Why John 6:47-58 Does Not Refer to the Lord’s Supper
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
The Lord draws from the Old Testament miracle of manna coming down from heaven. If the Lord’s Supper were on his mind, the proper analogy would have been the Passover not the manna from heaven. The Lord’s Supper was instituted on the night of the Passover. The above statement is preceded (vv. 47-48) and followed by the analogy of the manna from heaven (v. 58). The manna from heaven is not the Old Testament type of the Supper.
“As the Living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.”
The words “AS…I live by the
Father, SO…” shows a direct parallel between
how the Son lives by the Father and how the believer lives by the Son. If Jesus
meant that believers had to LITERALLY eat the Son to live then this direct
parallel would demand that Jesus had to LITERALLY eat the Father to live
because they are to live off of Him exactly how the Son lived off the Father.
How does the Son “live by the Father”? He lived
by complete DEPENDENCE on the Father just as the physical body lives by
complete dependence upon food. The analogy of “eating” and “drinking” Christ
means the same thing. As physical life is completely DEPENDENT upon eating and
drinking literal food and liquids, so, spiritual life is completely DEPENDENT
upon PARTAKING of Christ by faith. The
use of words like this are common in the Old and New Testaments and are not
meant to be understood literal:
“Blessed are they
that HUNGER and THIRST after righteousness” –
Mt. 5:4
“Thy words were
found, and I did eat them” – Jer. 15:16
“eat the bread of
sorrow” – Psa. 127:2
“eat the bread of
wickedness and drink the wine of violence” –
Prov. 4:17
“Desire the
sincere milk of the word” I Pet. 2:2
“Drank of that
spiritual rock that followed them” – I Cor.
10:4
“If any man thirst
let him come unto me and drink…he spake of the Holy Spirit” – Jn.
7:37-38
All of these reference are spiritual analogies
that are not to be understood literally. If Jesus wanted us to understand
“eating” and “drinking” of Himself literally, then, His direct parallel “So…AS”
would mean that He too literally would eat and drank of His Father. Nobody
believes this is the case. Therefore, this parallel application is explanatory
of what he means for us to “eat” and “drink” of Himself. Just as the Son
DEPENDED upon the Father throughout His life on earth and just like the
physical body DEPENDS upon food and drink for its life on earth so likewise, we
are to wholly DEPEND upon Christ throughout our life upon earth.
Would
Jesus Command us to Violate the Law of God?
Leviticus 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
If Christ means for us to understand His
words in a literal sense, then He would be commanding us to violate what the
Law of God clearly forbids both in the Old and in the New Testament.
Those who rejected Christ in this very
context, rejected Him due to the fact that they chose to understand His words
literally and were offended because they knew that such a command violates the
Law of God. What was Jesus’ response to their offense?
“It is the spirit
that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you,
they are SPIRIT [spiritual], and they are life”
– Jn. 6:63
His closing parallel analogy with the
Father demonstrated clearly that what He was saying was to be understood
SPIRITUALLY not LITERALLY. His clear explanatory remarks to their response by
saying “the WORDS that I speak are SPIRIT”
shows that He never intended them to understand Him in a literal sense.
Would
Jesus Command the Impossible?
The
inspired choice of tense being used by Christ demonstrates that He was
exhorting them to “eat” and “drink” of Him at that moment for He used the
present tense.
How was such a command possible if
understood LITERALLY without killing Him on the spot and cannibalizing Him?
However, if by “eating” and “drinking” He merely was using figurative language
to call them to partake of Him by faith and live their lives DEPENDENTLY upon
him, just as the body partakes of food by eating and drinking and lives
dependently upon it, then, this was something they could do immediately.
If this referred to the Lord’s Supper
then there is no way they could understand what He was talking about or obey it
as it would be impossible for them to do either. Why? Because the Lord’s Supper
had not even been instituted at this point!!!!
Moreover, when He did institute the Lord’s
Supper there is no possible way that the Supper could be understood this way
simply because when it was instituted Jesus partook with them. His blood had
not yet been shed nor his body broken. They could not have LITERALLY eaten His
body nor LITERALLY drunken his blood without first killing him as He stood
before them alive and well. The only
way the Lord as well as the disciples
could have partaken of His blood and body when He instituted it was by
REPRESENTATION rather than by LITERALISM.
Those who are considered authorities by all parties in the use of
metaphorical language tell us that the very essence of a metaphor is the use
of “to be” verbs such as “is” and “are”
as well as “am.” The word “is” is used
in the Supper.
“This IS my blood” This
REPRESENTS my blood
“This IS my body” This
REPRESENTS my body
“I AM the door” – I REPESENT a door
“I AM the true vine” – I
REPRESENT a vine
“You ARE the salt of the
earth” You REPRESENT salt
“You ARE the light of the
world” – You REPRESENT light
“I AM the light of the
world” – I REPRESENT light
“I AM the bread of life” –I REPRESENT bread
The only possible application of His
language at the time He was speaking in John 6 is spiritual rather than
literal. The only possible application of His language at the time He
instituted the Lord’s Supper was metaphorical rather than literal. Any attempt
to demand a LITERAL sense in either case makes it impossible for those hearing
to obey without killing Him on the spot.
Would
Jesus Teach more than One way of Salvation?
If the language Jesus uses in John 6 is to
be understood literally and is to be applied to the Lord’s Supper than the
conclusion must be that there can be no “eternal life” apart from partaking of
the Supper:
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life
in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day.
However, Paul says very clearly there is
but ONE GOSPEL of salvation and that anyone who preaches another is ACCURSED
(Gal. 1:6-9). Paul claims that His gospel is the SAME gospel preached by all
the Old Testament Prophets (Acts 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2) which is BY FAITH. Peter claims that his gospel is the same
preached by all the Old Testament prophets (Acts 10:43) which is BY FAITH.
Jesus claimed that all of the Old Testament prophets preached salvation in Him
BY FAITH (Lk. 24:44-46; John 5:39,46).
However, the problem in making the
Lord’s Supper (or baptism) necessary for LITERAL eternal life is that the
Church and its ordinances have no existence prior to the Lord’s personal
ministry on earth BUT the gospel does!
Hence, they cannot be the same nor can the church and its ordinances be
ADDED without changing the Old Testament Gospel into ANOTHER gospel.
Before the Lord instituted the Supper He
preached that eternal life was BY FAITH in Him (Jn. 3:16) and offered such
salvation before the Supper was ever instituted. Jesus said long before He
instituted supper that “I am the way the truth and the life, no man
cometh to the Father but by me” (Jn. 14:6).
In the disputed text before us (Jn. 6) each
time before He spoke about “eating” or “drinking” He clearly explained that
such words were metaphorical of BELIEVING in Him rather than literally eating
or drinking Him:
“Then said they
unto him, Lord give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of
life: he that COMETH to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH on me
shall never thirst.” – Jn. 6:34-35
“Verily, verily, I
say unto you, He that BELIEVETH on me HATH EVERLASTING LIFE. I am the bread of
life.” – Jn. 6:47-48
Those who would add baptism or the Supper
to the gospel of salvation cannot possibly be preaching the same gospel that
the Old Testament prophets preached as the church and its ordinances did not
exist. However, the gospel of Christ, Paul, Peter and all the Apostles was the
SAME gospel preached by all the Old Testament Prophets. They simply pointed the
faith of the hearer FORWARD to the cross whereas we point BACK to the cross but
the same faith in the same Savior by the same way.
How do the ordinances give ETERNAL LIFE
then? They do it the same way that Old Testament ordinances did it. The writer
of Hebrews says such ordinances “could
never take away sins” LITERALLY (Heb. 10:1-4) but only figuratively. Likewise,
the New Testament clearly says that ordinances such as baptism save us
FIGURATIVELY:
“The LIKE
FIGURE whereunto baptism doth also now save us….”
– I Pet. 3:21
The Lord’s supper is merely a MEMORIAL
that pictorially reminds us of the cost of our salvation and the seriousness of
living a holy life before God. – “this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in REMEMBRANCE
of me.” – I Cor. 11:25
Would
Christ be Offered Up More than Once?
Hebrews 10:10 - By
the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus
Christ once for all.
Hebrews 9:26 - For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb. 10:12 - But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
If the words of Christ are taken
LITERALLY in John 6 and applied to the Supper, then, Christ is being LITERALLY
offered up as a SACRIFICE countless of times to take away sin. However, if
these words in John 6 as well as the words uttered in the Supper are taken
figuratively then there is perfect harmony between the gospel and John 6 and
the gospel and the Supper. The Supper is simply a MEMORIAL that looks back at
the finished sacrifice and helps remember the cost of our salvation and the
seriousness of living in sin. The writer of Hebrews says that those who would
crucify Christ AGAIN put him to “open shame” (Heb. 6:6) as such repeated
sacrifices are nothing less than repudiations of the sufficiency of His first
death.
The
Conclusion of those Disciples Who did Not Leave Him
Those disciples who chose to understand
His words LITERALLY all forsook the Lord (Jn. 6:60-61,66). However, those who
continued to follow Him concluded that “eternal LIFE” was to be found not in
literally eating or drinking Him but in His “WORDS”:
“Then said Jesus
unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to
whom shall we go? Thou hast the WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE. And WE BELIEVE
that thou art that Christ, the Son of the Living God.” – Jn. 6:67-69
The entire context of chapter six deals
with the nature of saving faith (Jn. 6:29, 35,37-40,47,64-65,68-69). Saving
faith is described a number of metaphorical ways (eating, drinking, coming,
drawing). Saving faith is described literally, metaphorically and spiritually.
The point that Jesus is driving home through a variety of uses is that sinners
must come to Him and trust in Him completely in order to have eternal life.
Such complete dependence for eternal life is beautifully illustrated in the
complete dependence of the human body upon food and drink for physical life.
This is the intended analogy and is proven to be such by the immediate parallel
application between the Son and the Father.
“As the Living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, SO he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.”
Those who choose to believe that His words
must be understood LITERALLY instead of figuratively must also teach that Jesus
LITERALLY ate His Father in order to live. Such an interpretation demands other
equal absurdities such as cannibalism,
re-sacrificing Christ over and over again, demanding the impossible and
ignoring the common use of such metaphorical language and violating the
prohibition of the Scriptures not to drink blood and preaching ANOTHER gospel.
However, if you understand these metaphors and analogies to simply teach that
you must PARTAKE of Christ through faith then the Bible harmonizes completely
and there is no such absurdities to deal with.