While it is not quite dangerous to conclude that John 6 is Eucharistic, it could dangerous to insist that it could not be. John 6:63, flesh is of no avail cannot be used against our Lord's own institution of the Sacrament of His Body and Blood. Luther is careful in his debate with Zwingli to avoid this trap but many on the Radical Reformation side are not. Jesus is not so careful, however, on the other side. Jesus pushes every button and ends up with an emphatic to intensify His point: “Amen, Amen I say to you,” as if to say: “Let me be perfectly clear.” Then He does the unthinkable. He also switches words from a rather polite word for “eat,” φαγεῖν (phagein), to τρώγων (trogon), a more graphic word which suggests gnawing on or chewing His flesh. This is then no symbolic or imaginary eating and drinking but the literal one which, when done in faith, receives what it promises. Our Lord precisely places the real eating of His flesh and blood in faith in the context of the real eating of the manna in the wilderness -- one of which could sustain life for day but the other feeds the food upon which one eats and never dies.
In the end, it would seem to be a particularly Lutheran thing to do to read John 6 sacramentally, as David Scaer has noted: "John 6 is the chessboard on which the traditional hermeneutical rules are either ignored or shown to be inadequate. In making John 6 a discourse on faith, the unus sensus literalis est―which interprets “eating” as really “eating” and not “faith,” and “flesh” as really “flesh”―is replaced by a purely allegorical interpretation in which these words are given a different meaning." In the end, it might require suspending the mind of all prior knowledge to read John 6 without automatically thinking of the Sacrament but it would also suspend all credibility to read it without also requiring the faith that receives this flesh and blood.
No comments:
Post a Comment