Since Jesus was God in the flesh, he must have been able to see into the future — right? But can we reasonably think that in this week’s lectionary Gospel he was gazing forward into 21st century American Christianity and trying to tweak every branch of the Church simultaneously?
I know: That’s a bit absurd.
Maybe he wasn’t actively trying to tweak four different parts of his Body, the Church, two millennia after he walked the earth. But it is my considered opinion that he did so effectively.
Or perhaps I just think in terms of historical theology.
John 6:56-69
The text is the fifth and final week of the Revised Common Lectionary’s Summer sojourn through the “Bread of Life” discussion in John 6. In particular we are dealing with John 6:56-69. (Of course they left off the last couple verses of the passage, since Jesus gets a bit negative about Judas there.)
1. Jesus Tweaks the Protestants in General.
The emphasis on Jesus as Bread of Life, all through the chapter, and here in 6:56-58, has had a way of seeming contrary to Protestant sensibilities.
We Protestants are all about hearing the Word, studying the Scriptures, encountering Jesus on the page and with our intellect —
And here he goes again, saying the thing we have to do is eat his Body and drink his Blood.
That is, it’s all about the Eucharist. Our once-a-quarter or once-a-month communion service looks pretty inadequate. So do our cavalier ways of substituting grape juice for wine, pre-slicing the bread in little cubes, and generally making it up as we go along.
In many Protestant circles the Eucharist is frankly optional.
For Jesus, clearly the Eucharist is quite necessary.
Doesn’t that just get your goat? Don’t you find yourself making exegetical arguments to say it can’t really mean that?
2. Jesus Tweaks the Post-Enlightenment Liberals in Particular.
When the disciples (good Protestants all, I’m sure) objected to all this (John 6:60), Jesus basically said
You think this Eucharist stuff is tough? Wait till you see the Ascension!”
It may seem odd that Jesus is discussing the Eucharist many chapters before it was instituted at the Last Supper. It is odder still that he’s talking about his Ascension, which came weeks after his Resurrection, which came days after his Crucifixion, all of which came after the Last Supper.
Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” (John 6:61-62 NRSV)
It isn’t just odd in terms of the biblical timeline.
It is odd that he chose to prove his point by bringing up one of the miraculous biblical incidents of which the Enlightenment was so very critical.
It is the kind of thing classical Liberals wanted to take symbolically or metaphorically. They were happy to look for the message and meaning of the Ascension. It is just the actual Ascension they didn’t want to accept.
I mean really: can modern people in a scientific world take seriously a Jesus who lifts off from the ground and shoots into heaven?
Well, Jesus seems to want us to take his ascension very seriously indeed.
Doesn’t that just get your goat? Don’t you find yourself making exegetical arguments to say it can’t really mean that?
3. Jesus Tweaks the Catholics and the Orthodox for Good Measure.
But it isn’t just the Protestants who have something to be offended at in this story. Catholics and Orthodox too can find Jesus poking them with the divine stick.
The Catholics and the Orthodox take the Eucharist very very seriously. Jesus’ real and miraculous presence in what starts the service as bread and wine are absolutely the Main Event on Sunday morning. They are all about eating his Body and drinking his Blood.
But Jesus seems to say here that what really matters is less tangible.
It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (John 6:63 NRSV)
So, dear brothers and sisters, as the Protestants have been saying for half a millennium, it is spiritual stuff, not physical stuff that matters. It is really all about Jesus’ words, and believing him.
It’s about faith.
You can sort of see Jesus sadly shaking his head here.
But among you there are some who do not believe.” (John 6:64)
Or in modern vernacular,
Tsk, tsk, tsk.”
It’s all about believing.
Focus on matters of spirit, not of flesh.
Doesn’t that just get your goat? Don’t you find yourself making exegetical arguments to say it can’t really mean that?
4. Jesus Tweaks All the Non-Calvinists — of Course.
And finally, in a moment we Presbyterians find a bit vindicating, Jesus prods all the Non-Calvinists in the crowd.
When most of the band of disciples stopped following Jesus because of points 1-3 above, Jesus reminds the twelve, the faithful remnant, of what he said earlier in the chapter:
For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.” (John 6:65 NRSV)
Most branches of Christianity emphasize something we do to at least cooperate with grace, if not to exercise a fully free will to choose the Way of Christ.
But Jesus says it’s really God’s doing. All your choosing and and repenting and self-discipline? You couldn’t have done it if God hadn’t granted you to Jesus.
As he put it earlier in the chapter,
No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me” (John 6:44)
Calvin called it “election” and “predestination.” (St. Augustine did too. So did St. Paul actually.)
Doesn’t that just get your goat? Don’t you find yourself making exegetical arguments to say it can’t really mean that?
An Equal Opportunity Offender
Now if you think I’m being sort of snarky or cynical thinking that Jesus would be so offensive to people who had set out to follow him, and maybe on purpose, I’ll just refer you to verse 60 and 66.
The disciples said Jesus’ whole line of teaching was difficult.
Many disciples stopped following him because of it.
Jesus was an equal opportunity offender. Over time, he gave people the truth — the whole truth. He pushed them to their personal limits.
That’s because he wanted only those whom his Father drew to him, to have them come to him with true and deep faith, to come to a miracle-working Christ, and to receive him truly and be utterly united to him for life by eating his Body and Blood.
++++++++++++
I’d love to send my Monday Meditations (along with my other new articles and announcements) straight to your inbox. Scroll down to the black box with the orange button to subscribe to my weekly(ish) newsletter, and all this will be yours…
Hi, Dr. H.
Thanks for this post. “This teaching is difficult,” indeed. With my minimal theological education, I have been challenged by John 6 over the last 5 weeks and appreciate your insights.
I can’t speak for all Protestants, but, as a Presbyterian, I suggest that you minimize our connection to the Eucharist. Whenever we “do it,” we emphasize the presence of the Holy Spirit at the celebration, the role of the sacrament in satisfying our spiritual hunger and thirst, and the ongoing process of sanctification and connections (communion) it offers. It is certainly not optional, although it required weekly. I’ve always thought that the less-frequent celebration elevates the sacrament, emphasizes its significance, and makes it feel less routine.
But . . .
I’m still not convinced that John 6 is “all about the Eucharist.” John’s gospel does not describe a Last Supper in the way the Synoptics do. John emphasizes the foot-washing rather than the sharing of the supper. I have read that the feeding of the 5000 is how John represents the Eucharistic meal. (If so, that would make the timeline less odd.)
In my study this week, I’ve seen a lot of discussion of John’s choice of words, particularly the distinction between the Greek words for “eat” and “chew on/gnaw., both of which are used in this chapter. I’m thinking of titling my message “Chew On This!” and suggesting that Jesus is telling us to ponder, meditate upon, absorb, and take in his teaching, so that it becomes our identity as members of the body of Christ. (We are what we eat!)
Or else I’ll just go with the Ephesians reading re the armor of God!
Thanks.
April
Thanks, April, for your very thoughtful reply!
Back in the Reformation John 6 featured heavily in Eucharistic debates (specifically at the Marburg Colloquy, where Reformed and Lutheran found agreement on everything EXCEPT the Eucharist). Luther said it wasn’t about the Eucharist. Zwingli and Oecolampadius said it absolutely was.
I’d say that this really is John’s way of teaching on the Eucharist — offered in advance of the place in the narrative where it would occur, though in his own Gospel the event itself is not recorded. Much of John is best read through a full knowledge of the resurrection, and here even of the ascension.
The Synoptics all also include the feeding of the 5000, and I don’t see the Eucharist in John’s version in particular. (Though Jesus does “give thanks,” there is no wine and there are fish… and other than thanks there are no elements of the Eucharistic liturgy hinted at.)
I’m very glad indeed that your experience of Presbyterianism has emphasized the Eucharist well. We do better than some branches of Protestantism, though I’m quite convinced that for some it garners very little reflection, and any suggestion that frequency be increased prompts complaints including “too Catholic” and “empty ritual.”
Your argument that less frequent means more special is something I’ve heard very often. However it does not really ring true to my ears. Having been formed in a Presbyterian college ministry that practiced weekly communion, I’ve seen that frequency provides more opportunity for reflection and richer experience. I find the things that bring deep joy and meaning to life are always wanted more frequently, not less.
Blessings,
Gary