Eucharist in St John

8/13/2019 Eucharist in St John

1/9

THE UNDERSTANDING OF EUCHARIST IN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL(Petros Vasiliadis, published in L. Padovese [ed.], Atti del VI Simposio di Efeso su S. Giovani Apostolo, Roma 1966, pp. 39-52).

Concerning the teaching of the Church, whether publicly proclaimed or reserved to members of the

household of faith, we have received some from written sources, while others through the apostolic traditionhave been given to us in mystery () .[1] With these words St. Basil the Great in his treatise "Onthe Holy Spirit" has perfectly defined the foundations of our christian faith: Holy Scripture and Worship,apostolic tradition and liturgical experience of the christian self-consciousness, Gospel and Liturgy, in otherwords Word and Sacrament. Given the great emphasis given in modern times to the eucharisticecclesiology, especially within the Ecumenical movement, as well as the fact that the traditional Churches(especially the Orthodox and the Catholic) underline the significance of the Sacrament, more precisely of theEucharist, sometimes over and above the importance for the christian faith of the Word of God,[2] I believe itis necessary and urgent to re-examine in depth the meaning of Eucharist.The proper understanding of Eucharist has always been a stumbling block in christian theology and life; notonly at the start of the christian community when the Church had to struggle against a multitude of mysterycults, but also much later when scholastic theology (mostly in the West) has systematized a latent"sacramentalistic" view of the Holy Mysteries of our Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In vain distinguishedtheologians of the East (most notably in the case of Cabassilas) attempted to redefine the christiansacramental theology on the basis of the trinitarian theology. Seen from a modern theological perspective,this was a desperate attempt to reject certain tendencies which overemphasized the importance ofChristology at the expense and to the detriment of the importance of the role of the Holy Spirit. Thecontroversy between East and West on the issues of the filioque, the epiclesis etc. are well known,[3] thoughtheir consequences to the sacramental theology of the Church have yet to be fully and systematicallyexamined. The tragic consequences of those tendencies were in fact felt a few generations after the finalSchism between East and West with the further division of Western Christianity. One of the main focusesduring the Reformation, and rightly so, was the "sacramentalistic" understanding of the eucharist in theWestern Church, which resulted, among other things, in the departure of the mainstream protestant theologyfrom the early christian sacramental theology. The dialectic opposition between "sacramentantalism" on theone hand, and "the complete rejection of sacraments" on the other, was the main reason of the tragicsecularization of our society and the transformation of the Church into a religion, in some cases a cultic, andin other cases a merely proclaiming/ confessing, religion.[4]In order to figure out the meaning, as well as the real nature and character of the christian sacrament[5], it ismy firm conviction that we should first turn to the Bible.[6] And for our purpose there is no other text moresuitable than the Gospel of John. This canonical book of the Bible, at least in its present and completedform,[7] is the first serious attempt at a theological understanding of the meaning of the christian sacrament.

Along with the pauline interpretation of Baptism in terms of sharing Christ's death on the cross, the strangeand peculiar johannine expression of "eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking his blood" (6:54), hasbecome the basis of all subsequent sacramental understanding of the Eucharist in both East and West. In other words we have only to search for the interpretation and understanding of the Eucharist by the Fourth

Evangelist; after all the Eucharist is the "fullness of the mysteries" (Symeon of Thessaloniki); it is also thevery expression of the Church, the Sacrament of the Church, which according to N.Cavassilas (is designated in the mysteries); but above all in the Gospel of John the Eucharist ispresented as a Mystery, and in a mysterious way as the life giving sacrament. The section of the FourthGospel which extensively deals with this subject is chapter 6.[8]***Before we speak about this chapter, we need first say a few words concerning the way one can determinethe theology of the Fourth Gospel.[9] Today it is unanimously accepted that the Fourth Evangelistapproaches the enduring problems of history, of human destiny, death and the salvation of the humankindstarting not from anthropology but rather from Christology.[10] Christology in the Fourth Gospel, however,

cannot to be understood apart from its Pneumatology, since "the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit" (Jn 14:26),according to the characteristic terminology of John, can be easily defined as the "alter ego" of Christ ("and Iwill ask my father and he will give you another Paraclete so that he might remain with you always", Jn 14:16)This other Paraclete who "will teach you all things" (Jn. 14:26) is "the Spirit of truth" (Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13);


2/9

and in the final analysis the one that will "guide you into all the truth" (Jn 16:12). Consequently human beingsare in communion with "the way, the truth and the life", who is Christ, only through the Holy Spirit, whom hebestows upon the world as a gift of God the Father.The crucial question, of course, is how and on what condition can one become bearer of the Spirit, accordingto johannine theology, i.e. how he can be saved. To answer this question modern exegetes are dramatically

divided. Conservative scholars insist that according to the johannine theology this can only happen within theChurch through the sacraments, whereas liberal critics argue that it is in keeping the word of God and beingin communion with Christ that salvation can be accomplished. Both views converge in presenting the

johannine ecclesiology just as in the pre-johannine tradition, i.e as an eschatological reality; the onlydifference perhaps being that in the Fourth Gospel the members of the Christian community (i.e. the Church)are not designated by the current early Christian predicates (Israel of God, saints, a royal priesthood etc.,and even Church); the real members of the Church are only those who keep the word of Jesus. In thisrespect John develops even further the ecumenical character of the Church first expounded by St. Paul (inhis Epistle to the Romans [ch. 11]). For this reason the faithful are simply called disciples (Jn 13:35; 15:8etc.) friends (15:13ff), and are said to be united with Christ just as vine branches are to the vine. (15.1ff). Inother words the Church, as in the early Christian tradition, is not perceived as a mere organization with aspecific order, but rather as a communion with Christ. The faithful are in communion with Christ, just asChrist is in communion (or to be more exact in unity) with the Father (10:30;[11] 17.21f) when they keep his

word, and believe in him who had sent him. They are of the truth when they hear his voice, just as the sheephear the voice of the good shepherd (10:1ff). All these happen, when they change their lives i.e. when theyare born from above (3:3), by the Spirit (3:5f), something which is experienced as an eschatological act andgift of God. This birth by the Spirit, unlike natural birth, is the work of God which no one can control just as sohappens to the wind. "The Spirit blows where it wills (and here the evangelist moves from the meaning of theSpirit to that of the wind, since the Greek can have both meanings) and you hear its sound but youdo not know from where it comes or where it goes. Thus it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit"(3:8).[12] For this reason the proper worship of the community has to be a worship "in spirit and in truth"(4:24).This extremely charismatic ecclesiological view, which the Fourth Evangelist seems to exhibit, is completedaltered in a number of seemingly strong sacramental references (as e.g. vv. 3:5f, with the reference to therebirth of water and of the Spirit; or v. 19:34, the reference to the flow of blood and water from the piercedside of the crucified Jesus; and above all in the so-called "sacramental" section (vv. 6:51b-58) of the"eucharistic" or "Bread-of-Life" discourse (vv. 30ff), and in fact in the entire sixth chapter). ***St. John the Evangelist, although he omits the words of institution of the Eucharist is rightly considered thesacramental theologian par excellence.[13] One can only read carefully the reference to the newcommandment of love (13:34-35), and will immediately recall the institution narrative, since the (new commandment)[14] sounds very similar to the (the new testament) of the synoptictradition.[15] Furthermore the symbolism of the vine and the branches in the "Farewell Discourse" (ch. 15),the washing of the disciples feet (ch. 13), which actually replaces the synoptic account of the Institution ofthe Eucharist,[16] the aforementioned flow of blood and water from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus

(19:34) and above all Chapter 6 with its "Eucharistic Discourse" (especially 6:51b-58); they all make thesacramental, or rather eucharistic, character of the Fourth Gospel more than inescapable. Not to mention, ofcourse, the miraculous change of the water into wine at the Wedding in Cana (2:1-11) at the outset of Jesus'earthly ministry, as well as many other cases. The issue at stake, however, is whether this sacramentaldimension, and more precisely the johannine understanding of the Holy Mysteries of initiation, is at all relatedto the "sacramentalistic" views of the ancient, contemporary to the early Church, Hellenistic Mystery Cults.Coming back to the narratives in the sixth chapter we must note that the entire section consists ofcorresponding smaller units,[17] which are linked together through their sacramental/eucharistic point ofreference.[18] Only the passage of the walking of Jesus on the lake of Genesaret (6:16-21) seems to beoutside this scheme. This is probably due to the fact that this very unit was preserved in the earlier synoptictradition (Mk 6:30-52 = Mt 14:13-27) coupled with the account of the multiplication of loaves.[19] At any rate,the entire eucharistic discourse on the "bread of life" (6:22ff) is actually a continuation of, and a commentary

on, the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand (which by the way had already in the synoptic traditionbeen given an accented eucharistic dimension [Mk. 6:41]).[20]


3/9

Reading carefully through the entire johannine eucharistic discourse (6:22-71) we are struck by the dramaticchange of vocabulary and content in vv. 52-58, the transition point being v.51b, where a more direct andclear sacramental symbolism appears.[21] Whereas the eucharistic motifs previously played only asecondary role, from 6:51b onward they become the predominant and eventually the exclusive subject. Faithin Christ is no longer spoken of as a basic presupposition for eternal life ("he who believes in me has eternallife. I am the bread of life 6.47-48; see also 6.35); eternal life now is linked with the sacramental eating of

the flesh and the drinking of the blood of Christ ( truly truly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man anddrink his blood you will not have life in yourselves. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternallife....he who eats me, shall live by me" 6:54f, 57; cf. also 6:56).[22] I do not propose to proceed to anenumeration of similar quite sound arguments, evidenced in the text itself, which lent support to thehypothesis of an editor/redactor of the Fourth Gospel.[23]In contemporary biblical scholarship chapter 6 of St. John s Gospel has become a locus classicus of themost diverse exegetical and theological views, concerning its sacramental or non-sacramental character.The whole issue is part of a long and heated discussion which centered around the alleged influence of theoriental/hellenistic mystery cults on christianity.[24] We have to remind ourselves that the most moderateviews of the History-of-Religions School (Religionsgeschichte) range from the theory that "christianitybecame sacramental - or mystery religion - on passing from Jewish to Greco-Oriental surroundings",[25] tothe theory that holds that "apostolic christianity separated itself from all ancient religions by not being

magical, no deus ex machina, no ex opere operato...until the 'change' to a 'sacramental' doctrine, whichbecame characteristic from the fourth century".[26] It is quite interesting to review in brief the differentinterpretations which have been given to the problems related to the philological unity and theologicalmeaning of John ch.6. The main theories can be classified as follows:[27](a) The allegorical interpretation,[28] which holds that Jesus was exclusively speaking about faith in hisperson, and that verses 51b-58 refer to this faith without alluding in any way to the eucharist.(b) The realistic interpretation,[29] which asserts that Jesus was solely speaking about the eucharist. This isclearly foreshadowed in the account of the multiplication of loaves and the feeding of the five thousand. Thesacramental part of the eucharistic discourse in verses 51b-58 is nothing but the confirmation of thisforeshadowing.(c) Since both the above theories no doubt oversimplify the problem of the sixth chapter's philological unity,another theory has been suggested, which gained wide support, at least in Europe, that of theeditor/redactor.[30] According to this theory vv. 51-58 are an interpolation by a later ecclesiastical redactor inorder to harmonize the johannine teaching to the ignatian eucharistic understanding. For Bultmann theoriginal author of the Fourth Gospel, while not manifesting any anti-sacramental polemic, nevertheless,certainly maintains a critical and at the very least a cautious stand regarding the sacraments.[31](d) As a reaction to this theory a number of scholars[32] suggested the theory of successive teachings ofJesus on faith and on eucharist, the former, however, being given such prominence that almost eliminatedthe latter. But this theory, too, cannot be accepted, even by conservative exegetes. M.-J. Lagrange[33] e.g.felt it necessary to speak of different subject matter to different audiences; whereas J.Jeremias hasadvanced the hypothesis of a pre-johannine discourse in verses 51b-58, which the evangelist incorporated

into his main "bread of life" eucharistic discourse (6:30-50).[34](e) Some scholars have pointed to the strong incarnational motifs of the Fourth Gospel[35] and suggestedthat the author of the Gospel understood the eucharist as a testimony to the reality of Jesus' humannature.[36] One finds this same idea in the account of the washing of the disciples' feet at the Last Supper.Whereas the Synoptic Evangelists describe the eucharistic words of Christ in this context, the FourthEvangelist sets forth the example of Christ's extreme humility. In this way he is attempting to emphasize thetheological meaning which must be present in the eucharistic-liturgical praxis of the church.[37](f) Another group of scholars[38] desperately attempted to harmonize all those divergent views bymaintaining that in the sixth chapter John is treating neither just one only of the Church's perennialteachings, i.e. faith or the eucharist, nor both of them in a successive manner; he rather speaks on both of

them simultaneously in terms of mutual causality of faith and sacrament. A. Feuillet e.g. mainly based hisargument on the results of the important study of P.Borgen, who in his book Bread from Heaven argued thatthe entire sixth chapter of John, including the sacramental section, can be explained as a word-by-wordmidrashic exegesis of the Feeding-of-the-5.000 miracle on the basis of Psalm 78 (77 LXX).[39] Feuillet


4/9


5/9

of Christ"), with the expression "eating the flesh", an expression with heavy and intense mystery(magical[50]) connotation. The explanation, which some scholars tried to give in the past, i.e. that no hebrewor aramaic word exists to render the term "body" as understood in the New Testament, provedinadequate.[51] In other words, the suggestion that Jesus used at the Last Supper the expression "take eatthis is my flesh is most unlikely. In addition, the term "flesh" in all other christological usages in John isalways associated with the incarnation (cf. e.g. "and the word became flesh and dwelt among us" Jn 1:14). In

the Gospel of John we find a more direct correlation of the Sacrament of the Church (the community'seucharistic fellowship) with the "mystery" of the incarnation, than in the earlier christian tradition. After all thejohannine tradition has admittedly an anti-docetic character.Therefore, if we are to offer a sound explanation, we have to search elsewhere. First of all it is quite evidentthat in John we have a life-oriented understanding of the Eucharist, which without loosing its connection withJesus' death (see 19:34), it is essentially distanced from death and associated rather with life ( the breadthat I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world , 6:51 see also 6:33,58). The antithesisbetween bread and manna illustrates perfectly this fact; for whereas the Jews who had eaten the manna inthe desert died, those who partake of the true bread will have life eternal (6:58,33).Of course phrases, such as "he who hears my word and believes the one who sent me has eternal life(5:24), which recur many times in John (cf.3:36; 11:25; 8:12) would definitely lead to the conclusion that the

original johannine understanding of the Eucharist is beyond the sacramentalistic (magical in the finalanalysis) and the mystical (syncretistic) conceptions, which underlay the hellenistic mystery rites[52]. Withoutdenying a sacramental nuance in the verse under consideration, we can argue that what makes it (and byextension the entire sacramental section 51b-58) also incompatible with similar views, is in fact its immediatecontext. And first the accompanying phrase: "he will abide in me and I in him" (Jn. 6:56). With this phrase,which denotes an unbroken relationship, communion and abiding presence of God, the author of the FourthGospel surpasses both the hellenistic concept of "ecstasy", and at the same time the classical conception of

judaic prophecy; for he transforms the eschatological expectation from a future event to a present reality. Butat the same time he avoids any trace of pantheism, since there is no hint to the idea of "identification" of theinitiate with the deity, which was the principal teaching of all current mystery cults. In addition, if oneconnects this fundamental eucharistic logion of John with the next verse (6:57), one will easily come to theconclusion that in John we have the beginnings of what has become axiomatic in Christian (especiallyOrthodox) theology: To have eternal life - in other words to live in a true and authentic way and not just live aconventional life - one has to be in communion with Christ. Communion with Christ, however, meansparticipation in the perfect communion, which exists within the Holy Trinity between the Father and the Son("Just as the living Father sent me, and I live through the Father, he who eats me will live through me 6:57).What we have here in John, is in fact a parallel expression to the classic statement of II Peter "" (partakers of the divine nature, 1:4), which has become in later patristic literature the biblicalfoundation of the doctrine of divinization (). In the case of the Gospel of John, however, this idea isexpressed in a more descriptive and less abstract way that in II Peter[53]. If we now take this argument alittle further, we can say that johannine theology more fully develops the earlier interpretation of the Eucharistas the continually repeated act of sealing the "new covenant" of God with his new people. This interpretationis evidenced in the synoptic and pauline tradition, although there the covenantal interpretation of Jesus'death in the phrase "this is my blood of the covenant" (Mk 14:24 par and I Cor 11:25), is somewhat hiddenby the soteriological formula "which is shed for you" (ibid.).[54]What comes out of this understanding of the Eucharist by John with its more direct emphasis on the idea ofthe covenant and of the communion, is the transformation of Jeremiah's vision - which was at the same timealso a promise - from a marginal to a central feature. Just as in the book of Jeremiah, so also in John it is theideas of a new covenant, of communion, and of the Church as a people , that are most strongly emphasized.Listen to what the prophet was saying: "and I will make a covenant. . . a new covenant", 38:31; and "I willgive them a heart to know that I am the Lord....and they shall be unto me a people", 24:7). This covenantal dimension of Eucharist, however, is not the only feature emphasized in the Gospel of John.The pericope of the Washing of the Disciples Feet (13:1-20)[55] reveals yet another dimension. Theincident in question, which is preserved only by the St. John, is placed in the context of the Last Supper, andin direct connection with Judas betrayal; in other words, exactly in the place the Synoptic Gospels haverecorded the so-called dominical sayings of the institution of the Eucharist (Mark 14: 22-25 par). Given

John s almost certain knowledge of the synoptic tradition, one can fairly argue that he has actually replacedthe account of the Institution of the Eucharist by the symbolic act of Jesus washing his disciples feet. Ifso, the Eucharist is understood by the 4th Evagelist, also as an act of diakonia, humility and sharing withradical social implications; in other words an act of social diakonia. Cultural anthropology has shown that in


6/9

Jesus contemporary society the washing of a disciple s feet was not merely the ultimate act of humbleand kenotic diakonia, but a act of social behaviour. In fact, as A.Destro-M.Pesce have argued,[56] In the 4thGospel the incident is a rite of inversion of roles within the society.[57] ***If any conclusion is to be drawn from the above analysis of the johannine eucharistic understanding, this isan affirmation of the ecclesial and diaconal dimension of the christian Sacraments and of the Eucharist as acommunion event and not an act of personal devotion; an expression of the Church as the people (laos) andhousehold (oikos) of God and as the Body of Christ mystically united with its head and a prolepticmanifestation of the Kingdom to come, and not a mere cultic and/or witnessing institution; an act of socialdiakonia and sharing, and not a sacramentalistic quasi-maginal rite.[58] More precisely, the eucharistictheology of the Gospel of John is beyond any notion related to sacramental practices of the ancient Mysterycults. The Eucharist as the unique and primary Sacrament of the Church cannot be related to"sacramentalism"; it is rather an expression of the communion of the people of God, that radically transcends(and transforms) the conventional social values, roles and structures, which in turn is a reflection of thecommunion that exists between the persons of the Holy Trinity.[59] Just as Paul in his epistle to the Romans(see Rom 6:3-11) contends with the magical/sacramentalistic understanding of baptism, and for that reasonhe stresses the moral obligations of the believer and exhorts them to "walk in newness of life", 6:4 and "no

longer be enslaved to sin 6:6),[60] in a similar way the Fourth Evangelist goes beyond a analogousmagical/sacramentalistic conception of the Eucharist, the other major sacrament of christian initiation.[61]

[1]St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit 27, PG vol 32, cl 188. Cf. also J.Petrou, The Unity and the Breakingof the Communion of Faithful according to S.Basil , Thessaloniki 1983 (in Greek).[2]It is worth noting that most of the responses from the Orthodox Churches to the Lima document (BEM)

underline the need for further examination of the significance of the christian understanding of thesacrament. See also Th.FitzGerald, "Faith, Sacraments, and the Unity of the Church: The Text and aResponse," GOTR 34 (1989) 151-166.[3]Cf. my "Orthodox Theology Facing the 21st Century," GOTR 34 (1990) 139-150; also my "Orthodoxy andthe West," Orthodoxy at the Crossroad, 1992, 91-126.[4]Unfortunately, this mounting sacramentalism of medieval Catholicism has also influenced EasternChristianity, if not in theology at least certainly in piety and liturgical practice. (More on this in my "Orthodoxyand Liturgical Renewal," Lex Orandi. Studies of Liturgical Theology, 1994, 57-68).[5]See the interesting article by M.E.Brikman, "Creation and Sacrament,"Exchange 19 (1990) 208-216,where a suggestion is made that the Orthodox understanding of Mysteries, if properly applied to all aspectsof life, may lead us out of the dead locks and dillemas of the western sacramental theology, and theshortcomings of the conventional creation theology. [6]For arguments of such an approach see my "Greek Theology in the Making. Trends and Facts from the80s-Vision for the 90s," SVTQ 35 (1991) 139-153[7]According to C.H.Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, the hypothesis of two divergentviews, one sacramentalistic and the other mystical, does not help to grasp the theology of the text as wehave it today (p.342 n.3).[8]M.Stanley, "The Bread of Life," Worship 32 (1958) 477-488, has rightly stated that in ch.6 John presents ina masterly way the christian view on the sacrament of the Eucharist[9]Bultmann's presentation of the johannine theology on the basis of an existential interpretation of the N.T.(i.e. presenting theology as anthropology), has not been widely accepted by contemporary biblical


7/9

scholarship; contrary to the impact which this prominent New Testament scholar made through hisformulation of the pauline theology.[10]E.Lohse, Grundrisse der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 1974 (all references here are from the Greek tr,1980, pp. 184ff. Cf. however the interesting essay of C.K.Barrett, "Christocentric or Theocentric?Observations on the Theological Method of the Fourth Gospel,"Essays on John, 1982 pp. 1-18. [11]In later patristic theology the neutral was taken to mean unity in essence () but not insubstance ().[12]I. de la Potterie has brought to my attention, on the basis mainly of the very early patristic tradition in bothEast and West, the possibility of interpreting the entire verse pneumatologically, i.e. without reference to atall to the wind (cf. also his Nascere dall aqua e nascere dallo Spirito . Il teato battesimale di Giovanni3,5 in I. de la Potterie-S.Lyonnet, La vita secondo lo Spirito. Condizione del cristiano, 1992 [revised editiontranslated from the original French book La vie selon l Esprit, condition du chrtien, 1965], pp. 35-74).[13]Cf. O.Cullmann, Les Sacraments dans l'Evangile Johannique 1951, incorporated in his Early ChristianWorship, 1953. The rediscovery of the sacramental characteristics in St. John's Gospel has in fact a long

history in modern biblical scholarship: cf. S.Smalley, Liturgy and Sacrament in the Fourth Gospel, EvQ 29(1957) 159-170; C.T.Craig, Sacramental Interest in the Fourth Gospel, JBL 58 (1939) 31-41; alsoJ.M.Creed, Sacraments in the Fourth Gospel, The Modern Churchman 16 (1926) 363-372.[14]More on this in A.Dalbesio, La concezione giovannea di comandamento quale anima della moralechristiana , in this volume.[15]For a connection between the new commendment and the Eucharist cf. D.Cancian, Nuovocommandamento, nuova alleanza, eucaristia. Nell interpretazione del capitolo 13 del Vangelo di Giovanni,1978, pp. 168-250.[16]More on this below.[17]S.Agouridis, Why was Christ Crucified? Interpretations of Christ's Death by the N.T. Authors, 1990 (inGreek), p.56.[18]According to R.E.Brown, "The Eucharist and Baptism in St. John," Proceedings of the Society of CatholicCollege Teachers of Sacred Doctrine 8 (1962) 14-37, the correct understanding of the johanninemysteriology very much depends on the proper understanding of ch. 6 (and ch.3).[19]For a different view on this issue see among others E.D.Johnston, "The Johannine Version of theFeeding of the Five Thousand - an Independent Tradition?" NTS 8 (1962) 151-154. [20]Cf. however G.H.Boobyer, "The Eucharistic Interpretation of the Miracles of the Loaves in Mark'sGospel," JTS n.s. 3 (1952) 161-171, who suggested that Mark understood the miracle symbolically, but noteucharistically.[21]Cf. P.Niewalda, Sakramentssymbolik im Johannes-Evangelium? 1958[22]L.Goppelt, "" TDNT vol VIII, pp.236f.[23]R.Bultmann's school is the main proponent of this view (cf. his commentary, The Gospel of John, p.218ff;G.Bornkamm, "Die eucharistische Rede im Johannes-Evangelium," ZNW 47 [1956] 161-169, and others;more on this theory below). E.Ruckstuhl, Die literarische Einheit des Johannes-Evangeliums, 1951, pp. 220-271, has argued against this theory on literary grounds; cf. also J.Racette, "L'unit du discours sur le pain devie (Jean VI),"SciencEccl 9 (1957) 82-85.[24]More on this in J.Z.Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religion ofLate Antiquity, 1990.


8/9

[25]K.Lake, Modern Churchman 11 (1921-22), p.237; also his, The Earlier Epistles of S. Paul: The Motiveand Origin, 1911; idem, Landmarks in the History of Early Christianity, 1920. Cf. H.A.A. Kennedy, St. Pauland the Mystery Religions, 1913.[26]J.A.Faulkner, "Did Mystery Religions Influence the Apostolic Christianity," MethQuartRev 73 (1924) 387-403, p. 397; and idem, "Did Ancient Christianity Borrow from the Mystery Religions," ibid., 266-278, p. 274.[27]A similar classification of current scholarly views has been suggested by X.Lon Dufour, "Le mystre duPain de Vie (Jean VI)," RechSciRel 46 (1958) 481-523. For a history of interpretation see also C.R.Koester,"John Six and the Lord's Supper," Lutheran Quarterly n.s. 4 (1990) 419-437. [28]Cf. among others H.Odeberg,The Fourth Gospel in its Relation to the Contemporaneous Currents inPalestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World, 19292; A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes. Wie er spricht,denkt und glaubt, 19302; H. Strathmann, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1955.[29]The main proponents of this theory are O.Cullmann, Urchristentum und Gottesdienst, 1944 and itstranslation into English The Early Christian Worship; and J.Bonsirven, "Hoc est corpus meum," Biblica 29(1948) 205-219.[30]Cf. among others J.Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Johannis 1908; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John,p.218ff; G.Bornkamm, "Die eucharistische Rede..,"; and E.Lohse, "Wort und Sacrament imJohannesevangelium," NTS 7 (1961) 110-125.[31]R.Bultmann, Theology II, p. 59.[32]Among others E.Schweizer, "Das johanneische Zeugnis vom Herrenmahl," Neotestamentica1963, pp.371-373; idem, EGO EIMI. Die religionsgeschichtliche Herrkunft und theologische Bedeutung der

johanneischen Bildreden, 1939; P.-H. Menoud, "Les tudes johanniques de Bultmann `a Barrett," L' Evangilede Jean, 1958, pp. 11-40; D. Mollat, "Le Chapitre VIe de Saint Jean," LumVie 31 (1957) 107-119. [33] Evangile selon St. Jean, 19273, ad loc..

[34]J.Jeremias, "Joh 6,51c-58 - redaktionell?" ZNW 44 (1953) 256ff.[35]R.E.Brown, The Gospel According to John, vol.I, 1966, ad loc, who nevertheless believes, as anotherRoman Catholic also does (R.Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, vol.II, engl. tr., 1980, adloc) that vv. 52-58 were added later by the final redactor; G.H.C.MacGregor, "The Eucharist in the FourthGospel," NTS 9 (1963) 111-119; O.S.Brooks, "The Johannine Eucharist. Another Interpretation, JBL 82(1963) 293-300.[36]According to MacGregor (see previous n.) e.g.in order to fully understand the unique approach of John tothe "mystery" we need take in to account the peculiar characteristics of his theology (incarnation, "the wordbecame flesh", eternal life acquired through faith and sacraments, emphasis on life instead of death, hencethe phrase "for the life of the world" [6:51] and the preference to symbolisms and references to life), as wellas the pressing issues of his community when he wrote his Gospel (rejection of the Eucharist by the Jewsand the danger of the infiltration of sacramentalistic/magical ideas into the christian rite). John's views arepresented in some details to address these problems. Cf. also his Eucharistic Origins, 1928.[37]See, however, below.[38]X. Lon-Dufour, "Le Mystre du Pain..,"; A Feuillet, "Les thmes bibliques majeurs du discours sur lepain de vie (jn 6). Contribution a l' tude de la panse johannique," NRT 82 (1960), pp. 803ff; H. Schrmann,"Die Eucharistie als Reprsentation und Application des Heilsgeschehens nach Joh 6. 53-58," TrThZeit 68(1959) 108-118.[39]According to P.Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 1965 (cf. also his article "Unity of the Discourse in John 6,"ZNW 50 [1959] 277-78), the entire unit 6:49-58 is to be read as a midrashic interpretation to v. 6:31 "he gavethem bread from heaven to eat" (Ps 78:24).


9/9

[40]H.

Eucharist in St John

Documents

Transcript of Eucharist in St John