THE
EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGY OF THE 4th GOSPEL
(under publication in the Global
Bible Commentary)
A. INTRODUCTION
The
Fourth Gospel, or the “Gospel of John” as it is traditionally called
(henceforth GJ), is unique in
world religious literature, because it challenges the conventional approach to
many religious issues. Ironically, it is also
the theological treatise that has shaped the identity and self-understanding of
the Christian church, thus becoming the
Gospel of Christianity. It is not only its “transcendent theology concerning
Jesus,” (Pseudo-Dionysios Areopagite), which determined the Christian
doctrine. It is mainly its profound reflection on the eucharistic theology,
which in my view makes it so important for today.
This
short commentary will attempt to analyze and elaborate exactly this parameter.
The life-context in which John’ Gospel will be interpreted is both that of
post-modernity and that of Eastern Christianity. This latter “traditional”
context, however, can also have wider ecumenical implications.
B. THE LIFE CONTEXT AND THE
INTERPRETATION
The
originality of ideas of the Fourth Gospel has provoked strong controversy in
early Christianity. This controversy continued in the modern era, though for
quite different reasons. GJ gained recognition, respect and renewed
consideration only in post-modernity. Post-modernity has challenged the priority
of the texts over the experience, a syndrome quite dominant in
modern scholarship. It has even challenged the priority of faith over the
communion experience of the Kingdom of God. The dogma, imposed after the
Enlightenment and the Reformation over all scholarly theological outlook –
that the basis of the Christian faith has to be extracted exclusively from a
certain historical and critically defined depositum fidei – is no
longer sustained. It is now realized that equal – if not major – attention
has to be paid to the eschatological/eucharistic communion experience that was
responsible and produced this depositum fidei. And whereas in modernity
the focus of biblical theology with regard to Jesus tradition has mainly focused
on the synoptic gospels, now in post-modernity more emphasis is been laid to the
johannine tradition.
Postmodern
biblical scholarship is moving away from the old affirmation that the Christian
community was originally initiated as a "faith community". More and
more scholars are now inclined to think that it was the ritual (social,
liturgical etc.) that gave rise to story (Gospel and other
"historical" accounts etc.), than the other way round. It is now
believed that in Christianity all started around a Table, a normal messianic
Jewish banquet, which was meant as a foretaste of the coming Kingdom of God, a
proleptic manifestation within the tragic realities of history of an authentic
life of communion, unity, justice and equality. This was, after all, the
profound meaning of the johannine term aionios zoe (eternal life).
In
this respect GJ, with its dynamic reinterpretation of the traditional (pauline
and synoptic) understanding of the Eucharist as a unique rite regarding
the relationship between God, the Church/People of God and the world,
provides an excellent basis for reflection on unity, reconciliation, communion,
sharing and diaconal service.
C.
THE THEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
GJ
presupposes the synoptic tradition but moves beyond its logic, as well as beyond
some of the earlier (Pauline) theological views. Theologically it approaches the
enduring problems of history, of human destiny, death and the salvation of the
humankind starting not from anthropology but rather from Christology. Christology in GJ, however, cannot to be understood apart from its
Pneumatology, since "the
Paraclete, the Holy Spirit" (14:26), according to GJ’s terminology,
can be easily defined as the "alter ego" of Christ ("and
I will ask my father and he will give you another Paraclete so that he might
remain with you always" (14:16). This other Paraclete who "will
teach you all things" (14:26) is "the
Spirit of truth" (Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13); and in the final analysis
the one that will "guide you into all
the truth" (Jn 16:12). Consequently
human beings are in communion with "the
way, the truth and the life", who is Christ, only through the Holy
Spirit, whom he bestows 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. To answer this question modern exegetes are dramatically divided.
Conservative scholars insist that according to GJ this can only happen within
the Church through the sacraments, whereas liberal critics argue that it is in
keeping the word of God and being in communion with Christ that salvation can be
accomplished.
In
GJ the members of the Christian community (i.e. the Church), as in the early
Christian tradition, is not perceived as a mere institution, as an organization
with a logically defined set of doctrines, and/or a specific order, but rather
in terms of communion with Christ, when they keep his word and believe in him
who had sent him, just as Christ is in communion with the Father (10:30;
17:21f). They are “of the truth” when they hear his voice, just as the sheep
hear the voice of the good shepherd (10:1ff).
All these happen, when they change their lives, i.e. when they are born
from above (3:3), by the Spirit (3:5f). But
this birth by the Spirit, unlike natural birth, is the work of God that no one
can control, just as so happens to the wind. "The Spirit blows where He or She wills (and here the
evangelist moves from the meaning of the Spirit to that of the wind, since the
Greek pneuma can have both meanings) and
you hear its sound but you do not know from where it comes or where it goes.
Thus it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" (3:8). For
this reason the proper worship of the community has to be "in
spirit and in truth" (4:24).
This extremely charismatic ecclesiological view, however, alternate with a number of seemingly strong sacramental references, which were so far either rejected in modern scholarship as later additions or interpolations, or explained in a conventional “sacramentalistic”, i.e. pre-modern, way. As a matter of fact, there is no other issue that has so divided modern scholarship than the sacramental or non- sacramental character of the GJ. The debate is usually supported by its apparent silence regarding baptism and eucharist, and by some passages that seem to speak of them in a veiled or symbolic manner. Today, according to the post-modern approach the issue at stake is whether the various “sacramental” reference, are at all related to the “sacramentalistic” views of the ancient, contemporary to the early Church, Hellenistic Mystery Cults, or have much more dynamic connotations.
D.
EUCHARIST AS A “MYSTERY” AND ITS MEANING FOR ΤΗΕ UNITY OF
HUMANKIND
GJ,
although omits the words of institution of the Eucharist is rightly considered
as the “sacramental” book par excellence. The miraculous change of
the water into wine at the Wedding in Cana (2:1-11) at the outset of Jesus'
earthly ministry, the symbolism of the vine and the branches in the
"Farewell Discourse" (ch. 15), the flow of blood and water from the
pierced side of the crucified Jesus (19:34) and so many other verses and
expressions make the sacramental, or rather eucharistic, character of the GJ
more than inescapable. Of course, the most discussed unit in this respect is
chapter 6 with its "Eucharistic Discourse" (especially 6:51b-58); the
washing of the disciples feet, which actually replaces the synoptic account of
the Institution of the Eucharist, and in fact the entire ch. 13; the anointing of Jesus in 12:1ff; and the so-called
“High-Priestly Prayer” in ch. 17, as a model of eucharistic prayer and a
plea for the unity of humankind. These periscopes we will briefly analyse,
starting with
what we consider as the
indispensable theological framework, namely vv.
11:51-52.
a.
The
eschatological framework of the eucharistic theology (11: 51-52)
It
has long been recognized that the GJ claims that the ultimate gifts of God,
usually associated with the end times of history, are already accessible to the
believer “in Christ”. This claim is made, however, without compromising the
future dimension of those gifts. GJ seems to insist that these eschatological
realities are present in the life of the believer, although there is still a
future and unfulfilled quality to them. In doing this, it invites the readers to
turn their attention from the future to appreciate the quality of Christian
existence in the present. Nevertheless, it perfectly keeps the balance between
the present and the future, giving the impression that it attempts to correct an
excessively future orientation, without dispensing with the value of the future
for the believer.
This ambivalence is in fact evident in the
teaching, and especially the life and work, of Jesus of History, all of which
cannot be properly understood without a reference to the messianic expectations
of Judaism, i.e. the coming of a Messiah, who in the “last days” of history
(eschaton) would establish his kingdom by calling all the dispersed and
afflicted people of God into one place to become one body united around him. The
idea of “gathering into one place the scattered people of God and of all the
nations,” coupled with the descent of God’s Spirit upon the sons and
daughters of God, is found in the prophetic tradition (Is 66:18, 2:2, 59:21;
Joel 3:1; Ez 36:24 etc.), but is also evident in the early Christian literature
(Mt 25:32; Rom 12:16; Didache 9:4b;
Mart. Polyc. 22:3b; Clement of Rome, I
Cor. 12:6 etc). And here a statement in GJ – generally overlooked in modern
biblical scholarship – about the role of the Messiah is extremely important.
In that statement the author GJ interprets the words of the Jewish High Priest
by affirming that “he prophesied that Jesus should die...not for the nation
only, but to gather into one the
children of God who are scattered abroad.”
(11:51-52).
Jesus
of Nazareth, therefore, identified himself with the Messiah of the Eschaton, who
would be the center of the gathering of the dispersed people of God. It was on
this radical eschatological teaching about the Kingdom of God that the early
Christiany community developed its theology, its ecclesiology, its spirituality,
but also its mission. It was exactly this gathering has ever since been
reenacted in the liturgical practice of the Eucharist. Already in the writings
of Paul it was stated that all who believe in Christ are incorporated into the
one people of God and mystically united into His body through Baptism. GJ has
further developed this teaching in regard to the unity of the people of God by
pointing out that this incorporation into Christ's body takes place in the
Eucharist, a significant identity act which was seen not as a mystery cult but
as a foretaste of the expected eschatological Kingdom.
b.
The eucharistic theology of John (chapter 6)
To decipher the overall johannine eucharistic theology
one has undoubtedly to start from ch. 6. The
entire chapter begins with three wondrous deeds: the feeding of the multitude,
the walking of Jesus on the sea, and the wondrous landing of the boat
(6:1–21). Then a lengthy discourse on the “bread of life” follows, where
Jesus makes high claims for Himself consistent with the announcement of his
prologue (1:1-18). The result is a schism among his hearers, which finds many
who had believed now leaving him (6:22–71).
There is no doubt that the
author obviously wanted to set the Christ event within the framework of the
Exodus-Passover theme. In the johannine passion story Jesus is made to die at
the very time the lambs are being slaughtered in preparation for the Passover
meal that same evening (19:14). The symbolism suggests that Christ is to be
viewed as the new Passover lamb by which God liberates humanity from oppression,
just as Israel was freed from slavery in Egypt.
This
Passover framework, however, is interpreted through a clear sacramental
references. Only the passage of the walking of Jesus on the sea (6:16-21) seems
to be outside this scheme. But this is probably due to the fact that this very
unit was preserved in the earlier synoptic tradition (Mk 6:30-52=Mt 14:13-27)
coupled with the account of the multiplication of loaves. At any rate, the
entire discourse on the "bread of life" (6:22ff) is a continuation of,
and a commentary on, the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, which by the
way had already been given in the synoptic tradition an accented eucharistic
dimension (Mk. 6:41).
In
general, if Paul and the Synoptic Gospels underline the significance of the
soteriological/sacramental understanding of the Eucharist, it was GJ that gave a
life-oriented understanding in it. Without loosing its connection with Jesus'
death (cf. 19:34), the eschatological meal of the community is essentially
distanced from death and associated rather with life (“the bread that I will give
is my flesh which I will give for the
life
of the world”, 6:51; see also 6:33,58). The antithesis between
bread and manna illustrates perfectly this truth; for whereas the Jews who had
eaten the manna in the desert died, those who partake of the true bread will
have life eternal (6:58,33).
Reading
carefully through the entire johannine eucharistic discourse (6:22-71) a clear
change of vocabulary and content in vv. 51b-58 is more than evident. In these
verses faith in Christ is no longer the basic presupposition for eternal life (“he
who believes in me has eternal life. I am the bread of life” 6:47-48;
cf. also 6:35); eternal life now is linked with eating the flesh and drinking
the blood of Christ (“truly truly, if you do not eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink his blood you will not have life in yourselves. Whoever
eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.... he who eats me, shall
live by me” 6:54f, 57). The profound meaning of these sayings, however,
is given by the concluding remark of v. 6:56: “those
who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them”.
With these words GJ denotes an unbroken relationship, communion and abiding
presence of God, which surpass both the Hellenistic concept of
"ecstasy", and at the same time the classical conception of the Jewish
prophecy; for it transforms the eschatological expectation from a future event
to a present reality. But at the same time it avoids any trace of pantheism,
since there is no hint to the idea of "identification" of the initiate
with the deity, which was the principal teaching of all contemporary mystery
cults.
Here we have the beginnings of what has become
axiomatic in later Christian tradition: to have “eternal life” – in other
words to live an authentic and not just a conventional life – one has to be in
communion with Christ. Communion with Christ, however, means participation in
the perfect communion, which exists between the Father and the Son (“Just as
the living Father send me, and I live through the Father, s/he who eats me will
live through me” 6:57). What we have here in GJ, is in fact a parallel
expression to what has become in later patristic literature the biblical
foundation of the doctrine of theosis
(divinization), (cf. the classic statement of 2 Pe 1:4,
“partakers of the divine nature”). In the case of GJ, however, this
idea is expressed in a more dynamic and less abstract way.
Taking this argument a little further, one can say that
GJ further developed an understanding of the Eucharist as the unceasingly
repeated act of sealing the “new covenant” of God with his new people. This
interpretation is of course evidenced also in the earlier 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 hidden by the soteriological
formula “which is shed for you”
(ibid).
This eucharistic theology of GJ, with the direct
emphasis on the idea of the covenant
and of communion, is in fact in
accordance with Jeremiah’s vision, which was at the same time also a promise.
Just as in Jeremiah, so also in GJ, it is the idea 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,” Jer 38:31; and “I will give them a heart to know that I
am the Lord... and they shall be unto me a people”
(Jer 24:7).
c.
The diaconal dimension of the Eucharist in John (chapter 13)
The covenantal dimension of Eucharist, however, is not
the only feature emphasized in GJ. The pericope of the “Washing of the
Disciples’ Feet” (13:1-20) reveals a further aspect in GJ’s understanding
of the Eucharist. The incident in question, which is preserved only in the
Fourth Gospel, is placed in the context of the Last Supper, and in direct
connection with Judas’ betrayal; in other words, exactly in the place the
Synoptic Gospels have all recorded the so-called dominical sayings of the
institution of the Eucharist (Mark 14: 22-25 par). Given its almost certain
knowledge of the synoptic tradition, one can fairly argue that GJ has actually
replaced the account of the Institution of the Eucharist by the symbolic act of
Jesus’ washing of his disciples’ feet. A careful reading of the reference to
the new commandment of love (13:34-15), in the same context, brings immediately
in the reader’s mind the Institution Narrative. The “new commandment” sounds very similar to the “new covenant” of the so-called institution narratives of the
synoptic tradition.
In
sum, GJ understands the Eucharist not as a mere “cultic” and
“sacramental” act, but primarily as a diaconal act and an alternative way of
life with apparent social implications. For in
those days the washing of a disciple’s feet was more than an ultimate act of
humble service and kenotic diakonia; it was an act of radical social behavior,
in fact a rite of inversion of roles within the society. Add to this Jesus’
admonition to his disciples, and through them to his Church: “I have set an
example for you, so that you will do just
what I have done for you” (Jn 13:15), and the diaconal implications of the
Eucharist becomes an imperative.
It is almost an assured result of modern theological
scholarship (biblical and liturgical) that the Eucharist was “lived” in the
early Christian community as a foretaste of the coming Kingdom of God, a
proleptic manifestation within the tragic realities of history of an authentic
life of communion, unity, justice and equality, with no practical
differentiation (soteriological and beyond) between men and women.
If this was the authentic original meaning of the
Eucharist, then the redaction by GJ of another full of ritual connotation
pericope – and closely related to the “eucharistic” incident of the
“washing of the disciples’ feet” – namely that of the “Anointing of
Jesus” (Jn 12:1ff), may not be accidental. GJ not only placed this famous
pericope in the same Passover setting as the pericope of the “Washing of the
Disciples’ Feet” (Jn 13:1ff); it also replaced the unknown woman by Mary, a
figure from within the most beloved by Jesus family of Lazarus, and in fact in
contrast with her sister Martha, who according to an account in St. Luke’s
Gospel was “anxious and troubled about many things (except) the one
thing...needful” (Lk 10:41). What is, however, even more important for our
case, is that by actually replacing the original, and by all means more
authentic, place of the pouring of the “costly ointment of pure nard” from
Jesus’ hair (Mk 14:3=Mt 26:7, originally understood as a prophetic act of
messianic character, parallel to St. Peter’s confession at Caesarea of Philip
(Mk 8:27ff par) to Jesus’ feet (12:3), GJ made a woman proleptically
anticipate the incident of the washing by Jesus himself of his disciples’
feet. By so doing, the “disciple of love” (according to the Christian
tradition) changed even an act of “witness” into an act of
“diakonia”.
e. The High-Priestly (eucharistic) prayer and
the unity of humankind (ch. 17)
It is commonly accepted that GJ
is structured of in two major parts: the “Book of Signs” (chs. 1–12) and
the “Book of Glory” (chs. 13–20). Both of them are woven around the notion
of Jesus’ “glorification”, his “hour”. In the first part Jesus’
“hour has not come” (2:4; 7:30; 8:20), but throughout the second the
presence of the “hour” of Jesus – his death and resurrection – is
clearly affirmed (13:1; 17:1). In the second part GJ presents Jesus addressing
his disciples alone (13–17) and reflects on the passion and resurrection
experience (18–21).
Chs. 14–16, the so-called
“Farewell Discourse,” deal with Jesus’ final instructions to his
disciples. They consist of a mosaic of themes introduced, explored, dropped, and
reintroduced, central point of which is the promise of the sending of the
“Paraclet”, “the Spirit of the Truth”, the first serious pneumatological
reflection in Christian literature, the second and more decisive being that of
St. Basil the Great in his treatise On the Holy Spirit.
Nevertheless, the most important
part is undoubtedly ch. 17, the so-called “Jesus’ High-Priestly Prayer”
for his disciples. However, Jesus’ prayer in ch. 17 is not only a prayer on
behalf of his disciples and their glorification in his glorification, but also
“on behalf of those who will believe in (Christ) through their word”
(17:20). All the motifs and symbols used in this chapter remind us of the
“eucharistic prayer”, the “anaphora” of the later Christian liturgy,
which as a “reasonable worship” and “bloodless sacrifice” is being
offered not only for Christian community itself, but also for the
“Oekoumene,” “for the life of the whole world”. In addition, the basic
aim of Jesus’ prayer is “that they may all be one” (17:21ff),
and by extension for the unity of humankind. It is characteristic the whole
argument is being developed on the model of the perfect unity that exists
between Christ and His Father, i.e. the unity that exist within the Holy Trinity
(“as you, Father, are in me and I am
in you,” 17:21; “that they may be one, as we are one,” 7:22).
It is not accidental that the Eucharist, the Church’s Mystery par
excellence, is also an expression of unity, the ultimate act of unity; nor
is it accidental that it is a rite of glory, experienced as such in almost all
Christian traditions, though more evidently in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
If
any conclusion is to be drawn from the above short commentary of the johannine
euharistic passages, this is an affirmation of the ecclesial and diaconal
dimension of the Eucharist as a communion event and not as an act of personal
devotion; an act of diakonia and sharing, and not a sacramentalistic
quasi-maginal rite; an expression of the Church as the people (laos)
and household (oikos) of God and as
the Body of Christ mystically united with its head, and not a mere cultic and/or
witnessing institution. In other words, the Eucharist as the unique and primal
Mystery of the Church is a reflection of the communion that exists between the
persons of the Holy Trinity. And above all, a “thanksgiving” (eucharistia)
prayer to God for
the unity of humankind and a
proleptic manifestation of the Kingdom to come.
R.
E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist, 1979.
C.
K. Barrett, Essays on John, 1982.
O.
Cullmann, Les Sacraments dans l'Evangile
Johannique 1951, incorporated in his Early
Christian Worship, 1953.
P.
Vassiliadis, Eucharist and Witness, Geneva 1998.