Are You Eating and Drinking Christ?

Our small groups have been studying the Gospel of John. It has been a rich study. Most groups have already studied chapter six. Some are already past it (Okay, all are except my group. Leave me alone.). Chapter six has a history of being controversial for a couple of reasons. First, it consists of unflinching teaching from our Lord regarding the doctrines of grace that we adore so much (total depravity, election, particular redemption, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints). Some ignore or somehow argue around the doctrines taught in this chapter because of the offensive nature of these truths. Others stress these doctrines concerning God's sovereign grace that are so clearly spelled out by our Lord. As a result, there exists disagreement regarding how to interpret Christ's words in chapter six. And this has been true throughout the history of the church.

But there is a second reason that this passage is controversial. It relates to Christ’s words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, which He spoke in the synagogue in Capernaum. In fact, Christ’s original audience who heard these words (composed largely of the religious leaders...John simply calls them “the Jews”) argued “with one another saying, ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’” (6:52). They failed to understand what Christ meant by His provocative words.

What did Christ mean anyway? Unfortunately, many have used this section of Scripture (i.e. Roman Catholic Church) to argue that Christ is speaking about the Lord’s Supper when He says, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (6:54). However, the most consistent and logical conclusion, if this were true, will result in seeing salvation as a cooperation between God and man. In short, this view leads to affirming a works oriented salvation. For to partake in a Lord’s Supper service, that is, to physically eat and drink bread and juice (or wine, if you are not baptist), requires the work of man. One makes a conscious decision to attend a church where Communion is offered. In addition, one decisively takes the elements into his hands when they are passed to him and proceeds to chew and swallow. Any way you look at it, it takes work- the work of man.

The idea among some ("sacramentalists" as they are often called) is that if we take the Lord's Supper faithfully we will be granted eternal life. However, John himself made clear at the beginning of his book that human works contribute nothing to salvation, " But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God"(John 1:12-13, cf. Romans 9:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). This was the whole point of Christ’s words to Nicodemus earlier in chapter three when Jesus said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (3:5-6). Jesus was saying that until the Spirit of God regenerates a heart, a person will not believe. Only the Spirit, who works like water, can wash a sinful heart clean and create new life. And when the Spirit regenerates a heart, belief in Christ will always occur. On the other hand, the flesh is incapable of producing spiritual life. In other words, our good works can never gain acceptance before God. They result in condemnation rather than salvation. And God does not view them as "good" either because they manifest an attempt to butter God up so that He will grant eternal life. Flesh only produces flesh. Simply put, it takes an independent, sovereign act of God in order for salvation to take place and new birth to be realized. Just as you had no part in your physical birth (your parents did not ask what you thought about being born, and furthermore you did not lend a hand in the process), so to you have no hand in your spiritual birth.

As the helpful commentator Leon Morris points out, those who believe Christ’s words are directed to the Lord’s Supper begin with a great assumption. They presuppose that the Apostle John failed to record in the sacred Scriptures Jesus' direct words regarding the Lord’s Supper. In essence, proponents of this view believe that John only recorded a summary of what Christ said, leaving out large chunks of information. If we had those large chunks of information in our Bibles then there would be no question that Jesus was speaking about the Lord's table because in those chunks Jesus says as much. Forgive me for presuming on the Holy Spirit, but would He not include those sections if indeed they existed? It sure would clear up the provocative statements of Christ regarding eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Nevertheless, Morris says that some argue Christ’s words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood strongly imply that He was teaching about the Lord’s Supper (The Gospel According to John, NICNT, 311). The attitude among those who hold this view seems to be, "Well, what in the world could Jesus have meant if He was not talking about the Lord's Supper?"

Well, that's a good question. But I think those who assume Jesus spoke about the Lord's Supper in John 6 have the wrong answer. There is a better answer. In studying this passage I found 13 good reasons that suggest Jesus was, in fact, not talking about the Lord’s Supper. I would like to share these with you. These are not entirely original with me. This week I did my reading much as I always do- armed with a highlighter- marking various arguments made by commentators against the notion that Jesus was speaking about the Lord’s Supper in John 6. As you will see in the reasons listed, understanding Christ’s words in John 6 has enormous implications for the church!

In addition, the 13 reasons against the "Lord's Supper View" (or sacramental view) also provide the correct interpretation of John 6, which I will explain more clearly at the end.


Reason #1: No where does the context, or passage itself indicate that Jesus is speaking about the Lord's Supper. As stated above, the best argument would be to say that the Holy Spirit simply left out the words Christ spoke directly about the Lord's Supper. But even that argument only deals with the passage itself. Even if that were true (which I hope you can see that it is not), one would still have to ask how a sermon on the Lord's Supper by Christ fits in with the overall context of John 6. After studying John 6, one sees that a discourse on the Lord's Supper would be awkwardly out of place, having nothing to do with what comes before, or what follows.

Reason #2: If our Lord's words are to be taken in a strictly literal sense, then the obvious and consistent conclusion results in seeing Christ promoting cannibalism. (Not much more needs to be said here. Nobody would argue that Christ was teaching cannibalism.)

Reason #3: The metaphor of eating and drinking was a common one among the Jewish people. The original audience probably did not take Christ's words overly literal. Indeed, it is possible that the religious leaders were not confused entirely regarding Christ's statement. Its true that they argued among themselves regarding the meaning of Christ's statement (vs. 52). But perhaps many (if not most) of them knew He was speaking figuratively. After all, metaphors were common in Jewish culture and teaching. This might explain their question in verse 52, "Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?'" A large part of the confusion stemmed from the fact that they did not understand the full implications of the metaphor Christ placed before them.

Reason #4: "I am the bread of life" is the first of the “I AM” sayings, which are metaphorical expressions regarding the person of Christ. The other metaphorical expressions include:
1. I am the Light of the world (8:12)
2. I am the Door of the sheep (10:7,9)
3. I am the Good Shepherd (10:11, 14)
4. I am the Resurrection and the Life (11:25)
5. I am the Way, the Truth, the Life (14:6)
6. I am the True Vine (15:1,5)

These expressions are to be taken no more literally than "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh" (6:51). In other words, nobody would be inclined to argue that Jesus is literally a vine, or a door. So why argue that Christ's statements in John 6 must be taken literally as pointing to a literal presence of Christ in the bread given at a Lord's Supper service?

Reason #5: Verse 54 is parallel with verse 40, proving Christ was not talking about the Lord's Supper. Rather, He is emphasizing belief in Himself as the Messiah. In vs. 40 Jesus says, “everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day”. Verse 54 says, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day”. There is no contradiction in these verses. They are saying the same thing in a different way. It is clear that to “behold” and “believe” the Son (vs. 40) is the same as to “eat” His flesh and “drink” His blood (vs. 54). Simply put, "believing" and "eating" refer to placing faith in Christ.

Reason #6: When Christ spoke these words, the Lord’s Supper had not yet been instituted. The original hearers would know nothing of a “Lord’s Supper” celebration. For Christ to give a theology on an unknown practice before its official institution makes no sense. Once again, context is important when interpreting Scripture.

To be continued on a later post. Please feel free to ask questions or make comments....