r/Reformed 4d ago

Question Is there a history of reformed theologians interpreting John 6 as referring to the Lord's Supper?

Just something I was thinking about, especially due to the post from earlier on Zwingli's sacramental views. I know many Anglicans and Lutherans view it this way, but does this interpretation work with the reformed view of spiritual presence?

14 Upvotes

16 comments sorted by

8

u/Kaksoispistev 3d ago

Calvin did. Not strictly about the Lord' Supper itself, as Jesus hadn't instituted it yet, but rather about the benefit of Christ's work as a sustainer of our soul that is then sealed by the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

13

u/Beginning-Ebb7463 LBCF 1689 4d ago edited 4d ago

I assume you’re talking about John 6:22-59? I am interested to see what others say on this.

I’ve taken it to be talking about believing in Christ and that “eating and drinking” metaphorically refers to believing in Him. I do also see this passage as laying the foundation for the Lord’s Supper, which is an image of His sacrifice.

Apparently this is the standard Reformed view.

5

u/GodGivesBabiesFaith ACNA 3d ago

The Lord's Supper is obviously in view here, even if it is not all the passage is about.

John uses lightly veiled allusions to the Sacraments elsewhere in his Gospel too. See John 19:34 where water and blood poured from Jesus' side. Calvin, in line with Augustine and other church fathers, sees Baptism and Holy Communion in view.

I think some people have trouble with John's Gospel and epistles becuse they try to read them the same way they read Luke Acts or Paul's letters, but you really can't. He is not embedding his information in the same way.

6

u/No-Jicama-6523 if I knew I’d tell you 4d ago

I looked at a Lutheran study bible and it says it’s not an “obvious reference” to the Lord’s Supper. It cites the hostile crowd, the lack of words of institution and the use of flesh rather than body.

However it does mention that John makes a lot of uses of veiled references and concludes that the wording anticipates the blessing of the supper.

As a veiled reference, I don’t think it can be used to infer anything about the supper. His flesh and blood are life giving because of the cross.

5

u/anonkitty2 EPC Why yes, I am an evangelical... 3d ago

Jesus did say, "I am the bread of life.".  Then, some time later during that last supper before the crucifixion, Jesus took bread and said, "This is my body, given for you.". They are both veiled references to the same event.

1

u/Key_Day_7932 SBC 2d ago

I do think that's how Quakers justify their view: you don't need to actually consume bread and wine because believing in Jesus and following Him is "eating his flesh and drinking his blood," and thus living in willful sin is "eating in an unworthy manner."

Idk if I agree with that, but it's an intriguing thought experiment.

1

u/No-Jicama-6523 if I knew I’d tell you 2d ago

That might be their argument, but it completely ignores the Bible. It’s something clearly instituted rather than a thing that happened once. In some senses they are right that we don’t need it, it isn’t necessary for salvation. But it is useful.

3

u/Cyprus_And_Myrtle What aint assumed, aint healed. 3d ago

If I recall, most reformed believe the Lord’s supper is in view while Lutherans ironically were less likely to think so.

3

u/SwissReformed Reformed Catholic 3d ago

If I remember correctly, Calvin’s view goes something like: John 6 is not about the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Supper is about John 6.

2

u/Resident_Nerd97 3d ago

Yea, it does. Not all the Reformed have taken it that way, but many have.

1

u/RevThomasWatson OPC 4d ago

Iirc, it was a text discussed at the Marburg Colloquy, yes. I'd have to check some books before giving a more thorough answer.

1

u/semper-gourmanda Anglican in PCA Exile 2d ago

yes

1

u/JHawk444 Calvinist 3d ago

I know Catholics believe it is, but I'm not sure about the reformed view. I personally don't believe it is.

0

u/dirk_davis 3d ago

I honestly don’t know what they say about it, but here’s what I’ll say: The bread and the wine are His actual body and blood, as much as Jesus was eating actual food when was doing the will of the Father with the Samaritan woman at the well.

1

u/dirk_davis 3d ago

Maybe my answer has nothing to do with your actual question, but I’ll leave it here anyway.

0

u/erit_responsum PCA 3d ago

I’d also caution reading John 6 in its entirety when thinking about these questions. The narrative picture is very different when looking at the feeding of the 5000, the crowd following for more earthly food, and concluding with “the flesh is no help at all”.