Transcription
Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Multiple times Jesus repeats that which they have already rejected. They have already up in verse 52 questioned how can this be? And Jesus continues to press into it.
Now, why would he do that? Why would he not just say this is meant to be understood spiritually? Some would say that he did mean it literally. In fact, this is a division that does happen among denominations of Christians. Some Christians believe that what Jesus is saying here is that we are to physically eat of his body and physically drink of his blood because they believe that the elements of the bread and the cup become the literal body and blood of Jesus in the supper.
The Roman Catholic Church believes in something called transubstantiation, which means a change of substance. Trans means to change, and transubstantiation means a change of substance. So in the Roman Catholic Church, it is believed that when the priest upholds the bread and he consecrates the bread, that the substance of the bread literally becomes the physical, corporeal body of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is what is believed happens at the words of consecration. So prior to the words of consecration, it is only bread. But when he offers the words of consecration, it is no longer bread, but it is the flesh of Christ, though it carries the accidents of bread, which means that it carries the physical look and feel and taste of bread, but the substance has changed. That's an Aristotelian distinction between the substance of a thing and its attributes or its accidents. And so they argue that you still see bread, you still chew bread, you still taste bread, but it is literally the body of Jesus Christ. And so to the cup, the wine becomes his blood. That is transsubstantiation.
The second doctrine is the doctrine known as sacramental presence. This is what is held to by Lutherans, and I would argue very similar to what is held to by the Eastern Orthodox Church. This teaches that Jesus is in the elements physically, but they do not try to make a metaphysical argument as Rome does, but rather they simply say that the elements themselves contain the body and blood of Christ. And as to how it is a mystery, they will say he is over it, under it, around it, and through it. And in what way they do not try to explain, they simply say he is because he said, "This is my body," therefore this is his body. That was Luther's argument. Luther pounded on the table at Marburg and said, "This hocus corpus meum, this is my body," and he argued for the bodily presence of Christ in the table.
The third view is Calvin's view, held by many in the reformed church, and that is that Christ is present, but not physically. Christ is present spiritually. Calvin argued that Christ's corporeal body is at the right hand of the Father, but his spiritual presence is omnipresent and therefore can be contained in the bread and cup without it having to divide up his corporeal presence. So Calvin's was a little bit more philosophical regarding the nature of Christ as both God and man.
The memorial view states that when Christ held up the bread and he said, "This is my body," what he meant and what the word is means is that this represents my body. This is a symbol to point to my body, and this cup is a symbol that points to my blood. Now, that is the view that I hold. That is the view, uh, that we teach here. Now, again, I didn't mean to take that little theological aside. My point is to simply say this: Many people who hold to one of the first three of those positions will say Jesus is here giving us his understanding of what happens in the table. That this is where we eat of his body and drink of his blood. And I will tell you, not just because I hold the memorial view, but because of my understanding of this text, I don't think that that's what Jesus is doing. I do not believe that Jesus is here in John chapter 6 telling us that eating of the bread and drinking of the cup is how we eat his flesh and drink his blood in this context. Because I believe that eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the context of this passage is actually referring to trusting in him. In the same way, drinking the living water was, uh, equated to trusting him in chapter 4. And in the same way, being born again causes us to trust in him in chapter 3. This is all analogous to what it means to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now, I want to quote to you so that you don't think that this is just Keith out on a limb by himself with no one at least to agree with him. And, and, and if that were the case, I would say it. But this is something to be understood. Even people who have held these other views have said that this isn't about the Lord's supper. And I'll give you two quotes. The first is from J.C. Ryle. He says this, "Let us first consider carefully what these verses do not mean. The eating and drinking of which Christ speaks do not mean any literal eating and drinking. Above all, the words were not spoken with any reference to the sacrament of the Lord's supper. We may eat the Lord's supper and yet not eat and drink Christ's body and blood. We may eat and drink Christ's body and blood and yet not eat the Lord's supper. Let this not be forgotten."
So what is Ryle's point? He's saying this: You can come to the table a thousand times and still not be a believer. You agree with that? Everybody here, you could come to the table and not be a believer. And you can be a believer and not yet eat of the table. You agree? Now, I would say believers should eat at the table. Please don't think I'm saying you shouldn't come to the table. But as a believer, a person can be a believer before eating of the table. And that's Ryle's point. He's saying what Jesus is referring to here is not the eating of the table. He says, because many have come to the table and eaten and have not been believers. And what does Paul say? They've eaten condemnation unto themselves. But there are others who come to the table after having believed. And then what is the table to them? It's simply confirmation of what they have already received spiritually.
Now, Calvin, who certainly held to the third view because I already explained what he held, but on this verse, listen to what Calvin has to say. [clears throat] This is directly from his commentary, and you can look it up yourselves. It's on study.net for free if you want to go and check my work. John Calvin says in regard to John chapter 6, "This discourse does not relate to the Lord's supper." That's his own words. "This just doesn't, but to the uninterrupted communication of the flesh of Christ, which we obtain apart from the use of the Lord's supper. For if it were true that all who present themselves at the holy table of the Lord are made partakers of his flesh and blood, all will in like manner obtain life. But we know that there are many who partake of it to their condemnation. And indeed, it would have been foolish and unreasonable to discourse about the Lord's supper before he had instituted it. It is certain then that he now speaks of the perpetual and ordinary manner of eating the flesh of Christ, which is done by faith only." He's saying he's not speaking here of the Lord's supper. He's speaking of our perpetual eating and drinking of the flesh of Christ, which is done not physically, but is done by faith.
Now, Calvin does say something further in his commentary, which I would agree with. He says that there is a sense in which there is an illustration of the Lord's supper here that we should at least acknowledge. I'll read his quote. He says, "And yet at the same time, I acknowledge that there is nothing said here that is not figuratively present and bestowed on believers in the Lord's supper. And Christ even intended that the holy supper should be, as it were, a seal and confirmation of this sermon."
So what's Calvin saying? He's not, he's not contradicting himself. He's saying this sermon isn't about the Lord's supper. But what this sermon does is this sermon does give us an illustration by which we later see him confirm in the Lord's supper the reality of what the Lord's supper is meant to represent. The Lord's supper represents our continual feeding on Christ. It represents our continual nourishment in Christ. It represents our union with him through eating his body and drinking his blood spiritually, which we do symbolically at the table of the Lord.
Leon Morris says this. He says, "Many commentators speak as though the flesh self-evidently marked a reference to Holy Communion. It, of course, does nothing of the sort. It is not found in the narratives of the institution, nor in 1 Corinthians 10, nor in 1 Corinthians 11 in connection with the sacrament." I think Morris really grabs something smart there. He said if this was what Jesus meant, it's interesting that he never mentions it. He never makes the connection, and for, and Paul doesn't either. Paul does not make the connection in his message about the ser, uh, the supper, in anything to point back to what Jesus says here and says, "This is what Jesus meant."
So if you want to know if I think that this is talking about the Lord's supper, I will say this: only, only figuratively. But this is not giving us in the Lord's supper a reason to believe that there is physical flesh and physical blood in the body and the cup. I don't believe this text demands that. I don't believe this text teaches that. And I do not believe that we as Christians are bound to believe that. Now, if a Christian does believe that, like my Lutheran brothers who believe that Christ is present in the bread and the cup, I'm not going to condemn them for that belief, but I don't have to share it. I can say that they are my brothers in Christ, and yet I can say on this point, I think that they have arrived at an incorrect conclusion. But I love them, and I hope that the same extension would be given in my direction.
So you ask, what does it mean then? If, if, if, if Jesus didn't mean it to be taken literally, what does it mean? It is not to be understood as literally eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ. It is meant to be understood as believing in him.
Brian Bell has a very funny comment on this in his commentary. He says, "What is meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood? This is non-kosher talk. This is cannibalism and blood drinking. It sounds like a bad vampire movie filmed at Donner Pass. He wasn't literally bread any more than he was literally a lamb or literally a lion. It means nothing more and nothing less than believing in him."
G. Campbell Morgan says this. He said, "Our Lord went further still and spoke in mystical language of the necessity for drinking his blood. This figure was suggestive of a way through which we would receive life, and that is through his death." How do we receive life? Is through the death of Christ. Christ didn't come just to live, but he came also to die. And when you go back up to verse 51, he says, "The life I now give for the world is my flesh." Or, "The bread I now give for the life of the world is my flesh. My bread is the flesh." And how is he going to give it? He's going to give it through the sacrifice on the cross. To trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross is to believe on him.
In fact, I want to quote Augustine. I know I'm quoting a lot today. I did, again, this is a hard saying. I, I wanted to bring with me at least to bear that, uh, I'm not standing alone on this, but also I just want you to hear the words of Augustine. It's interesting Augustine even commented on John 6, and you know what Augustine said in the 4th century? He said, "Cred, manducasti. Believe, and thou hast eaten." Believe, and thou hast eaten. Have you believed on the Lord? Have you trusted in his finished work? Have you genuinely said that it is by his work and not yours that you are saved? Then you have received his body and his blood, and you have life in you by faith.