^{page 522 note 1} The introduction of ‘drinking’, which is foreign to the discourse on ‘bread from heaven’ in 6. 1–51, makes a reference to the eucharistic meal unmistakable in vv. 53 ff. Perhaps the use of the term σάρξ rather than σμα (cf. 1 Cor 11. 24; Mark 14. 22 par.) represents an adaptation to the context (6. 63), but σάρξ is employed as a eucharistic term in Ign. Rom. 7:3; Phld. 4:1; Smyrn. 7:1; and Justin Apol. 66:2–3. Compare also ύπέρ τς το κόσμου ζως (John 6. 51c) with ύπέρ πολλν (Mark 14. 24).Google Scholar

^{page 522 note 2} I shall refer to ‘life’ in its pregnant Johannine sense (‘eternal life’) by capitalizing it.Google Scholar

^{page 522 note 3} My translation.Google Scholar

^{page 523 note 1} The Gospel of John: A Commentary, tr. Beasley-Murray, G. R. et al. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971) 11Google Scholar. Bultmann's hypothetical interpolator is typically referred to as ‘the Ecclesiastical Redactor’. Evidently, Julius Wellhausen was the first to suggest the presence of editorial activity in John 6. See Das Evangelium Johannis (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1908) 32.Google Scholar

^{page 523 note 2} ‘Die eucharistische Rede im Johannesevangelium’, ZNW 47 (1956) 161–9Google Scholar; idem, ‘Das Anathema in der urchristlichen Abendmahlsliturgie’, in Das Ende des Gesetzes. Paulusstudien (Gesammelte Aufsätze I; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1963)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Die eucharistische Rede im Johannes-Evangelium’, in Geschichte und Glaube, Part I (Gesammelte Aufsätze III; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968).Google Scholar

^{page 523 note 3} ‘Das Anathema in der urchristlichen Abendmahlsliturgie’, 128.Google Scholar

^{page 523 note 4} Quoted from The Apostolic Fathers, with an English translation by Lake, Kirsopp, vol. 1 (LCL; 2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913; London: William Heinemann, 1913).Google Scholar

^{page 523 note 5} Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums (Freiburg: Paulus, 1951) 220–42Google Scholar; idem, ‘Literarkritik am Johannesevangelium und eucharistische Rede (Joh VI, 51c–58)’ DT 23 (1945) 153–90 and 301–33.Google Scholar

^{page 523 note 6} See, for example, the discussion of theories of the Fourth Gospel's redactional history by Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel according to John, vol. 1 (AB 29A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970) XXIV–XLGoogle Scholar; idem, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York/Ramsey/Toronto: Paulist Press, 1979) 171–82.Google Scholar

^{page 524 note 1} See the survey in Klos, Herbert, Die Sakramente im Johannesevangelium (SBT 46; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970) 14–21.Google Scholar

^{page 524 note 2} ‘Das johanneische Zeugnis vom Herrenmahl’, EvT 12 (1953) 341–63Google Scholar; now also in Neotestamentica: Deutsche und Englishe Aufsätze 1951–1963 (Zürich/Stuttgart, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 524 note 3} ‘Das johanneische Zeugnis vom Herrenmahl’, 361. Compare Cullmann, Oscar, Urchristentum und Gottesdienst, 3rd ed. (ATANT 3; Zürich/Stuttgart: Zwingli Verlag, 1956; 1st ed. 1944) 112.Google Scholar

^{page 524 note 4} Among the interpreters who describe 6. 53–58 as ‘anti-gnostic’ or ‘anti-docetic’ in its aim are the following: Schnackenburg, Rudolf, The Gospel according to St. John, vol. 2 (New York: The Seabury Press, 1980) 61Google Scholar; Lohse, Eduard, ‘Wort und Sakrament in Johannesevangelium’, NTS 7 (1960–1961) 110–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barrett, C. K., ‘“The Flesh of the Son of Man” John 6:53’, in Essays on John (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1982) 37–49Google Scholar; Köster, Helmut, ‘Geschichte und Kultus im Johannesevangelium und bei Ignatius von Antiochien’, ZTK 54 (1957) 56–9Google Scholar; Haenchen, Ernst, Johannesevangelium: ein Kommentar, ed. Busse, Ulrich (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1980) 327; also Schweizer and Cullmann (note 3 above).Google Scholar

^{page 524 note 5} ‘John VI — A Eucharistic Discourse?’, NTS 17 (1970–1971) 328–38.Google Scholar

^{page 524 note 6} Ibid., 335. Dunn does at one point mention 1 John 4. 2 and 5. 6 parenthetically in defining ‘docetism’, but he does not appeal to Ignatius or 1 John for their evidentiary value in support of his contention that if there is a eucharistic allusion in John 6 it must be antidocetic (see ‘John VI — A Eucharistic Discourse?’, 336).

^{page 525 note 1} The Gospel of John, 60 and 63.Google Scholar

^{page 525 note 2} ‘The Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to John's Gospel’, in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965) 164Google Scholar. The original German essay appeared in 1957 (F. Delekat Festschrift). In his 1966 Shaffer Lectures Käsemann coined the phrase ‘naive docetism’ to describe John's-ch.ristology. See The Testament of Jesus, tr. Krodel, G. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968) 26.Google Scholar

^{page 525 note 3} Cited by Käsemann (‘The Structure and Purpose of the Prologue of John's Gospel’, 155).Google Scholar

^{page 526 note 1} Lake, (note 4, p. 523 above) translates:‘…in one faith and in Jesus Christ, “who was of the family of David according to the flesh”, the Son of Man and the Son of God…'’ (Eph 20. 2; cf. Barn 12. 10).Google Scholar

^{page 526 note 2} Das Johannesevangelium, 2nd ed. (HNT 6; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1925) 97.Google Scholar

^{page 527 note 1} In a monograph on early Christian worship, Cullmann, Oscar maintained that allusions to the sacraments (baptism and the Lord's supper) pervade the Fourth Gospel. See Urchristentum und Gottesdienst, 38–110. W. Michaelis subjected Cullman's work to a rigorous critique and concluded that the only certain allusions to the ‘sacraments’ are in 6. 51–58; 3. 5; and 19. 34Google Scholar. See Michaelis, , Die Sakramente im Johannesevangelium (Bern, 1946). Lohse confirms Michaelis' generally compelling conclusions.Google Scholar

^{page 527 note 2} ‘Wort und Sakrament im Johannesevangelium’, 114.Google Scholar

^{page 527 note 3} Ibid., 118.

^{page 528 note 1} See Leroy, Herbert, Rätsel und Misverständnis: Ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des Johannesevangeliums (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1968).Google Scholar

^{page 529 note 1} The Augsburg Confession, article XIII. See Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelischlutherschen Kirche, 4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959) 68.Google Scholar

^{page 529 note 2} On the theme of secret believers in John as a literary motif that bears directly on historical circumstances in the social and religious situation of the Johannine community, see Martyn, J. L., The Gospel of John in Christian History: Essays for Interpreters (New York/Ramsey/Toronto: Paulist Press, 1978) 109–15Google Scholar; idem, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, rev. and enlarged (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979) 116–23 (cf. also pp. 61 and 87)Google Scholar; Brown, Raymond E., The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York/Ramsey/Toronto: Paulist Press, 1979) 71–3Google Scholar; Jonge, M. de, ‘Nicodemus and Jesus: Some Observations on Misunderstanding and Understanding in the Fourth Gospel’, BJRL 53 (1971) 337–59Google Scholar; Meeks, Wayne A., ‘The Man from Heaven and Johannine Sectarianism’, JBL 91 (1972) 44–72. On the use of ‘representative figures’ in John,Google Scholarsee Collins, Raymond F., ‘The Representative Figures in the Fourth Gospel’, (in two parts) DR 94 (1976) 26–46 and 118–32.Google Scholar

^{page 530 note 1} Brown, , The Gospel according to John, vol. 2, 939.Google Scholar

^{page 531 note 1} The close connection between 2. 25 and 3. 1 has been stressed by de Jonge (‘Nicodemus and Jesus’, 340, n. 1) and Miranda, José Porfirio, El Ser y el Mesías (Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 1973) 160–1.Google Scholar

^{page 531 note 2} ‘The Man from Heaven and Johannine Sectarianism’, 69.Google Scholar

^{page 531 note 3} The secondary character of the allusion to baptism is suggested by its thematic isolation in the context of 3. 1–21. Jesus tells Nicodemus that ‘unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’ (3. 5). Although the idea of ‘birth by the Spirit’ receives amplification in what follows, the theme of ‘water’ is not mentioned again. Christian ears can hardly miss the allusion to baptism in the phrase ‘water and the Spirit’, but baptism is not mentioned or alluded to elsewhere in the context. The fact that here, as in 6. 53, Jesus makes something that is ostensibly physical (‘earthly’!) a prerequisite for Life from above, couching his declaration in a statement formulated with a negative conditional clause, suggests a link between 3. 5 and 6. 53. The notice in 19. 34 reinforces this impression by bringing ‘water’ and ‘blood’ together. We have what looks like a parallel in 1 John 5. 6–8, but the focus is the origins of Jesus Christ and the ecclesial situation is different.Google Scholar

^{page 532 note 1} The Gospel of John in Christian History: Essays for Interpreters; idem, History & Theology in the Fourth Gospel. See note 2, p. 529 above.Google Scholar

^{page 532 note 2} Cf. Meeks: ‘…the book [the Fourth Gospel] defines and vindicates the existence of the community that evidently sees itself as unique, alien from its world, under attack, misunderstood, but living in community with Christ and through him with God’ (‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, 70). This community self-understanding, informed as it was by the experience of expulsion from the synagogue, must be understood according to first-century values, in particular the predominant values of honour and shame. As Bruce Malina points out, in a society where honour and shame are pivotal values, ‘Literally, public praise can give life and public ridicule can kill.’ See Malina, , The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981) 36.Google Scholar

^{page 532 note 3} The problem of ‘drop-out’ disciples is addressed in John 6. 64–71. Did the high price of identification with the community lead some Johannine believers to defect back to the synagogue? Do such persons then become ‘secret believers’ by Johannine logic? Were vv. 64–71 incorporated into the Gospel after the break with the synagogue, perhaps at the same time that vv. 51c–59 were added? For a different view of the theme of defection and its relation to the eucharistic discourse, see Matsunaga, Kikuo, ‘Is John's Gospel Anti-Sacramental? — A New Solution in the Light of the Evangelist's Milieu’, NTS 27 (1981) 516–24. Matsunaga thinks that defections from the Johannine community posed theological problems for what he takes to be a strong Johannine sacramentalism expressed in 6. 52–59. How can those who have eaten the sacrament betray the Son of Man? According to Matsunaga, vv. 60–65 correct the sacramentalist understanding of the eucharist by spiritualizing it. In this way the Evangelist is said to make clear that literal eating and drinking are no guarantee of fidelity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 533 note 1} J. O'Grady calls the Fourth Gospel ‘individualistic’ but apparently means by this only that for John the decision of the individual is irreplaceable. See ‘Individualism and Johannine Ecclesiology’, BTB (1975) 227–61Google Scholar; cf. the older essay by Moule, C. F. D., ‘The Individualism of the Fourth Gospel’, NovT 5 (1962) 171–90. What should be emphasized is that in John the irreplaceable decision of the individual is a decision for Life only if it includes identification with the community in which Jesus and the Father make their present home through the medium of the Spirit.Google Scholar

^{page 533 note 2} See Malina, , ‘The First-Century Personality: The Individual and the Group’, in The New Testament World (see note 2, p. 532 above).Google Scholar

^{page 534 note 1} The Courage to Be (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1952) 86 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 534 note 2} The ascended Son of Man is bearer of the life-giving Spirit. In his earthly mode of existence (σάρξ), he cannot bestow the Spirit. See Schnackenburg, , The Gospel according to John, vol. 2, 71; Dunn, ‘John VI — A Eucharistic Discourse?’ 331.Google Scholar

^{page 535 note 1} See note 3, p. 532 above.Google Scholar

^{page 535 note 2} Recall Bultmann, : ‘The δόξα… is to be seen in the σάρξ and nowhere else’ (Commentary on John, 63)Google Scholar. Compare Cullmann, Oscar: ‘Car ici [in 3:5], comme dans 1'évangile tout entier, l'auteur tient à l'affirmation de la presence de l'Esprit dans l'objet matériel conformément au fait que le Logos eternel s'est fait chair’ (Les Sacrements dans l'Evangile Johannique [1951] as cited by Barrett, ‘Sacraments’, in Essays on John, 92 [see note 4, p. 524 above]). But the δόξα is to be seen not in the flesh as such but from the vantage point of the ‘place where Jesus is’, to which one comes by casting one's lot with the community.Google Scholar

^{page 535 note 3} Upon reading an earlier draft of this article, Graydon Snyder suggested to me that Ignatius may have a similar understanding of ‘the flesh of Jesus Christ’. See Snyder, , ‘The Historical Jesus in the Writings of Ignatius’, Biblical Research 8 (1963) 3–12. Of special significance for our discussion are his observations on the eucharistic passage in Smyr. 7.1.Google Scholar

^{page 535 note 4} Letter 73.1. Translation from Saint Cyprian: Letters (1–81), tr. Donna, Rose Bernard (The Fathers of the Church, vol. 51; Washington: Catholic University Press, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 536 note 1} Letter 73.21.Google Scholar

^{page 536 note 2} Both Wayne Meeks and M. de Jonge have pointed out the ways in which the Fourth Gospel represents Jesus as an ‘alien’ in the world. See Meeks, , ‘The Man from Heaven and Johannine Sectarianism’; de Jonge, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God, ed. and tr. by Steely, John E. (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977).Google Scholar

^{page 537 note 1} See Hahn, Ferdinand, ‘Das Glaubensverständnis im Johannesevangelium’, in Glaube und Eschatologie: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Grässer, Erich and Merk, Otto (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1985)Google Scholar; Neyrey, Jerome, ‘“My Lord and My God”: The Divinity of Jesus in John's Gospel’, in Society of Biblical Literature 1986 Seminar Papers (SBLSPS 25; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).Google Scholar

^{page 538 note 1} The observation is Paul Meyer's as reported by Meeks, ‘The Man from Heaven and Johannine Sectarianism’, 55. See further Sylva, Dennis D., ‘Nicodemus and His Spices (John 19. 39)’, NTS 34 (1988) 148–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Sylva suggests that by using the strong term ἓδησαν in 19. 40 (they ‘bound’ the body of Jesus) the author implicates Nicodemus and Joseph in the handing over of Jesus to the power of death. He points out that the Jews also ‘bind’ Jesus (18. 12, 24) and that the word SECO has negative connotations in the Fourth Gospel. Cf. also Schreiber, J., ‘Die Bestattung Jesu’, ZNW 72 (1981) 168–71.Google Scholar

^{page 538 note 2} Käsemann, makes the strongest case for this. See ‘The Structure and Purpose of the Fourth Gospel’ and The Testament of Jesus.Google Scholar

^{page 538 note 3} We have touched on this point in numerous ways already. Perhaps the most developed conception of the Evangelist's conflation of the time of his church with that of Jesus is Martyn's. Martyn discovers at various junctures in John's story of Jesus a narrative overlay of typical events involving the Evangelist's own community. He speaks accordingly of ‘two levels’, the past (‘einmalig’) story of Jesus and the contemporary story(ies) of the Johannine community. See Martyn, The Gospel of John in Christian History and History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel.Google Scholar

^{page 539 note 1} See, for example, Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 71, note 128.Google Scholar

^{page 539 note 2} Compare 12. 26 (‘If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also’) with 17. 24 (‘Father, I desire that they…may be with me where I am, to behold my glory…’).Google Scholar