Flesh and Blood -- thoughts on a difficult text
John 6 is one of those texts that bedevils preachers. It is a rather graphic text that lends credence to the charge made against early Christians -- that they were cannibals. It's a reminder that no matter how literalistic you might be, some texts require a a metaphorical interpretation. Another caveat -- most scholars, even some evangelical ones, would admit or state that these words are not original to Jesus, but reflect debates and discussions that emerged at the end of the 1st century. In fact, John 6 could be an addition to John itself, in an attempt to deal with docetic and gnostic uses of John's very spiritual/theological interpretation of Jesus's life and ministry.
I'm preaching on John 6:51-58 this Sunday. It's a text that begins:
Many believe that John 6 offers John's rendition of a Eucharistic theology -- that's because his description of the Last Supper doesn't include the institution of the supper, but rather focuses on the washing the feet of the disciples.
The imagery here is rather graphic. Indeed, the word translated as eat in verse 53, carries a more disturbing sense of munching or gnawing. It's meant to give the sense that Jesus was truly a flesh and blood being, not some kind of ghostly divine figure. Indeed, John's message is that the Word (Logos), which is God, became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1-14). This passage simply reinforces that imagery and message.
So, what do we make of such a text? Like many preachers I will make a connection to the Eucharist, but I'll also note that we should take this metaphorically and not literally. I don't believe that in eating the bread and drinking of the cup, I'm eating and drinking the real body and blood of Christ. I do believe that in the Eucharist there is a heightening of the spiritual presence of Christ -- but that presence is found in the body of Christ (the people of God) not in the elements, which serve as a sign of that presence.
What is key in this text, for me at least, is that if we abide in Christ, if we walk with Christ, if we live in Christ, then we also live in and abide in God. The words are graphic, but perhaps we need something that graphic to catch our attention. If we are to live, then perhaps we must dine on the bread of heaven, that God's life might be present in my life, transforming us from the inside out.
I'm preaching on John 6:51-58 this Sunday. It's a text that begins:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh" (Jn. 6:51 NRSV).
Many believe that John 6 offers John's rendition of a Eucharistic theology -- that's because his description of the Last Supper doesn't include the institution of the supper, but rather focuses on the washing the feet of the disciples.
The imagery here is rather graphic. Indeed, the word translated as eat in verse 53, carries a more disturbing sense of munching or gnawing. It's meant to give the sense that Jesus was truly a flesh and blood being, not some kind of ghostly divine figure. Indeed, John's message is that the Word (Logos), which is God, became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1-14). This passage simply reinforces that imagery and message.
So, what do we make of such a text? Like many preachers I will make a connection to the Eucharist, but I'll also note that we should take this metaphorically and not literally. I don't believe that in eating the bread and drinking of the cup, I'm eating and drinking the real body and blood of Christ. I do believe that in the Eucharist there is a heightening of the spiritual presence of Christ -- but that presence is found in the body of Christ (the people of God) not in the elements, which serve as a sign of that presence.
What is key in this text, for me at least, is that if we abide in Christ, if we walk with Christ, if we live in Christ, then we also live in and abide in God. The words are graphic, but perhaps we need something that graphic to catch our attention. If we are to live, then perhaps we must dine on the bread of heaven, that God's life might be present in my life, transforming us from the inside out.
Comments
At the end of the larger reading the more skeptical of his followers walk away, shaking their heads in disbelief at Jesus' use of cannibalistic language (perhaps reflecting the indictment which followed the early Christian community, perhaps reflecting the inability of some of Jesus closest followers to fully comprehend, or, comprehending, to fully embrace the whole of who Jesus was or the import of his message).
Jesus could have responded by calling out to them and informing them that this was a "figure of speech,"(John 16:25) a spiritual metaphor - but he does not - if they are not willing to accept the message as he gave it, the skeptical were better off leaving. Or the writer of John could have taken this opportunity to insert explanatory dialogue clarifying a metaphorical meaning as in the discussion with Nicodemus in John 3, but he does not - again, willing to let those who cannot 'digest' the teaching leave.
On a different point, I have understood in the 'munching' language an exhortation to eat heartily, having one's fill of the body, blood and spirit of God. (No little taste, no little communion chicklet for me!)
If we discern the body, not just the larger Body of Christ, but the body and blood of God in the Eucharistic morsel, then we will be nourished by it, and our spiritual selves will be fed by the most sublime of spiritual food.
Nothing uncomfortable for me.
John
We are begging him to share a meal, and he offers us this. Perhaps there are no bakeries and wineries in heaven? Yikes.
This is an unfortunate issue as it relates to Catholics and others who take literalism to an extreme.
I went to Catholic grade school. The nuns made a big deal about supporting the transfiguration idea.
It was such a stretch, and it didn’t matter to us anyway. I mean, drop a wafer and then take 30min to clean it up. It’s easier to clean up a mercury spill. Oh, and back then they only gave us wafers. They tried to say ‘it’s (the wine/ blood) in there”. Then why did the priest drink? David Mc
Just listen to the song. The pics weren't from Billy Jonas
There're ok though. I love this song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr304P9jpLk
David Mc
http://www.billyjonas.com/index.php?page=songs&display=47
David Mc
I see no problem accepting the Eucharist as representational of a shared meal with Christ - a remembrance. It is just that I see that there are greater possibilities available to us if we are open to them.
I feel invited to accept the Eucharist as an invitation to share in something more than a remembrance - to ingest the very Spirit of God, as Spirit food.
I think the nuns often taught poorly - sometimes trying to teach kids theology beyond their age, and often failing to be conscious that among the children were many who cried out for more complex instruction - resulting in many children giving up on their faith altogether.
But beneath their efforts was a deep faith, and rich tradition, even if poorly conveyed.
If Jesus had wanted us merely to recreate the Last Supper he could have just said so and skipped the ghoulish language calling us to share in his body and blood. Jesus' references to consuming his body and blood, not just sharing a meal of remembrance, occur in several contexts, and was repeated by Paul years after Jesus' death.
The language - "this is my body," "this is my blood" - even if one chooses to accept it as metaphorical - is not casual or incidental. However one is inspired to understand this language, we are being called to participate in something more than a mere meal of remembrance.
I may be overly enthusiastic to understand the Eucharist as the consumption of the body and blood of Christ, but I feel certain that the Eucharist is no ordinary ritual of remembrance - something very profound and deeply and directly connected to Jesus is taking place.
John
David Mc
It's obviously mysterious. David Mc