John 6 and the Eucharist

[Charles.Sullivan]

I have a Roman Catholic coworker who occasionally likes to engage in some theological discussion. I usually aim to be as ecumenical as possible, but the other day he brought up John 6:51-58 as clearly proving the Romanist view of Transubstantiation. I managed to hold my own and he admitted that he had never heard a good explanation from any protestant on this passage before. I will paraphrase the explanation of the passage that I gave him below, and I would appreciate any insights.

First, I explained the importance of always reading the full context of any verse, in this case that means backing up all the way to verse 22. When we start there and then carefully read forward, there are a number of verses that stand out to me which help us understand verses 51-58 more clearly. Those verse are:

• vv. 28-29 Then they inquired, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” Jesus replied, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent.”

These verses lay out the theme of the entire discussion, belief in Jesus is the focus of everything that follows.

• vv. 35-36 Jesus answered, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to Me will never hunger, and whoever believes in Me will never thirst. But as I stated, you have seen Me and still you do not believe."

Here Jesus connects coming to Him with hunger, and therefore eating. Then He connects believing in Him with thirst, and therefore drinking. And it is all tied into their unbelief.

• vv. 39-40 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

These verses are important because of two prominent phrases that will come up again, which I have bolded and italicized. It is those whom the Father has given to Jesus, who then believe in Him, who will have eternal life and therefore be raised up at the last day.

• v. 44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Again, we have this important phrase.

• v. 47 "Truly, truly, I tell you, he who believes has eternal life."

Again, very important not to miss this phrase. It is those who believe that have eternal life.

• v. 54 "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Finally, we come to one of the favorite verses of the Catholics, which they believe speaks of the Eucharist. However, as I have highlighted, I do not think it speaks of the Eucharist at all. Instead, I offer the following interpretation based upon the preceding verses: Eating Christ's flesh means that we come to Him, and drinking Christ's blood means that we believe in Him.

I base this upon verses 28-29 setting up belief in Christ as the theme of the discussion, then verse 35 connecting coming and believing with eating and drinking, then every use of the vastly important phrases having eternal life and being raised up on the last day in verses 39, 40, 44, and 47 being connected with our belief in Jesus and being drawn by the Father.


Next, I explained the importance of considering the original audience when we are interpreting Scripture. I mentioned that Peter had no issue saying "no" to God when He told him to kill and eat an unclean animal in Acts 10:14, but we see no such hesitation from Peter here in John 6 when Jesus mentions eating human flesh and drinking blood, probably because he understood that Jesus was not intending for us to literally eat his flesh and blood, but was instead being symbolic.

I also mentioned that the Lord's Supper did not spring up out of nothing, it was instituted during an existing Old Testament sacrament, the Passover meal. In the Jewish context, Passover is steeped in symbolism, so it only makes sense that the New Testament sacrament of the Lord's Supper would be just as symbolic as the OT sacrament that it came out of.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It's unreasonable and ahistorical for Jesus to teach explicitly on the sacrament of communion when the institution of the L.S. is at least a year in the future from the occasion recorded in Jn.6. John's Gospel, though it contains more raw data on the events of the Upper Room than any of the Synoptic Gospels, does not include the L.S. institution. So, the Jn.6 passage does have something of a correspondence purpose within John's method and style. We should not fear to concede this simple and useful fact; meaning, Jn.6 can teach implicitly on the sacrament of communion.

Jn.6:4 teaches that the Passover season was near; therefore, the subject of OT feasts and sacrifices is most relevant to interpreting Jesus words and terms; which ought then be thematically connected to the L.S. institution coming temporally much later. But as has been pointed out, the fact Christ is the true Passover Lamb and the Lamb which takes away the sin of the world ought to imply (on Rome's terms) that the ancient Israelites also ate and drank the literal body and blood of their (future) Savior, only under the prior covenant's sacrificial "accidents."

There is no hint of such literalistic theology or interpretation in the prophetic scriptures, Moses to Malachi. But there is abundant symbolic theology finding its fulfillment in the Person and Work of Christ. The sacraments of the Old Covenant and its altar feasts held out to them the very same grace of salvation of which we partake, only through the more simple and purer exhibits of the New Covenant.

It's also the case that sometimes Protestants (who might have known better) join with modern generic evangelicals and liberals to reduce a proper and rich sacramental spiritual and real communion with Christ in the LS to gross symbolism. Neither Rome's view (and similar) nor the evacuated reductionist view on the other hand should be approved. Those views each err in opposite directions from the actual nature and character and function of a holy sacrament.

Instead, we of the broadly confessional Reformed and Protestant view should maintain the high, holy, genuine sacramental character of the LS, which feeds true faith in spiritual manner by the signs and seals of the covenant in Jesus' blood; by which things we have unfeigned communion with the true glorious body and blood of the Savior who died and rose again, and meets with us repeatedly to reenact his memorial feast.

We sit down in seats before occupied by those original disciples and for generations since, and join them as our host celebrates with us all the same meal in the same manner as when he held the inaugural feast. It is the "sameness" of the feast that reveals the illusion of Rome's understanding. Jesus did not separate or extend his literal self into the bread and the cup he shared with the Twelve on the night in which he was betrayed. Those participants did not imagine they were ingesting body parts of him who sat whole and complete at the table beside them. Nor did his resurrection change his Person such that ever since we've been consuming a different supper. It's the same supper, with the same benefits.