Gairney Bridge

I posted my first “Monday Morning Musing” a couple of days ago, and my comments received a strong objection of sorts by a good friend. It seems that he believes I have overlooked the latter part of John 6 as representative of both the Incarnation and Lord’s Supper (like double-mint, it’s two-two-two doctrines in one!). Actually, many Protestant scholars and commentators would disagree that the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist is a primarily emphasis in the passage in question. Rather than comment (more than a little), let me just supply a few quotes.

In his commentary on the Gospel of John (commenting on 6:54), John Calvin writes:

From these words, it plainly appears that the whole passage is improperly explained, as applied to the Lord’s Supper. For if it were true that all who present themselves at the holy table of the Lord are made partakers of his flesh and blood, all will, in like manner, obtain life; but we know that there are many who partake of it to their condemnation. And indeed it would have been foolish and unreasonable to discourse about the Lord’s Supper, before he had instituted it.

Now Calvin does admit, just few lines later, that “there is nothing said here that is not figuratively represented … in the Lord’s Supper” (however, the same could be said of other things Christ says in the gospels which are not ordinarily taken as Eucharistic in nature). He even references one of the Early Church Fathers, Augustine, did not even touch on the Lord’s Supper until the end of his commentary on the passage, and then only in a symbolic reference.

In Leon Morris’ commentary on John, he includes the following exegetical response the Incarnational and Eucharistic interpretations of the text:

In a very startling statement Jesus defines the bread the He will give as His flesh. The future takes it out of the realm of the general, and looks to teh gift that would be made on Calvary. Those who understand the verse [v. 51] of the incarnation or the like usually ignore the tense. … Many commentators speak as though the word “flesh” self-evidently marked a reference to Holy Communion. It, of course, does nothing of the sort. It is not found in the narratives of the institution, nor in 1 Cor. 10, nor in 1 Cor. 11 in connexion with the sacrament. … The usual word in sacramental usage is “body.”

Morris points out that charge that this sort of interpretation is a departure from the Early Church Fathers is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding. “Flesh” was not the common usage of the Fathers. For example, Ignatius is usually cited as using sarx (flesh) in such a way, but his comments (e.g., Romans 7:13) are used in conjunction with martyrdom, not the celebration of the Supper (in a footnote, Morris lists several other examples where it is clear that Ignatius is not speaking of the sacrament when he refers to flesh). Morris adds:

But writers like Ignatius consistently use “body” not “flesh” of the sacrament, and so do ancient liturgies like those of Hippolytus, Serapion, St. James, etc. … All I am contending is that in point of fact, with reference to the eucharist, the custom was to use soma [”body”] … so that the occurrence of sarx in itself cannot be held to point to the sacrament.

Finally, Morris issues these comments about verses 52-59:

This is the section of the discourse which above all is claimed confidently as referring to the holy communion. The language of eating the flesh and drinking the blood is said to be explicable only, or at least most naturally, in terms of the sacrament. But is this so? I think not. … The very strength of the language is against it. The eating and drinking spoken of bring eternal life (v. 54), and they are absolutely unqualified. Are we to say that the one thing necessary for life is to receive the sacrament? Again, “flesh” is not commonly used with reference to the sacrament. In every other New Testament passage referring to it the word is “body.” … I am not contending that there is no application to the sacrament. But I very strongly doubt whether this is the primary meaning. It seems much better to think of the words as meaning first of all the appropriation of Christ.

Lastly, D.A. Carson, in his commentary of John, makes several points, which I will summarize.

• Verses 54 and 40 are very close parallels. One verse speaks of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood, which the other speaks of looking to the Son and believing in Him, using the same concepts. In other words, one verse metaphorically explains the other (Carson even cites a comment from Augustine here: “Believe, and you have eaten”).
• If the one thing necessary for eternal life is simply coming to the Lord’s Table, then this would contradict earlier portions of the discourse, notably verse 40.
• In verse 63, Jesus insists that “the flesh counts for nothing.” In the context of vv. 61-63, it would seem that the offense is the cross, not cannibalism.
• In verse 54, Jesus states, “And I will raise him up on the last day”, shows that it is not strictly eating and drinking (in the Eucharistic interpretation of some) that confers resurrection/immortality.

Carson adds the following comments:

None of this means that there is no allusion in the verses to the Lord’s table. But such allusions as exist prompt the thoughtful reader to look beyond the eucharist, to that which the eucharist itself points. In other words, eucharistic allusions are set in the broader framework of Jesus’ saving work, particularly his cross-work. Moreover, by the repeated stress in the discourse on Jesus’ initiative, no room is left for a magical understanding of the Lord’s table that would place God under constraint: submit to the rite, and win eternal life! Both the feeding miracle and the Lord’s table, rightly understood, parabolically set out what it means to receive Jesus Christ by faith. …Augustine … [has] it right. [He] sees in this passage ‘a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.’

Of course, none of these citations proves that I am “right.” I am only contending that I not in a tiny minority.

All things said, though, I hope I am not being accused of having an anemic Christology or a low view of the Lord’s Supper. I would personally take offense at that.