Herbert Klos wrote an excellent survey of the numerous opinions on the question of the sacraments in John’s Gospel. He presents five distinct categories that range from intentional antisacramentalism to mandated sacramentalism. Six passages have been used to refute or support sacramentalism in John, and this paper will, first, present examples of the evidence use pro and con for each argument, second, we will discuss and critique the four major positions, and third, an evaluation will be offered of the non-sacramental position.
Passages
The wine in John 2:1-11 has been interpreted with sacramental meaning. Mathias Rissi draws attention to the potential allusion to the eucharist intended by the use of wine at the wedding at Cana. Weddings were always connected with joy, and this wedding joy could be an added allusion to the messianic joy (Isaiah 25:f). Rissi claims that the allusion in this miracle would proclaim the presence of the new covenant in Jesus. The allusion of the wine directs the reader’s attention to God’s saving activity among his people in which the eucharist is celebrated. Supporting this allusion is the fact that the Lord’s miracle of changing water into wine saved the wedding and the broken relationships that would have resulted from the wine running out. Mary’s indirect request that Jesus save the wedding could add the allusion of the saving efficaciousness of the wine in the eucharist. Further, the miracle could be compared to the Passover (2:13) and linked to the multiplication of the loaves (6:4) and the last supper (13:1-??).
The reader should note how many suppositions are needed to support these allusions. Webster defines an allusion as “an expression designed to call something to mind without mentioning it explicitly; an indirect or passing reference.” The danger of interpreting allusions concerns the interpreter’s theological preunderstandings that he brings to the text. Because allusions can only be interpreting with any type of certainty by waiting for any future revelation, many allusions turn out to be no more than the interpreter’s illusions. A text may or may not contain an allusion for some sort, but because of their inherent uncertainty, they should never be used as support for other unclear doctrines. Brown cautions in the same direction by requesting that if there is Eucharistic symbolism in the passage, it should not be exaggerated. Allusions should never be exaggerated simply because they are allusions. Schnackenburg denies any sacramental meaning in this passage. His view that the wine symbolizes wisdom now present in the person of Jesus is also not clearly stated in the passage, leaving the reader to agree or disagree based on Schnackenburg’s opinion, not exegesis.
The only thing in the passage that could possibly be construed as connected to the eucharist is the wine. The eucharist “wine” (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26) represents the blood of Christ on the Cross, a symbol rather incongruous with the joy of a wedding. Further, “wine” is never clearly stated in the above passages. The emphasis is on the “cup” which Jesus says is the “new covenant in my blood.” When the contents of the cup is emphasized (which the text does not do), we assume that it contained red wine (not white), and the focus is on the blood of Christ. Matthew focuses on the blood of Christ (“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”), but he uses the “undefined” contents of the cup as symbol of Christ’s blood, thus deemphasizing the cultural use of wine during the Last Supper. The text emphasizes the cup (a communal object), and relationships (new covenant) become prominent. At the wedding at Cana, the Lord makes no reference to the container of the wine. If the meant to offer an allusion to the eucharist at this wedding, then He is mixing up His metaphors from blood to joy, and this opens the door for allowing theological preunderstandings to interpret the text instead of using the text to inform and modify those theological preunderstandings.
The most often debated passage in John on the possible connection to the eucharist is John 6:1-3 and 51-59. Numerous scholars lean toward a eucharist connection in this passage. The arguments advocating this viewpoint are all similar. The Passover reference (v.4), Jesus distributes the good himself, “give thanks” (eucharistesas, v. 11) can be viewed as an explicit technical express, the bread is emphasized as sacred (v. 12) as Jesus claims to be the bread of life, the “flesh” is used (v. 51), and eating and drinking are central to the discussion (v. 53). G. H. C. MacGregor adds all these items up to equal an allusion to the eucharist: "In view of the fact that we have echoes in the chapter of almost the whole terminology of the sacramental ritual, it can hardly be denied that the identification of the life-giving bread with Christ’s flesh, and in particular the use of the double symbolism in v. 53, is intended to place the Eucharistic seal on the whole discourse."
MacGregor bases his eucharistic meaning of verses 51-59 on the feeding narrative earlier in the chapter. Herbert Klos, mentioned earlier, sees these verses as a sacramental restatement of verses 48-51. He moves the bread analogy in the previous verses from a Christological meaning to a eucharistic one. John views the sacrament as giving form to faith. Verses 48-51 demand faith in Jesus and the following verses state that this faith can be externally expressed in the performance of the eucharist.
The word “flesh” (sarx) in verses 51, 53, etc. presents some potential difficulties. The normal word for “body” (soma) is used in the eucharist passages in the synoptics and Paul. If John 6 is alluding to the eucharist, why does he (under the direction of the Holy Spirit) not use “soma”? Marie-Francois Berrouard suggests three reasons. One possible answer might be that the original Aramaic of Jesus’ words might have been translated into Greek using both “flesh” and “body,” and John used the Greek translation he was familiar with, which was “body” in this case. Second, “flesh” would imply anti-docetic doctrine. Third, “flesh” might have been the Greek use in a liturgical setting used by John.
James D. G. Dunn believes that the word “flesh” in this passage demonstrates the less important nature of the eucharistic meaning. There is, in fact, no mention of communion which is crucial for the sacramental ceremony. He rejects the idea that “give thanks” has to refer to communion in a narrow technical sense. (Only an arbitrary hermeneutic would demand that certain words used in the eucharist passages always be used in the same way in every other passage. Words must defined within each separate context without importing a foreign content in order to justify a word’s definition in order to fit in with one’s preunderstanding of a theme.) Further, the manna and the bread are contrasted in the passage and used to symbolize Jesus, not the eucharist. He believes that verses 62-63 speak against the eucharist. Dunn believes that Docetism and a literalistic interpretation plagues the crowd following Jesus, and that John is drawing the people’s attention to the words of Jesus as life-giving, not the eucharist. The problem with this view is that Docetism surfaced after Jesus appeared in human form, and this theory would require that a later redactor changed the text to account for this heresy (and made the text look as if John wrote it).
The last “verse” in John that has been slighted subjected to a sacramental interpretation is John 19:34. As the Roman soldier stabs the Lord on the cross, blood and water came out of the Lord’s side. Both baptism and the eucharist has been postulated as being expressed as an allusion in this verse. Klos believes that John understood the sacaments as concrete expressions of faith, and he is sees no relationship in this passage between faith and the eucharist. Placing the eucharist in this verse is another instance of assuming that the meaning of a word (i.e., blood) in one context (eucharist contexts) means the same thing in another context (this verse). The weakest position of all possible allusions for the Eucharistic comes from Bjoern Sandvik as he tries to connect the vine allegory in John 15 with communion. Few scholars give this attempt any credence.
Theological Positions
Up to this point we have handled all the verses in the Gospel of John that could refer to the eucharist even in the slightest manner. Robert Kysar presents a decent summary of the four major positions. These four positions are non-sacramental, sacramental, of minimal importance sacramental, and redactional. Evaluating them in reverse order, the redactional position does not accept the received text, but relies on the assumption that historical criticism can look behind the received text to discover the original text. As Kysar has pointed out, “Scholars have proposed nearly every conceivable religious and /or philosophical movement in the Roman world as the intellectual setting of the Fourth Gospel (cf. Dodd, Interpretation). In recent years, there has never been anything like a consensus of scholars . . ..” Toward the end of his book, Kysar asks the question, “. . . this theory and all the others are nothing but that—theories. Are they then necessary to our reading of the Gospel of John?” At the end of his discussion of one of these theories, Kysar concludes that “John stands on its own in isolation from the situation that occasioned its writings. Its canonization as Holy Scripture means that the divine truth speaks through its words regardless of the historical setting or time in which it is read.” Kysar’s postmodern hermeneutic, however, has led him into more and more uncertainty. He cannot accept any of the four major positions of the place of the eucharist in the Gospel of John. His conclusion is that “both sacramentally and nonsacramentally have a degree of truth,” which shifts the discussion away from interpretation (what does the text actually say, what was the author’s original intent) to application (what can the reader derive from the text for his own personal life).
The minimal important sacramental position, as Brown advocates, seeks the best of both worlds. Brown attempts to let the text speak for itself, while allowing the possibility that the allusion of the eucharist was intended by John. This position is safe, since it cannot be refuted. Maybe John alluded to the eucharist or maybe he did not. Since we cannot know for certain, it would be best to simply stay with the interpretation of the text itself.
The sacramental view uses a hermeneutic that reads the sacrament back into the text, assuming that John intended this meaning through an allusion. MacGregor believes that John wanted to offer a “spiritual interpretation” of the sacraments, especially with his comments in John 6. He believes that the footwashing narrative in John 13 is a veiled reference to the example of the spirit of one who participates in the eucharist. “We conclude then that for John the spiritual interpretation of sacramental efficacy is primary and normative.” MacGregor’s quote on page 116 demonstrates the influence that his preunderstanding has on the text (“In view of the fact that we have echoes . . .” This fact in the point of the discussion), and his usage of adverbs to lend authority to his argument (“it can hardly be denied . . .” All other positions actual do deny MacGregor’s position). If the interpreter uses a literal hermeneutic, then John cannot be faulted for later opinions that inform him about what he meant by what he wrote.
The fourth position, non-sacramentalism, in John is supported first and foremost by the fact that that the Gospel of John is completely void of any clear mention of the eucharist. Neither does the text of John express any mention of an anti-sacramental. The eucharist is simply absent from the text. All other positions have to import theories into John in order to discover allusions to the eucharist. All other positions have to use subjunctive verbs to express their views (“could be,” “might”) and adverbs (“maybe,” “possibly”). None of the other views offer any degree of certainty. None of the other positions believe that the certainty of the non-sacramental position is correct. The survey of this topic in the recent past indicates two problems for arriving at an agreed-upon interpretation. The scholars’ presuppositions (preunderstandings) shape the results of their inquiry, and the interconnectivity of historical and literary criticism with theological analysis require a more thorough analysis of the subject matter. It is debatable that a disciplined method and a diligent quest are enough to bring clarity to this study.
The Ordinance Became a Sacrament
The Lord’s Supper, which became know as the Eucharist, emerged from the observance of the Jewish Passover. This Passover celebration is found in all of the Gospels: Matthew 26:20–30; Mark 14:17–25; Luke 22:14–23; John 13; and 1st Corinthians 11:17–34. The Passover symbolized Israel’s redemption from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 12, esp. v. 23) by the blood of a lamb. In the upper room on the night before Jesus was crucified, he added the bread and the cup to the meal and designated these 2 symbols as referring to his body and his blood. He also gave clear instructions as to the use of these 2 symbols. Whereas the Israelites were commanded to celebrate the Passover once a year, no such restrictions of number of times, location, or leadership roles were imposed upon the use of the bread and the cup. These 2 symbols have one simple function: to remind believers of the cross in the past and the Lord’s 2nd coming in the future. These 2 symbols were intended to affect the believer’s thought life.
Many doctrines and dogma developed over time as the church fathers attempted to formulate numerous points of theology based on the biblical text. However, we have no written record of a gradually developed a dogma concerning the Eucharist. The earliest non-canonical document, the Didache (70 A.D.?) indicates that the Eucharist had already taken on a more sacred meaning. There is no clear statement as to the motivation for this enhanced spiritual level of the bread and the cup among the believers so early after the Lord’s ascension. The fact remains that a non-canonical writing set in motion a teaching that became dogma that went beyond the simple teaching of Jesus on the night before He was crucified. The apostle Paul simple reiterated the Lord’s word in 1 Cor.; he did not add any further spiritual meaning to them. And the second century produced a smorgasbord of views about the Lord’s Supper with no “consistent or prevailing witness through these two early centuries that provided a real basis for later Catholic or Orthodox sacramental theology.”
If the Gospel of John contains any allusions to what became known as the Eucharist, then John was revealing something that neither the Lord Jesus nor Paul made clear in the Gospels or in the Epistles. The remembrance of the Cross and the Second Coming morphed into a requirement for personal salvation: the efficaciousness of the bread and the wine. Two types of hermeneutics: author intent as discovered by studying the text itself, along with the various contexts involved (biblical theology) or scholar-intent of reading theology back into the text. Jesus made predictions of future events that did not become clear to the disciples until after Pentecost. “I still have many things to say to your, but you cannot bear them now” (John 16:12). One example of this teaching principle appears at the cleansing of the temple in John 2:19, 22: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.”
The key question: After Pentecost, did the disciples really understand John 6 to be revealing a sacrament that did not appear until the beginning of the second century?