I wrote this during my STM studies in September 2012 for the Cornerstone, student publication at Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, IN.
This is by no means an exhaustive essay on this topic, but I’m sure that it will indeed garner a lot of attention. I write this with a bit of apprehension because this is an oft debated topic, and it seems to me that there are those who are quite militant in their viewpoint on the matter—being quite aggressive toward any differing view than their own. This antagonistic view is, in part, the reason that I am writing this little essay, but enough of the rationale—on to the matter at hand.
First, it must be said, for the sake of thoroughness, that John 6 takes place within the context of the feeding of the 5,000. This miracle is integral for the understanding of the rest of John 6. Something that, I think, both sides admit. But in what way? Some say that the feeding miracles are types of the Lord’s Supper, and others let the miracle stand on its own. But while types of Christ can be found in the Old Testament, it is dangerous to do the same for the New Testament. Christ comes and fulfills types. Does He then make new ones? Maybe, but, again, this is unclear and subject to debate.
Moreover, bare word association cannot be the way to find the answer either. I freely admit that words have meaning, and that a greater understanding can even be found by looking to see how one word, words, or sentences are used in many different places. But some go too far, and it seems that they see the Lord’s Supper under every reference to bread in the Scriptures. What of the temptation of Jesus? (“Man cannot live by bread alone…”) What about Psalm 14? (“Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, Who eat up my people as they eat bread, And do not call on the LORD?”) Or, finally, what about the “bread of affliction” from Deuteronomy 16?
So what of John 6? Many rebuke and hold to be ignorant those who do not regard John 6 as “sacramental” or “eucharistic.” I understand that most use this to mean that John 6 refers to the Lord’s Supper, but when we apply the adjectives “sacramental” or “eucharistic” to something what does that actually mean? Sacramental reading, sacramental preaching, sacramental theology are all phrases that can be used. But we could have such things as a baptismal reading, a eucharistic theology, eschatological preaching, or maybe even some absolutional proclamation. Quo finis adjectivorum! The simple question to ask, then, about John 6 is this: does this refer to the institution of the Lord’s Supper?
Some would consider this a frivolous question, but, as Lutherans, we always turn to the institutions and mandates of our Lord first. That’s what’s in the Catechism, after all. Moreover, our Theology of the Lord’s Supper is founded upon the institution and mandate of Christ. When we are given to confess what the Lord’s Supper is, what it gives, and what its benefits are, we go to what our Lord says about it when He instituted it and the clear passages of Paul that deal with the subject. May none ever turn to John 6 because these are not “clear enough”! Moreover, some would claim that those who deny that Jesus discusses the Lord’s Supper in John 6 have a severely superficial reading of John 6. I would claim, however, as my title intimates, that those who say that John 6 is purely a discussion by our Lord Jesus Christ of the Lord’s Supper are they who have a superficial reading of John 6.
What, then, do we see in John 6? In John 6 our Lord has much to say about faith, God’s election, the freedom of the will, and even the resurrection of the dead. We will consider each of these things briefly. Actually reading John 6 on its own merit, and even a cursory glance through our Lutheran Confessions show how deep John 6 actually goes when it comes the areas that I just mentioned. When we consider faith, we see that our Lord speaks much about this.
At the beginning of the Bread of Life discourse Jesus chastises the unbelief of those who seek merely earthly bread. Their response then is “What shall we do so that we are working the works of God?” Jesus’ words to them—loosely translated to echo the force of the epexegetical ἵνα—are: “This is the work of God: you believe in Him whom He sent.” God is the one who effects faith (SD II.26), and “whoever believes in Me shall not thirst, ever.”
How is such faith given, and what benefits does it give? Our Lord takes this up next. The cause is God’s election: His “giving” to Jesus (Jn. 6:37), His “drawing” to Jesus (6:44), and all because this is “His will” since “This is the Father’s will, that all, who believe in Christ, may have eternal life, John 6:40. And Christ wishes that, to all in common, to whom repentance is preached this promise of the Gospel should be offered, Luke 24:37; Mark 16:15” (SD XI.28). The benefit is that Christ will raise us on the last day—almost a refrain running throughout 6:33–51.
Again Jesus reiterates, “He who believes has life eternal” (6:47). Yet, He shifts gears as the discourse winds down: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in you. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise Him on the last day.” If one wishes to see the Lord’s Supper here (not the institution, but the teaching thereof), I would be willing to see it. The contours of the entire text must be maintained, and flesh comes at the end of the discourse. Moreover we must keep in mind that Peter’s statement at the end of John 6 is not about what can be gained from eating Jesus, but the words which He has, as we should know from our Divine Service settings. Jesus’ statement must actually be viewed as important, when He says, “The Spirit is the one who gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (6:63).
To make John 6 only about the Lord’s Supper is quite problematic. It can lead one to ignore the depths, contours, and insights that Jesus has on other articles of our faith. Furthermore, some fail to take into account, or rather they just ignore the fact of what to do with the manducatio indignorum, besides the problem of ex opere operato. The sensus literalis unus est must be maintained and kept distinct from the sensus homileticus in all of Scripture, but also in John 6. To have a surplus about an oral eating and a famine on the eating with or of faith, ends with only Capernaitic concerns. John 6 is more than flesh deep. The necessity of John 6 being about the Lord’s Supper is not the same as the necessity of eating Jesus by faith—truly, the eating of bread that all men need:
The sower sows; his reckless love
Scatters abroad the goodly seed,
Intent alone that all may have
The wholesome loaves that all men need.
– LSB 586:3
Gracious Mercy Blog 