A Sacramental Reading Of John 2–6 And The Extent Of The Atonement

By Kyle D. DiRoberts

[Kyle D. DiRoberts is Department Chair and Associate Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Arizona Christian University, Glendale, Arizona.]

Abstract

Charles Ryrie described the extent of the atonement as being both limited and unlimited in nature. He likened it to a father preparing a meal for all his children. However, such provision does not result in all his children eating. For Ryrie, one’s refusal does not mean the provision was made only for those who actually eat. A sacramental interpretation of the wedding in Cana (John 2:1–11) and the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:1–14) strengthens Ryrie’s illustration.

Introduction

Charles C. Ryrie (1925–2016) was professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary over a period of three decades until his retirement in 1983.[1] In his systematic theology, he devotes an entire chapter to a discussion concerning the atonement.[2] He notes that the doctrine of limited atonement is far from a “cornerstone doctrine” but rather a “hotly debated one.”[3] To demonstrate support for limited atonement, Ryrie cites Berkhof, who argues that the sine qua non of the atonement is “Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men?”[4] Berkhof believes “that is the question, and that only is the question.”[5] But Ryrie believes the answer is clear: “The Atonement was limited, for Christ did not come into the world to save all men.”[6] The doctrine of election forms the basis for Ryrie’s conclusion. He proposes a different question: “Did Christ purpose by coming into the world to make provision for the salvation of all people, realizing that the Father would mysteriously draw the elect to Himself and allow others to reject the provision made?”[7] In other words, just because some might reject Christ’s atoning work on the cross, this does not invalidate the amount of provision provided by God. To illustrate this, Ryrie uses the example of a father providing a meal for his children.

If we say that a father provides sufficient food for his family, we do not exclude the possibility that some members of that family may refuse to eat what has been provided. But their refusal does not mean that the provision was made only for those who actually do eat the food. Likewise, the death of Christ provided the payment for the sins of all people—those who accept that payment and those who do not. Refusal to accept does not limit the provision made. Providing and possessing are not the same.[8]

With this illustration in mind, Ryrie asks, “Are there any Scriptures that broaden the extent of the atonement beyond the elect?”[9] His difficulty in answering this question seems to be due to the gap between the limited and unlimited advocates. He writes, “Unlimited advocates acknowledge that the atonement is both limited and unlimited; limited advocates insist that it is strictly limited and do not recognize any unlimited passages as teaching unlimited atonement.”[10] Ryrie’s “solution” to the dilemma allows for a certain mysterious tension that the extent of the atonement is both limited and unlimited in nature.[11] As a result, instead of explaining away those passages that seem to indicate one over the other, Ryrie affirms both. The thesis of this article is that John 2–6 forms a sacramental theological literary unit that supports Ryrie’s illustration that the extent of the atonement is both limited and unlimited in nature.[12]

John’s Literary Style

John’s literary style employs large thematic units that might initially appear to be autonomous events from the life of Jesus—for example, a certain wedding in Cana and the feeding of the five thousand by the Sea of Tiberias. However, when read in connection with one another, these events illustrate a larger theological point.[13] Borchert describes John’s creative abilities as “a great inspired artist and theologian who organized his episodes from the life of Jesus in such a way as to bring people to faith in Jesus as the Son of God.”[14] In addition, Barrett warns against disconnecting the events from the Gospel of John by itemizing and presenting each event in a neat compartmental fashion.[15] It seems that John organized the wedding in Cana and the feeding of the five thousand with an artistic literary style in order to illustrate the Lord’s Supper. His intentionality bolsters support for Ryrie’s illustration concerning the extent of the atonement.[16]

In order to successfully demonstrate this interpretation, John 2–6 must contain theological evidence in which the body and blood of Jesus were eucharistically provided in such a way that (1) the elements were offered successfully to all who desired to partake, which fulfills Ryrie’s illustration of the father providing a sufficient meal for all his children; and (2) they had a surplus of those elements after the meal was over.[17] These considerations would insinuate that some family members may refuse to eat, which results in an abundance of leftovers.[18] The offering to all and the surplus of the elements support Ryrie’s illustration that there is a difference between providing and possessing.[19]

Reading John 2–6 Sacramentally

A sacramental reading of the wedding in Cana (John 2:1–11) and the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:1–14) helps connect John 2–6 and Ryrie’s example of a father preparing a meal for his children. When discussing the nature of these two events, “sacrament” here is employed strictly as a reference to the symbolic and christological nature of these two events as they point toward Christ’s work on the cross.[20] This method of interpretation is not wholly accepted. Bultmann rejected a sacramental reading. He writes, “It is only consistent with this concentration that the sacraments also play no role in John.”[21] Borchert argues that linking Jesus’s turning water into wine with the sign of bread in chapter 6 in order to promote the Lord’s Supper should be avoided.[22] His reasoning is that it seems to “press the symbolism beyond the clear meaning of the text and the principle of sanctified restraint.”[23] Perhaps he is correct; there is no specific record of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in John.[24] However, there seems to be support for a direct relationship between these passages and the atonement.

Barrett argues that more sacramental teachings exist in John than any other gospel: “John regularly uses categories of thought that might seem favorable to the development of sacramental theology.”[25] Similar to Barrett, Higgins also argues that the Gospel of John is “the most sacramentalist of all the New Testament writings.”[26] Brown cautions against exaggerating sacramentality in John’s Gospel.[27] But he still argues, “The suggestion (Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyprian) that the ‘choice wine’ of the Cana story may have been intended to remind the readers of the Gospel of eucharistic wine deserves more serious consideration.”[28] Along with Brown, other scholars support a sacramental reading of John’s gospel, especially the miracles of turning water into wine and the feeding of the five thousand. For example, Carson asserts that the Book of John has a rich discussion concerning the bread of life, which “millions of Christians have happily applied to holy communion.”[29] Corell affirms, “Most scholars agree as to its [John 2:1–11] sacramental significance.”[30] Thompson also provides a helpful argument for a sacramental reading of John. She writes,

The sign in John 2, with the plentiful provision of wine, should be read in tandem with the feeding of the five thousand in John 6. In each case Jesus provides a surplus, an abundance that sustains life. The visions of plenty in the messianic age are realized in the Messiah, who brings abundant bread and wine as tokens and conduits of God’s abundant grace (1:14, 16) and abundant life (10:10).[31]

In both events, Jesus is “cryptically and mystically by way of symbols signifying his intentions.”[32] In the first event, Jesus turns water into wine, signifying his blood. The second event, set in Capernaum prior to Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem for Passover, signifies the body of Christ broken and raised from the dead. Cullman supports this claim that the Cana miracle in chapter 2 “corresponds exactly” with the feeding of the five thousand in chapter 6.[33] Cullman asserts,

The one is a bread miracle, the other a wine miracle, the one a food miracle, the other a drink miracle. When we take into account the fact that the Cana story is regarded as a pointer to the death of Christ because of the word about the hour that is not yet come, and when we take into account further that in chapter 6 the bread is connected with the bread of the Last Supper, it seems a most likely explanation that the wine points to the blood of Christ offered in the Lord’s Supper.[34]

The culmination of John’s sacramental theology concerning the body (feeding the five thousand) and blood (water into wine) of Christ in the Lord’s Supper is revealed in John 6, after the two accounts.[35] In 6:53–56, Jesus says,

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.[36]

Throughout church history, some have interpreted John 6:53–56 as a reference to the Lord’s Supper. Augustine wrote, “The sacrament of this reality, that is, of the unity of Christ’s body and blood, is placed on the Lord’s table and received from the Lord’s table.”[37] Cyril of Alexandria wrote in reference to John 6:53–58 that “those who do not receive Jesus through the mystery of the Eucharist will remain wholly bereft of any share in and taste of that holy and blessed life.”[38] One might argue that Jesus’s reference to himself as the bread of life (v. 35) and his reference to eating his own flesh (v. 54) is more obvious as it comes after the feeding of the five thousand (vv. 1–15).[39] We will return to that miraculous meal later; however, the idea that those in attendance should also drink his blood in order to inherit eternal life is less obvious from verse 53. Where should the reader of 6:53–58 be drawn back to in the narrative? John 2 holds the answer.

Water Becomes Wine—A Sacramental Reading

John describes a wedding at Cana in Galilee that Jesus attended with his mother and disciples (John 2:1). The narrative begins with the wine running out (v. 3). Sloyan observes, “The party has come to a desiccate halt: bone dry.”[40] This caused Mary to approach Jesus and tell him the problem (vv. 3–4). Jesus’s response to his mother was “My hour has not yet come” (v. 4). Augustine sees eucharistic meaning here: “Why then did he say, My time has not yet come?”[41] He concludes that Jesus’s meaning behind those words is a reference to his future suffering and bloodshed for his bride. He writes, “When I know that it is the right time for me to suffer, when my suffering will be of value (that time has not yet come), then I shall suffer because it is my will, so that you may hold on to each statement; both My time has not yet come, and I have the authority to lay down my life, and to take it back again.”[42] Corell argues that the Eucharist was John’s clear intention. He writes, “The reference in this story to this particular ‘hour’ is a clear proof of the sacramental and liturgical character of the passage. . . . It is his death that is the necessary condition for the celebration of the Eucharist.”[43] Higgins also argues that Jesus’s reference to his “hour” not yet coming refers to his passion and the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as the Eucharist “must be subsequent to the death of Christ.”[44] Thus, this statement by Jesus in 2:4 is the first clue that there is eucharistic meaning in what follows. In the narrative, Mary abruptly turns not to Jesus but to the servants at the wedding and urges them, “Do whatever he tells you” (v. 5).

John describes six stone water jars at the wedding “for the Jewish rites of purification,” which were about to contain wine created by Jesus (v. 6). Brown observes that for the Jew, “wine was the blood of the grape.”[45] Carson notes, “Each jar held two or three ‘measures,’ each measure the equal of eight or nine (imperial) gallons. The pots together held, roughly, between one hundred and one hundred and fifty gallons (between 500 and 750 liters).”[46] This is a significant amount of soon-to-be wine, considering they had already drunk their fill. Augustine interprets the jar filling Christologically as a fulfillment of a prophecy God gave to Abraham: “In your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen 22:18). Augustine argues,

It is quite obvious that prophecy was also announced to other peoples, since Christ—in whom all peoples are blessed—was hidden in this prophecy, as Abraham was promised when the Lord said, “In your seed shall all the peoples be blessed” (Gen 22:19). But this was not yet recognized, because the water had not yet been turned into wine. . . . This is the Lord’s table, after all, and the one who serves must not cheat the guests, especially when they are as hungry as your eagerness shows you are.[47]

Higgins also interprets this sign as a reference to the Eucharist. He says that Jesus “performs the material miracle his mother desired, but it is only a pointer to the greater miracle for which the time has not yet come. The changing of water into wine is a sign (v. 1), the first of many. It is a sign because it points forward to the Eucharist.”[48] Although Ryrie does not reference Augustine or Higgins, his reasoning is similar. The Lord’s Supper is provided to the elect, as “Moses indeed was only sent to the people of Israel, and to that people alone was the law given through him, and the prophets themselves came from that people.”[49] However, the Lord’s Supper extends beyond the people of Israel to include “all peoples.”[50] This illumines Ryrie’s illustration that the Father has prepared a meal (Lord’s Supper) for all, even though not all will eat. In other words, by preparing a meal for all, it does not mean all will partake, and it does not mean God is unable to prepare the meal for all.

Jesus’s directive to the servants was to “fill the jars with water” (v. 7). Γεμίσατε (“fill”) means to fill something to its capacity.[51] John even notes that the jars were filled “to the brim” (v. 7). Jesus did not take an inventory of the wedding guests that still wanted a glass of wine and then miraculously create just enough. Instead, he provided more than enough. This is remarkable if the wine symbolically represents his blood in the Lord’s Supper. And since the wedding guests had already drunk all the wine, the assumption is that by making roughly 100 to 150 more gallons, there would likely be an abundance left over.[52] Thompson writes, “There is a lack of wine, and no one to supply what is lacking; but Jesus can and does provide choice wine in abundance.”[53] Even with a paucity of wine, Jesus provided a surplus that exceeded expectations.54 Carson observes, “The sheer quantity of water turned into wine then becomes symbolic of the lavish provision of the new age.”[55] Having leftover or wasted wine did not concern Jesus. In light of Ryrie’s likening the extent of the atonement to a father preparing a meal for all his children, John 2:1–11 explains that having leftover food and wine does not trouble God.

Once the jars were filled, Jesus directed them to draw “some out and take it to the master of the feast” (v. 8). When the master of the feast tasted the “water now become wine,” he did not know where it came from (v. 9). The master of the feast then called the bridegroom and explained that typical protocol was to serve the best wine first, and once everyone had drunk “freely,” to serve the poor wine (v. 10). According to the master of the feast, the bridegroom at this wedding had done it incorrectly. He waited until the end to serve the good wine (v. 10). According to early Christian conceptualizations, the Lord’s Supper was a “foretaste of the Messianic meal.”[56] For example, Thompson asserts that serving the good wine last depicts the time of salvation when the mountains shall “drip with sweet wine” (Amos 9:13–14; Isa 25:6–9).[57] For the early Christian community, Jesus is the better hope and covenant “through which we draw near to God” (Heb 7:19, 22).

Whatever God creates is good. That the wine is good should not be a surprise. Being a member of a eucharistic community would have led the reader to connect good wine here with Jesus’s blood offered at the Lord’s Supper.[58] Jesus’s blood never decreases in its goodness, and it never runs dry. Even if one were to worry about whether Jesus’s blood could extend to all, even to those that would never believe, the account in John 2 seems to indicate that Jesus is not concerned with there being leftover wine. The assumption in the story is that one should not be worried about having enough wine. They had already consumed all the wine, and Jesus filled six stone water jars with more. The miracle of turning water into wine, Sloyan argues, was written “to make believers of his disciples,” which makes sense in the larger context of John 2–6.[59] At the very end of John 6, Jesus told the Jews that they must drink his blood and eat his flesh in order to inherit eternal life (6:53–54). When the disciples heard this, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (v. 60). In fact, this saying was so difficult that some of the disciples “turned back and no longer walked with him” (v. 66). However, a remnant remained (vv. 68–71).

The very next event in the Gospel depicts a scene in which Jesus entered the temple in Jerusalem (v. 13). Exegetically, Carson notes that μετὰ τοῦτο (“after this,” v. 12) “is a frequent connective between narratives in John.”[60] Michaels also notes that the conjunction καὶ “links the account very closely to what has preceded.”[61] Entering the temple, Jesus found the Jews selling oxen, sheep, and pigeons, while the money-changers were sitting there (v. 14). Jesus made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple, saying, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade” (v. 16). When his disciples saw this, they remembered Psalm 69:9, “Zeal for your house will consume me,” and perceived Jesus to be the fulfillment.

In response to Jesus driving them out of the temple, the Jews asked him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” (v. 18). He responded, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (v. 19). This clearly confused them: How could Jesus raise a temple in three days, when it took forty-six years to build? (v. 20). However, they had missed the point. Jesus was not talking about brick and mortar. He was referencing his body, which would be broken and three days later raised from the dead (v. 21). For the disciples, this moment in the Gospel of John was so impactful that they specifically remembered it when Jesus rose from the dead (v. 22).

The early church interpreted John 2:18–22 as a reference to the gospel. For example, Tertullian of Carthage wrote, “Indeed, because the word ‘resurrection’ refers to that which has fallen, that is the flesh, so the same meaning will hold for the word ‘dead,’ since the phrase ‘resurrection of the dead’ refers to that which has fallen down. . . . If it is the body that is dead, then there will be a resurrection of the body when we speak of the ‘resurrection of the dead.’ ”[62] Like Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria interpreted John 2:18–22 as a reference to Christ’s body: “So the resurrection of Christ from the passion of the cross contains the mystery of the resurrection of the whole body of Christ.”[63] Leo the Great also supported a eucharistic reading of this passage: “For just as the flesh truly died and was buried, so also it truly was raised again on the third day. For the Lord himself declared this when he said to the Jews: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (v. 19).”[64] Thus, this temple (body) must first undergo the passion, an event marked by the breaking of Jesus’s body and the pouring out of his blood. This brings back into focus the prior unit where Jesus miraculously changed water into wine so that it might be poured out to any and all who would drink.[65] This event also sets the stage for the coming miracle whereby Jesus feeds five thousand people with only five barley loaves.

In these two events (John 2:1–11, 13–22), Christ symbolically revealed himself to those who believe (vv. 11, 22).[66] The first instance was through water turned into wine (blood) and the second was by the destruction and resurrection of the temple (body).[67] While each of these events is dramatically different, theologically they tell a eucharistic story, which is held together and formed around the idea of three days. For example, Carson sees significance in John’s use of three days: “Some have suggested that ‘the third day’ is such a stock phrase in the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection that John is using the time reference symbolically: on the third day, on the day of Jesus’ resurrection, the new age begins, represented here by the wine.”[68] Michaels also writes, “ ‘Three days’ is (as Jesus’s hearers had noticed) a ridiculously short time in which to build a temple, but (in light of certain synoptic traditions) an appropriate and familiar one in connection with Jesus’ resurrection.”[69] The account of the wedding in Galilee was “on the third day” (v.1, italics added). Jesus told the Jews that if the temple was destroyed, he would raise it up in three days (v. 19).[70] Then the Jews questioned Jesus about how he could raise the temple in three days when it took forty-six years to build (v. 20). John then clarifies, just like he does in the wedding narrative, that Jesus was actually talking about his body that would be raised on the third day (v. 21).[71] Finally, John notes that when Jesus had been raised from the dead, the disciples remembered, which is significant because Jesus rose from the dead three days after his death (v. 22).

In John 2, Jesus was invited to a wedding party. That Jesus would perform this miracle at a wedding is not without meaning. As a guest, he freely and unconditionally offered a gift by turning water into wine. Augustine writes concerning this scene, “What is surprising if the one who came into this world for a wedding went to that house for a wedding? If, in fact, he had not come for a wedding, he would not have a spouse here. And what is the meaning of what the apostle says: I joined you to one man, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ?”[72] This has eternal significance, as Jesus came to earth and assumed full humanity for the purpose of offering himself as a gift—a sign that later in the gospel will be associated with wine as it represents Jesus’s blood. According to Augustine, Jesus’s incarnation is for the purpose of redeeming his bride with his blood—so much blood that there will be some left over.[73]

Thus, the first miracle in the Gospel of John draws readers to the reality that we are the bride, Christ is the groom, and Jesus is the embodiment of “Husbands, love your wife, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). According to Carson, “the bridegroom was responsible for providing all the food and drink.”[74] Even though this human bridegroom fell short, Jesus as fully human and fully God, did not underestimate how much wine would be required for the wedding celebration. Jesus is the true bridegroom, and with Jesus, there is an overabundance. Augustine argues that Jesus did not worry about giving his blood to the bride that would become his wife because Jesus would rise again in the resurrection. Death will not separate this bride from the bridegroom.[75] In fact, the bloodshed would ensure that the husband and wife would live together for all eternity.

Feeding The Five Thousand—A Sacramental Reading

Concerning the connection between the Cana story and the feeding of the five thousand, Brown asks, “Is changing water into wine so different from the multiplication of loaves?”[76] As a result, he observes, “There are many possible hints of eucharistic symbolism. The changing of water to wine occurred before Passover (2:30), as does the multiplication of the loaves (6:4) and the Last Supper. Thus, before Passover we have a wine miracle and a bread miracle; these might be seen as taking the place of the eucharistic institution, which John does not mention.”[77] Similar to Brown, Higgins argues that the Cana narrative is closely tied to the miracle of feeding in John 6. Read together, there was a “miraculous supply” of the body (bread) and blood (wine) of Christ to those in attendance.[78] In addition, Michaels asserts that Mary’s claim that “they have no wine” is almost like a “parody of Jesus’s own comment in the synoptic tradition just before the feeding of the four thousand: ‘They do not have anything to eat’ (Mk 8:2; Mt 15:32).”[79] Michaels also argues that “the sheer magnitude or extravagance” of Jesus turning water into wine is compared with “the twelve baskets of fragments left over after feeding five thousand people with five loaves and two morsels of fish (6:13).”[80]

In chapter 6, John indicates that Jesus, at the time of the Passover, “went away” to the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1, 4). Carson notes that intrinsic to the Passover was the “slaughter of a lamb in each household, which then ate it.”[81] In John’s Gospel, Jesus is the lamb; and for Carson, there is a connection to the Lord’s Supper: “The sacrifice of the lamb anticipates Jesus’ death, the Old Testament manna is superseded by the real bread of life, the exodus typologically sets forth the eternal life that delivers us from sin and desertion, the Passover feast is taken over by the eucharist (both of which point to Jesus and his redemptive cross-work).”[82] Even though Jesus was getting away, a large crowd followed him, because they wanted to see what other signs he might perform (v. 2). However, Jesus was able to get to the top of the mountain, and “there he sat down with his disciples” (v. 3).

Seeing the large crowds that were following him, Jesus asked Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” (v. 5). Kanagaraj observes that Jesus not only saw their physical need for food, but that he was also aware of a “deeper perception of their need for food.”[83] Kanagaraj argues, “The event in John only shows that Jesus fed the hungry, and that the abundance of Jesus’ supply is beyond human comprehension (6:7, 9).”[84] John records that Jesus’s question was merely a test, because Jesus knew “what he would do” (v. 6). Philip’s response was that even “two hundred denarii worth of bread” would not be enough to feed everyone a little (v. 7). Then Andrew added to the discussion that it was not enough, but “there is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish” (v. 9). Jesus’s response to it all was “Have the people sit down” (v. 10). Seeing a connection to the Lord’s Supper, Michaels asserts that the request of Jesus for the people to “sit down” was “literally ‘recline’ as if at tables, when there were no tables.”[85] Thompson observes, “Jesus is the host at this meal, even as he became the (unseen) host of the wedding feast at Cana by providing wine for it.”[86] In addition, Thompson asserts that the disciples could clearly see the need; however, “they do not understand that Jesus can provide abundantly beyond what they imagine.”[87]

The total number of people here is important. Scholars do not know the exact number; however, Carson is confident that the number exceeded five thousand. He writes, “The total number of people may well have exceeded twenty thousand or more.”[88] The lack of clarity in the text supports the idea that the atonement is both limited and unlimited in nature. Jesus was not concerned with how many people were there, nor was John concerned with telling the reader the exact number. Irrespective of the final count, all who wanted to eat did. In addition, after all had their fill, plenty was left over. Just like the father in Ryrie’s illustration, Jesus’s desire was to feed all who would like to eat. Jesus took the bread and fish, and after he had given thanks, he began to distribute them to all who were seated (v. 11).

Carson observes that the cognate of “having given thanks” (εὐχαριστήσας) is “the ecclesiastical term ‘eucharist’ by which many Christians refer to the Lord’s supper, holy communion.”[89] Thompson also sees a connection with the Lord’s Supper: “John’s description reflects the words spoken over the bread and cup at the Lord’s Supper as recorded elsewhere: ‘And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them’ (Luke 22:17–19; Matt 26:26–27; Mark 14:22–23; 1 Cor 11:24).”[90] Even though John here records the distribution of bread and fish, Thompson notes that John will “go on to speak of eating and drinking (v. 35) his flesh and blood (vv. 51–58).”[91]

John records that they were able to eat “as much as they wanted” (v. 11). For Thompson, this miracle is similar to that of turning water into wine, both aptly characterized as a miracle of “gift” or “supply.”[92] Similar to Thompson, Michaels notes that there is a connection between the feeding of the five thousand and the wedding in Cana, as everyone got their fill.[93] Kanagaraj also asserts that as a result of the miracle, all who wanted to eat were satisfied.[94] After that, Jesus told the disciples to “gather up the leftover fragments, that nothing may be lost” (v. 12). Just like at the wedding in Cana, there was an abundance of bread left over.[95] For Thompson, there is a connection between the wedding in Cana and the feeding of the five thousand as they both display that Jesus provides far more than the guests require.[96] Theodore of Mopsuestia also asserted that “this miracle showed the abundance of his grace through the large amount of what was left.”[97] Michaels writes, “Their hunger was more than satisfied, with plenty left over.”[98] As a result, the disciples gathered twelve baskets that were produced from the five barley loaves (v. 13). Because of this great sign, the people said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world” (v. 14).

Conclusion

John records that the next day the crowds sought for Jesus. These same people witnessed and perhaps ate the bread that Jesus had miraculously provided (John 6:23). When the people found Jesus, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” (v. 25). Jesus’s response was to question their motives (v. 27). They were seeking Jesus because he gave them bread, but Jesus wanted to give them the bread of life (v. 27). Jesus then said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (v. 35). The Jews “grumbled about him” because of what he was saying (v. 41). The Jews understood the meaning behind Jesus’s words, that Jesus was referencing himself as the bread the people were to eat (v. 52). Perceiving their hearts, Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (vv. 53–55).

Ryrie argues that the extent of the atonement is both limited and unlimited in nature. He likens the atonement to a father preparing a meal for his children.[99] Although the father serves enough for all his children, that does not mean that all his children will eat the meal. Thus, for Ryrie there is a difference between possessing and providing.[100] For Christians, there is not a more significant meal than the Lord’s Supper, and connecting these two miraculous events (John 2:1–11; 6:1–14) to the Eucharist is helpful as each element of the meal in this literary unit is (1) provided sufficiently to those in need, and yet (2) there is an element of abundance, which is demonstrated by the leftovers. Thus, the wine and bread miracles strengthen the imagery of Ryrie’s illustration and the limited and unlimited nature of atonement.

Notes

1. John D. Hannah, An Uncommon Union: Dallas Theological Seminary and American Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 148.
2. Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1999), 367–73.
3. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 367. Ryrie also uses the term “particular redemption” to describe limited atonement.
4. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New Combined Edition (1932; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 394 (italics original).
5. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 394.
6. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 394.
7. Ryrie, 367.
8. Ryrie, 367.
9. Ryrie, 368.
10. Ryrie, 369.
11. Ryrie notes that “unlimited redemptionists are not universalists. They do not believe that all will ultimately be saved. Nor does their view require or logically lead to such a heretical conclusion. To assert this is to create a straw man” (Basic Theology, 368). The phrase “unlimited redemptionists” is another term for those who adhere to unlimited atonement.
12. Ryrie appeals to various passages that seem to suggest the atonement is both limited and unlimited: 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:2; 1 Timothy 2:4–6; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; John 3:16; Acts 17:30 (Basic Theology, 369–72).
13. Gerard Sloyan, John, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1988), 5. Sloyan then illustrates his point, asserting, “There is the master idea that Jesus is the true teacher sent by God from heaven (‘above’), his proper home (3:31–34), to a human world ‘below’ (8:23), thence to go back to reclaim the glory which he had with God from the beginning (17:5). He has come to the world as its light to keep anyone who believes in him from remaining in the dark (12:46). He is a revealer of the reality of God who has no previous rival in his intimacy with godhead (5:19c-20a; 6:46): not Abraham, not Moses, not any of the prophets. John’s favored term to describe God is ‘the Father,’ just as he inclines toward ‘the Son’ for Jesus. Everything that Jesus says or does discloses who he is. His speech and action in so doing likewise disclose no less than the mystery of deity” (Sloyan, John, 5–6).
14. Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11, New American Commentary 25A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 161.
15. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (1955; repr., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 67.
16. D. A. Carson notes that works on John’s theology in the Fourth Gospel have largely been limited. “Although there are countless volumes that examine this or that aspect of his thought, there is no full-scale treatment of Johannine theology that is worthy of the name” (D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 95). An exception is Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 2009).
17. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 367.
18. Ryrie, 367.
19. Ryrie, 367.
20. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I–XII), Anchor Bible Commentaries 29 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), cxi. See also, Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 82–5.
21. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955), 2:58.
22. Borchert, John 1–11, 158.
23. Borchert, John 1–11, 158–59.
24. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 99.
25. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 82.
26. A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology 6 (1952; repr., London: SCM, 1956), 74.
27. Brown, The Gospel according to John I–XII, 109. He is especially wary of exaggerating the Johannine scene in order to argue for a reference to matrimony as a sacrament.
28. Brown, The Gospel according to John I–XII, 110.
29. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 99.
30. Alf Corell, Consummatum Est: Eschatology and Church in the Gospel of St. John (1958; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016), 56.
31. Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary, New Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015), 63.
32. Theodore of Mopsuestia, “Commentary on John” in John: Interpreted by Early Christian and Medieval Commentators, trans. and ed. Bryan A. Stewart and Michael A. Thomas, The Church’s Bible, ed. Robert Lewis Wilkin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 81.
33. Oscar Cullman, Early Christian Worship, Studies in Biblical Theology First Series 10 (London: SCM, 1953), 69.
34. Cullman, Early Christian Worship, 69.
35. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 79–82.
36. All Scripture quotations are from the ESV.
37. Augustine, “Homily 26, ” in Homilies on the Gospel of John 1–40, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, trans. Edmund Hill, Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st century 12 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2009), 463.
38. Cyril of Alexandria, “Commentary on John,” in Stewart and Thomas, John, 217.
39. Brown, The Gospel according to John I–XII, 274.
40. Sloyan, John, 34.
41. Augustine, “Homily 8, ” in Fitzgerald, Homilies, 180–81.
42. Augustine, “Homily 8, ” 180–81.
43. Corell, Consummatum Est, 57.
44. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 78.
45. Raymond E. Brown, “The Johannine Sacramentary Reconsidered,” Theological Studies 23 (1962): 201. See also Genesis 49:11; Deuteronomy 32:14.
46. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 173. However, scholars vary in their measurements. For example, Brown asserts that the total was fifteen to twenty-five gallons. “The jars hold two or three measures; a measure is about eight gallons” (Brown, The Gospel according to John I–XII, 100). Borchert says the pots held “somewhere between sixteen and twenty-seven gallons” (Borchert, John 1–11, 156).
47. Augustine, “Homily 9, ” in Fitzgerald, Homilies, 190.
48. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 78.
49. Augustine, “Homily 9, ” 190.
50. Augustine, 190.
51. Frederick W. Danker, et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 191.
52. W. F. Howard, The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation, ed. C. K. Barrett, 4th ed. (1961; repr. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2009), 191–92.
53. Thompson, John, 60.
54. Borchert writes the following concerning whether the wine contained alcohol: “Jesus’ making wine in this case has caused some readers another major problem. One of my sons once returned from a class and informed me that Jesus made nonalcoholic wine in this story. His teacher also had informed him that the Greek word for the drink here meant nonalcoholic grape juice. It serves no purpose for evangelicals to twist the Greek language for the sake of their ethical opinions because such an argument cannot be sustained from Greek” (John 1–11, 157).
55. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 174.
56. Cullman, Early Christian Worship, 71.
57. Thompson, John, 63.
58. Cullman, Early Christian Worship, 69, 71.
59. Sloyan, John, 41.
60. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 175.
61. J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 157.
62. Tertullian of Carthage, “On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” in Stewart and Thomas, John, 81.
63. Origen of Alexandria, “Commentary on John,” in Stewart and Thomas, John, 81.
64. Leo the Great, “Letter 15.18,” in Stewart and Thomas, John, 84.
65. Brown, “The Johannine Sacramentary Reconsidered,” 201.
66. Theodore of Mopsuestia, “Commentary on John,” 81.
67. Cullman, Early Christian Worship, 71–74.
68. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 167.
69. Michaels, The Gospel of John, 167.
70. Michaels, 164.
71. Michaels, The Gospel of John, 166.
72. Augustine, “Homily 8, ” 171.
73. Augustine, 171.
74. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 174.
75. Augustine, “Homily 8, ” 171–72.
76. Brown, The Gospel according to John I–XII, 101.
77. Brown, “The Johannine Sacramentary Reconsidered,” 200.
78. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 78.
79. Michaels, The Gospel of John, 143.
80. Michaels, 149. He also compares the miracle of turning water into wine with other extravagant miracles, such as “the ‘153 large fish’ which the disciples caught in their net at Jesus’ command (21:11), or (in a different vein) the whole pint of precious perfume which Mary of Bethany poured out on Jesus’ feet (12:3), or the seventy-five pounds of spices used to embalm Jesus’ body after his death (19:39).”
81. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 268.
82. Carson, 268.
83. Jey J. Kanagaraj, John: A New Covenant Commentary, New Covenant Commentary (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2013), 63.
84. Kanagaraj, John, 64.
85. Michaels, The Gospel of John, 347.
86. Thompson, John, 140.
87. Thompson, 140.
88. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 270.
89. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 270.
90. Thompson, John, 141. See also Michaels, The Gospel of John, 348.
91. Thompson, John, 141.
92. Thompson, 138.
93. Michaels, The Gospel of John, 349.
94. Kanagaraj, John, 64.
95. Thompson, John, 140.
96. Thompson, 141. See also Cullman, Early Christian Worship, 96.
97. Theodore of Mopsuestia, “Commentary on John,” 189.
98. Michaels, The Gospel of John, 349.
99. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 367.
100. Ryrie, 367.