth.’ Farther, to eat and drink any
quality, signifies intimately to partake thereof. 1 Cor. xii.
13. ‘ Have been all made to drink of one Spirit.’ 1 Cor.
xi. 29. ‘ Eateth and drinketh punishment to himself.’
Other uses in Scripture:
“…man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD.” Deut. 8:3, Mt. 4:4, Luke 4:4, John 6:49-51
“I have food to eat of which you do not know.” Jn 4:32
“Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.” John 4:34
Compare also: “the FOOD which endures to eternal life” Jn 6:27 with “My WORDS will not pass away” Matthew 24:35
[Reposted by admin following site migration.]