Something I Must Constantly Remind Myself Of

Religion focuses on rules.

Christianity focuses on relationship.

Religion is commitment to practice.
Christianity is commitment to a Person.

A law-centered life produces despair and pride.
A Christ-centered life produces gratitude and worship.

A legalist seeks to gain favor with God.
A Christian seeks to live for God because Christ alone has placed Him in a favorable position before God.

Religion promotes self.
Christianity promotes Christ.

Religion is focused on "don't do".
Christianity is focused on "Christ did".

Religion seeks praise from others.
Christianity seeks praise for Christ.

A legalist obeys a list.
A Christian simply follows Christ.

Religion is rooted in honoring self and thus bears fruitless branches.
Christianity is rooted in Christ and thus bears the fruit of the Spirit.

Legalism is ultimately selfish and works against the church.
Christianity is ultimately selfless and works with and for the church.

May God be pleased to search our hearts that we may not be religious legalists, but Christ exalting Christians! Do we view the Christian life as a series of road signs telling us what not to do, or do we view Christianity as pointing us to the cross of Jesus Christ telling us what Christ did for us?

- Pastor Andy

Together for the Gospel on Vimeo

Watched two great sermons last night and today from the Together for the Gospel Conference this past week in Louisville. You can watch them as well (and I would encourage you to do so). So far, I have watched MacArthur and Piper, and I highly recommend both. I cannot speak to the others because I have not watched them.

Here is my analysis...

MacArthur: Spoke about the Parable of the Seed (Mark 4:26-29). Did a great job reminding us that salvation is a sovereign work of God. The sower sows the seed, and then sleeps really well. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the Gospel to accomadate the culture, or draw people. The Spirit blows on who He wants to, and on whom He determines to. Thus, we must sow the seed, and leave the results to God (i.e. sleep well).

Piper: Spoke on the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14). Did a great job reminding us that we must recognize two important elements to justification by faith. Justification includes: 1) Christ's perfect obedience in our place, and 2) His death as a perfect atonement in our place. The good works that we exhibit as Christians is the fruit, not the root of our justification. We have had imputed to us the righteousness of Christ if we have placed faith in Him alone. It is an alien righteousness. The basis of salvation is Christ alone!

Click here for your viewing pleasure.

What is the Gospel? A Great Definition!

Click HERE for a clear, simple (yet not overly simplistic), and thorough definition of the Gospel. It does not get much better than this.

Compliments of R.C. Sproul (said at the Together for the Gospel conference)

A Prayer for Those Weary in Battle

O Lord,

When I feel the serpent at my heel,

may I remember Him whose heel was bruised,

but Who, when bruised, broke the devil's head.

Then shall my heart never weaken,

my feet never stumble,

my sword never rest,

my shield never rust,

my helmet never shatter,

my breastplate never fall,

as my strength rests in the power of Thy might.

Amen.

A Study of Basic Christian Doctrine: How Do We Know God?

This week we will begin answering the second basic question in our study of basic Christian doctrine. The first question was, "Why is it important to study doctrine anyway?" We have answered that question in a satisfactorily way, I think. We looked at 9 reasons that one should study doctrine. If you wonder what these are, then look back at the previous posts at your leisure. Remember: we are going to answer (Lord willing) eight basic questions. So let's get started on this second one, for it is in many ways foundational for the rest of the questions and their answers.

Now let me just point out to you from the get go that this could be a confusing question if we allow it to be. However, I am never interested in shrouding things in mystery to appear intelligent, so let me explain. We are not speaking specifically when we ask this question. The specific answer to this question would be- "Jesus Christ", right? Many of you reading this already knew that answer. That is, in fact, the right answer. But it is the right answer to the wrong question because I am asking something different than one might initially think. It is obviously true that it is only through Jesus Christ that we truly come to know God in personal relationship (Jn. 14:6; 17:3). However, when I ask the above question, I am speaking generally, not specifically. Therefore, the answer to the question in the strictest sense is not "Jesus Christ". The general answer to this question looks differently. In fact, we are not even discussing (at this point) what we might call the “salvation knowledge” of God. That will be taken up later in the questions, “Who is Jesus Christ?”, and “What is salvation?” Really, we are talking about a different topic altogether.

One could ask the above question proposed this way, “How do we know God exists?” Or, maybe we could ask it this way, “How do we know God exists, and furthermore, how do we know what we know about God, and furthermore, how do we know what we know about God is true?” All of these questions get at the heart of what we will be discussing in the next few posts. This is similar to the question proposed by Zophar (Job's "kind of" friend) when he asked, "Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?" (Job 11:7). In other words, is there any sense whatsoever in which man can understand God, and be confident that what he understands about God is certain fact? The proposed question is important because Scripture does clearly teach us that there is a sense in which all men “know” God. This is encouraging in one sense. But it is also dreadful in another sense. In one sense, Scripture teaches us that the knowledge about God that all men possess reveals that He is indeed there. This could be looked at as a good thing if it were not for sin. And that is where the dreadful part enters in. Scripture tells us that man, on his own, cannot recognize this knowledge of God due to the effect of sin (affecting everything including our minds and general perceptive abilities/ see 2 Cor. 4:4; I Cor. 1:21; 2:5). And the result is that, rather than leading them to a true (salvation) knowledge of God it leaves them simply “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). In fact, Paul uses some dreadful language in 2 Cor. 4:4 when he explains that the god of this world (Satan) has aided in blinding the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. It is through Jesus Christ (specific answer to our question) that we truly come to "know" God. But we will never seek Jesus on our own. Our minds will never view that as a rational, logical, needful reaction to our sin. It takes a special operation of the Spirit to remove the scales from the eyes of our mind and reveal Jesus Christ to us (Jn. 3:1-8).

But regardless of the fact that man's condition is sadly wrapped up in his own sin to such a degree that he is incapable of seeing the beauty of God in Jesus Christ, he is still culpable and without excuse. And furthermore, this sad affair does not change reality. This is not a movie that has the potential to have a different ending. This is reality: God has revealed Himself to man, and man categorically refuses to read God's handwriting on His creation, or listen to the spoken Word of His own Son.

Let me point out at this point that God’s existence is not dependent upon evidence for His existence. In other words, though the evidence is overwhelming that God exists, His existence is not dependant either on this evidence, or our ability to perceive this evidence is there. Even if we could not prove the existence of God (which we can), it would not make belief in God irrational. Belief in God is rational simply because He exists. The world depends on logic and rational senses in order to prove the validity of something. However, we must understand from the beginning that though the arguments for the existence of God are rational and logical, they are ultimately shrouded in mystery. The Gospel is not completely mystical, but largely rational. Nevertheless, it is not dependant on logic as understood through the eyes of the world (Compare Is. 1:18; Rom. 10:17; and I Cor. 1:21 with Rom. 11:33-36). Therefore, arguments for the existence of God (and the value of Christ) will appear irrational and illogical at some point because of the element of mystery. Nonetheless, this does not take away from the evidence for God’s existence. Rather, it affirms the wondrously complex and incomprehensible God that we serve. In addition, it points to our finiteness, which in turn points to God’s infiniteness.

In addition, to say that evidence for the existence of God must be established in order to prove the rationality of God’s existence is to place believers in an unfair box. It corners the believer in the one true God (the one who actually possesses truth) and demands him to prove the rationality of his belief according to standards of measurement that God Himself did not invent. In fact, that notion is the notion of the atheist and agnostic. The atheist, or agnostic says, “God cannot exist without proof”. Or they will say, “Religious belief must be based upon empirical evidence and logical arguments in order to be rational”. A Christian who says, “The existence of God must be based upon clear proof” is saying the same thing. He comes to a different conclusion than the atheist and agnostic, namely that God exists. Nevertheless, he begins with the same presupposition, namely that proof is paramount for belief in God to be rational. Scripture never demands proof. It gives proof, but it never demands proof for the existence of God. Rather, Scripture assumes God exists everywhere and throughout. One has to look no further than the first verse of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created..". Did you notice that? There is evidence given (read the creation account) that God exists. But there are no arguments for it. The Biblical text simply assumes that God exists. This is an important difference that I am making between "the reality of evidence" and "the need for evidence". I am not denying that there is sufficient evidence that God exists. In fact, I have been affirming rather robustly that there is evidence for God's existence. But I am also asserting that this evidence does not have to be there for God to exist. His existence is not dependant on evidence. And I will notch it up a little and also affirm that our ability to perceive the viability of this evidence is also not something that His existence is dependant upon. What the world thinks is wisdom is not. Paul said this very thing in 1 Cor. 2:4-5, "...my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God."

Let me close with a quote from a Christian philosopher:

“God has created us in such a way that we have a strong tendency or inclination toward belief in God. This tendency has been in part overlaid or suppressed by sin. Were it not for the existence of sin in the world, human beings would believe in God to the same degree and with the same spontaneity that we believe in the existence of other persons, an external world, or the past. This is the natural human condition; it is because of our presently unnatural sinful condition that many of us find belief in God difficult or absurd. The fact is, Calvin thinks, one who does not believe in God is…like a man who does not believe that his wife exists, or thinks she is like a cleverly constructed robot and has no thoughts, feelings, or consciousness” (Alvin Plantiga).

Trusting the Scales Have Fallen From Your Eyes to See Christ,

Pastor Andy

Kevin DeYoung Blog

Here is a good post from a young, Reformed preacher. I do not read many blogs, but I will read this one from time to time. He argues against legalism, and thus promotes the grace of the Gospel. Its worth taking 5 to read it.

You can read the post in its entirety by clicking here.

Man's Fatal Reasoning Apart from God's Light Shining on the Glorious Worth of Christ

Several weeks ago I pulled out a brand new weed eater that has been in my basement for a year, but never used. I carefully mixed the gas and oil making sure that the proper ratio was followed (40:1), for I know by experience that a bad mixture can be detrimental to one’s trimming experience (indeed fatal!). After filling the tank, I proceeded to follow the curious and somewhat humorous steps attached directly to the shiny shaft. It did not start after the first attempt. “No problem”, I thought. So I tried a second time but had no success. I reasoned that this was a new weed eater that probably required three tries or so before it got warmed up. “Third time is a charm”, I said to myself, as I proceeded through the same steps again. The result: nothing. After several successive attempts I began to break a sweat. I found myself intensely angry with the weed eater in a manner that makes my little league coaches look like choir boys. After about twenty minutes of persistent, aggressive, and violent cracks to get the wicked, weed eater started I decided that it was not worth my time. I walked in the house and began venting to Corie with a sermonette that consisted of several arguments as to why the weed eater was somehow manufactured with defects. As I preached I became more convinced that I was right. I concluded that the weed eater was indeed faulty, and needed to be taken back to the store promptly. I had successfully convinced myself that this particular weed eater was not worth my time. It simply could not get the job done. I must take this one back, and look for another one- one that would meet my needs and get the job done. As I walked outside to load the weed eater into the car and head to the store, something told me to give it one more shot. Reluctantly, I picked the weed eater up (all the while focusing on the tremendous degree of grace that I was manifesting to an imperfect weed eater by my noble desire to give it another chance) and began following the required steps for starting it yet again. “This is your last chance, weed eater”, I thought to myself. I followed the steps as I did before. The result: it started! I trimmed for an hour or so with no problem. I concluded that it was not defective. Rather, I had probably flooded the machine in my insistent attempts earlier. The problem was not the weed eater, but me. I had protested the weed eater’s worthiness because I did not want to admit that I was doing something to prevent it from starting. In short, I did not want to admit that I was the real problem.

At the end of John 6 something sad occurs. Many of the disciples who had attached themselves to Jesus end up deserting Him. This comes only after our Lord’s provocative claim repeated over and over again, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise Him up on the last day” (vs. 54). I have argued in previous posts that this robust declaration by Jesus did not lead most of His listeners to think that He was speaking literally. Christ was using a metaphor. As I have shown before, Jesus’ claim is a call of complete surrender. It is a call to acknowledge, believe, and trust that Jesus is your greatest need. Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood is a figurative way to express the need for sinners to place their faith in Christ, trusting that His obedient sacrifice is the only thing worthy enough to pay the price of redemption. It is to recognize that sin is our greatest problem, and Jesus is the only remedy. It is to see that the void in our soul cannot be filled with water from broken cisterns, but must be filled with streams of living water (cf. Jeremiah 2:13). It is to see that Jesus is the true bread that gives true life- life that is both long and qualitative. It describes repenting of sin through the power of the Spirit, and following Jesus in complete dependence. Indeed, to eat and drink Christ is simply to recognize Him as King of King and Lord of Lords, repent of sin, take up one’s cross, and follow Him.

How do we know that Christ’s original listeners understood Christ’s message for the most part? Verse 60 helps us. Christ’s followers responded, “Therefore, many of His disciples, when they heard this said, ‘This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?’” Verse 61 continues, “But Jesus, conscious that his disciples grumbled at this, said to them, ‘Does this cause you to stumble?’” It is interesting to point out that the word “hear” in vs. 61 literally means “hear with appreciation” (The Gospel According to John, Leon Morris, 338). Certainly there were parts of Christ’s message that were difficult to grasp. However, there existed much that they understood all too well (and thus heard), but simply rejected (thus did not listen with appreciative attitudes). They thought it blasphemous for Christ to claim that he came from heaven. For (they reasoned) this is our fellow Galilean whose parents are Joseph and Mary (vss. 41-42). Furthermore, they were offended by the fact that Jesus was claiming to be the source of eternal life, even speaking in terms that made God His Father­. He even claimed that His Father would draw people to Himself and that He Himself would raise them up on the last day. They understood that Christ was subtly attacking their works salvation philosophy, calling for their complete dependence on Him to give life. Indeed, this was a hard pill for them to swallow! Therefore, they concluded that His claims were far too difficult to “hear with appreciation”. To be sure, these disciples heard, but not with appreciation. In short, they were marked by a lack of faith, refusing to appreciate who Christ claimed to be.

When Jesus asked them in vs. 61 if His words caused them to stumble, He highlighted the inward turmoil they were faced with. They understood as never before that they must either follow Christ permanently, or desert Him permanently. The word “stumble” was a Greek word used to refer to the bait stick in a trap that springs the trap shut (New Testament Commentary- John, William Hendriksen, 246). It literally means “cause to fall into a trap” (Morris, 339). Essentially, Jesus told them that they were caught between a rock and a hard place. They were trapped because they had witnessed His miracles, love, and convincing sermons, yet all of this could not convince them of His worth. They had witnessed the overwhelming evidence of His identity as Messiah. They knew of His worth by firsthand experience. Still they were simply not ready to trust Him in the manner Jesus was calling them to. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that their hardness of heart persuaded them to reject what they outwardly knew to be true about Christ. In a sense they knew of Christ's worth, but they were unwilling to follow Him. This is what birthed inner turmoil. Their inner turmoil no doubt led to an important question. Would they view this Jesus they had followed for months as worthy of His claims, or would they desert Him and discount Him permanently? They reasoned, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”

Thus, we find, as we keep reading, that many of these so called disciples did indeed desert Christ (vs. 66). We will never hear of these people again. To be sure, their problem was not Jesus, but their hard hearts. They did exactly what I did with my weed eater. I determined, contrary to any evidence, that I had an imperfect weed eater that was not worthy of my trust. In reality I possessed evidence which suggested the exact opposite (the weed eater was brand spanking new) . Nevertheless, I began convincing myself of its unworthiness. I had a high view of my ability and worth, but a low view of the weed eater’s. As I found out later, the weed eater was worthy of my trust. It did an excellent job trimming. The problem was that I had hardened my heart against the notion that it was worthy. Thus, the problem lied in my reasoning, not the adequacy of the weed eater. These disciples convinced themselves that Jesus was not worthy to place faith in. The One whom they had rigorously followed for months (discipleship in the first century was quite a committed process to say the least) they would now reject. They simply could not accept His claims. He had “gone too far” in His claims. This is not what they signed up for. So they convinced themselves that He simply was not worthy- “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” They lacked faith, which means they lacked eyes to see the glory and beauty and worth of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:3-6).

Jesus was clear to Nicodemus in John 3 that one must be born of the water and the Spirit in order to receive eternal life (cf. Titus 3:5). In 2 Corinthians 4:3-6, Paul tells us that the Spirit must open a sinner’s heart to see the value of Christ. Without this special enlightening by the Spirit, a person will always “stumble” at Christ. He will always stumble at the Gospel message. The reasoning will be the same as it was for these artificial disciples of Christ. Man, apart from the salvific work of the Spirit, will always resort to protests of unworthiness regarding the person of Jesus Christ. This is really nothing more than an active dulling of the conscience. It is the suppression of truth (Romans 1:18 ff.). And it ultimately results in eternal death. The implication of this passage is obvious. If eating and drinking Jesus (i.e. placing faith in Him) results in life, then not placing faith in Him results in death- eternal death. Man's reasoning will always be fatal apart from God's light shining on the glorious worth of Jesus Christ.

My weed eater experience is just one event that helped me stop and be thankful for the regenerating work of the Spirit. It reminded me that every sinner will reason against the worth of Christ regardless of compelling evidence. It is said that Erasmus would debate Martin Luther on this very point. Luther held very strongly to God's sovereign grace in salvation. On the other hand, Erasmus argued more strongly for man's free will in the process of salvation. Erasmus would illustrate by saying that God draws sinners to Himself like an owner of a donkey will get it to move by holding a handful of carrots before its nose. The owner draws, but obviously the will of the donkey is involved. However, Erasmus was wrong. Scripture calls us dead (Ephesians 2:1), helpless (Romans 5:6), slaves of unrighteousness (John 8:34; Romans 6:6), blind (2 Corinthians 4:4), and hostile to God (Romans 5:10) just to list a few ways in which God views our relationship to Him as sinners apart from Christ. The evidence in Scripture proves the exact opposite of what Erasmus argued. If Erasmus' argument is true, then it was those who lived during the time of Christ who were in the most privileged context to be persuaded by the "carrots" in Christ's hand. Yet the vast majority were unmoved in their hearts to follow Christ. Even Christ's own disciples (fake though they were) deserted Him. Were it not for the specific work of God through His Spirit (i.e. regeneration) in changing our hearts Godward, we would never see Him for who He is- the Bread of Life! We would never truly love Him if He had not first loved us. In other words, we would never see the worth of Christ, were it not for God showing us His worth. As wicked sinners, we are blind. God must open our eyes. The healthy realization of God’s work of regenerating grace lays the foundation for gratitude toward God, which ultimately motivates living obediently to our Lord and King. It works like this: realizing that salvation is a work of God’s complete grace prompts gratitude. And gratitude (i.e. a thankful heart) propels obedience. This realization also gives us confidence when we share Christ with others. It is ultimately and only the Spirit that will convince a wayward sinner of the beauty and worth of Christ. It is only God who can convince a depraved sinner of His worth, beauty, glory, and profound efficiency in providing ultimate joy, peace, and satisfaction (the Bread of Life!). In His grace, God uses His elect children to point people to Christ by our words and life. We, therefore, must not neglect this task. Nevertheless, we can rest with utter confidence that God has marked out His people. He will draw them to Himself, save them, and raise them on the last day.

“And even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness’, is the One who has shown in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:3-6).

– Blessings, Andy

Setting Forth Christ to Our Children

I found these articles concerning evangelizing children on John MacArthur's blog. They are actually taken from documents describing Grace Community Church (where MacArthur pastors in California) and its distinctives. For those of you that do not know, MacArthur's church is essentially reformed baptist in its soteriology (doctrine concerning salvation).

Evangelizing Children, Part 1

http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4225

Evangelizing Children, Part 2

http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4228

Are You Eating and Drinking Christ? (Part 2)

Reason #7: Jesus is clear that eating His flesh and drinking His blood results in something “spiritual”, namely “eternal life” (6:54, 57). If the result is “spiritual”, then the cause (eating and drinking) must be “spiritual” as well (i.e. faith). In other words, it is not physical eating and drinking in view, but appropriation of Christ through personal faith (which is a spiritual act) in Him. This fits with the rest of Scripture, which affirms that eternal life only comes by faith.

Reason #8: It is likely that if Jesus were speaking about the Lord’s Supper that He would use the Greek word soma (translated “body”). Every passage in Scripture referring to the Lord’s Supper uses this word to speak of the body of Christ as represented in the bread (Matt. 26:26; Mk. 14:22; Lk. 22:19; I Cor. 10:16; 11:24, 27). Instead, Jesus uses the Greek word sarx (translated “flesh”).

Reason #9: At first, Christ simply speaks of “eating” His flesh (6:51). Later he refers to “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” (6:53-55). Finally, he refers only to “eating His flesh” (6:57). Again, this seems to prove Christ is speaking metaphorically. One must assume that if He was speaking about the Lord’s Supper that He would always include the act of “drinking” with the that of “eating”. He does not do that. As shown above (verse 57), Christ simply speaks of “eating” to the exclusion of “drinking”. If He were speaking about the Lord’s Supper, then it would appear Christ is diminishing in some sense the “drinking” aspect. Thus, the eating and drinking are not referring to the Lord’s Supper. Rather to “eat His flesh and drink His blood” is the same thing as believing (vss. 35, 47); coming (vs. 35), listening (vs. 45), and learning (vs. 45). Coming to Christ in faith seems to be more logically consistent.

Reason #10: Jesus is addressing largely unbelievers (“the Jews”…In John’s Gospel this title always refers negatively to the Jewish religious leaders who reject Christ.), not believers. It is true, that many were lukewarm disciples, but we see at the end of the chapter that they were not true believers because they deserted Jesus. Therefore, it would not make sense to command observance of Lord’s Supper (when Christ has not yet died anyway) to an audience largely composed of unbelieving, sinful rejecters of Christ.


Reason #11: Jesus says that eternal life is granted to those who eat and drink Christ. Christ unequivocally says there is “no life” (6:53) in those who do not. If this were as some suggest a reference to the Lord’s Supper, then it would logically result in a belief in works salvation. In other words, if one asserts the Lord’s Supper is in view in Christ words, then he must also assert that the act of observing the Lord’s Supper grants eternal life. This is contrary to grace and promotes works oriented salvation. Ironically enough, that is what the religious leaders, influenced by the Pharisees, held to. Jesus certainly did not promote their erroneous teaching! In fact, He rebuked them in 6:29, declaring that one does not work for salvation. Rather, one simply believes.

Reason #12: The eating and drinking in John 6 is reference to salvation. Whereas, the eating and drinking that is seen in Lord’s Supper is for those who have already been saved looking back with thanksgiving.

Reason #13: (This last one is for all the Greek snobs.) The verbs “eat” and “drink” (ex. 6:50, 53) are in the Aorist tense (original Greek) emphasizing the once for all action of receiving Christ. Observance of the Lord’s Supper is an ongoing recognized ordinance of the church. Thus, it cannot be in view based on the basic grammar of the text itself.

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....