PLAIN, SHORT, SIMPLE REASONS WHY THE CAPERNAUM DISCOURSE IN JOHN 6:24-71 DOES NOT RELATE TO THE LORD'S SUPPER
John 6: 24 When
the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his
disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for
Jesus. 25 And when they had found him on the other side of the
sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? 26 Jesus
answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not
because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and
were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for
that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man
shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then
said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of
God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of
God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30 They said
therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and
believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna
in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the
true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which
cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then
said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 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.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe
not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him
that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down
from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all
which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up
again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent
me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have
everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The
Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came
down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of
Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith,
I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said
unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me,
except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up
at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall
be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath
learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath
seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
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. 59 These things
said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many
therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an
hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that
his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was
before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are
life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus
knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should
betray him.65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man
can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with
him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we
go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and
are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a
devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it
was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
THE BACKGROUND:
The RC Church believes that this passage supports her teaching of the
Mass i.e. that the bread and wine becomes the literal body and blood of
Jesus Christ. Protestantism rejects that literal interpretation,
insisting instead on a figurative interpretation. An interesting
outcome of this dispute lies in the observation which Frank Duff,
founder of the Legion of Mary, makes in his booklet "Capernaum and the
Eucharist" I quote:
"Catholicism insists that our Lord
meant precisely what he said at the Last Supper "This is my body etc.,"
Protestants are convinced that He only spoke those words figuratively.
It is well nigh impossible to move them from that position if we
confine our attention to the Last Supper itself, for frequently
enough our Lord did speak figuratively. But there was a prelude to the
Last Supper. It was the disputation that took place at Capernaum, told
of in the 6th chapter of St. John. That discussion has decisive
bearing on the question."
I think those words "well nigh impossible to move them" shows just how
strong the Protestant interpretation on the Last Supper is. Frank Duff
believes that John 6 has a "decisive bearing" on the subject…but
if we can show that John 6 does not relate to the Eucharist at all,
then we are back to the thought that the words of Jesus Christ can be
taken figuratively "for frequently enough our Lord did speak
figuratively." Mr Duff has analysed the issue well for us.
NOT ALL THE CHURCH FATHERS APPLY THESE WORDS IN JOHN 6:53-55 EITHER LITERALLY OR TO THE MASS:
Perhaps the most potent quote here is that of Augustine who is heralded
as a Doctor of the Church. His comments are entirely Protestant:
"If the sentence is one of command,
either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or
benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a
crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is
figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ,
"and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." [John 6:53] This seems
to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that
we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we
should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh
was wounded and crucified for us." Christian Doctrine (3:16)
Augustine clearly teaches that it is criminal to interpret these words
literally and insists, as do Protestants, that they must be interpreted
figuratively.
Cardinal Wiseman, no mean defender of the Roman faith, in his Lectures
on the Eucharist (pp170-173) also brings an interesting observation.
After acknowledging his own belief that John 6 refers to the Eucharist,
basing his belief in the Council of Trent, the Cardinal acknowledged
concerning the same Council:
"But regarding the promise in
St John, the Holy Synod observed its usual caution, which proves how
far it was from merely seeking to impose doctrines without sufficient
proof to satisfy the conditions of our principle of faith. For the
functions of a General Council being to define what the Church always
taught, as such unanimity among the ancient Fathers, and among later
Divines was not discovered, as could meet the intensity of proof
required, it manifestly drew a distinction, etc.,"
The Church Fathers and later theologians were not unanimous in their belief that John 6 referred to the Eucharist.
SOME REASONS WHY JOHN 6 CANNOT REFER TO THE EUCHARIST:
1) The words of John 6 relate to the way of salvation whilst the Lord's
table is only for those who are already saved. Note the reoccurrence of
the words believe and life. v37 reassures the seeking sinner of his
reception by Christ. The words are clearly evangelical. The Lord's
table is not for the unregenerate. Whilst the most unworthy sinner can
come to Christ (1 Timothy 1:15) for the most unworthy sinner to partake
of the Supper would bring damnation upon himself (1 Corinthians
11:27-29) The Lord's Supper is for the strengthening of the converted.
2) The Lord's Supper had not yet been constituted. Approximately
thirteen months lay between these words in John 6 and those spoken in
the Upper Room. At least one Passover after the Jewish rite was to take
place during this time. It is significant that when Paul spoke of his
authority for the Lord's Supper, he mentions only "the night in which
[Jesus] was betrayed" (1 Corinthians 11:23) The language of John 6 is
present tense - a referral to the here and now. The Lord's Supper was
yet future.
3) If John 6 is referring to the Eucharist, then salvation is by that
rite. This contradicts the teaching of the Bible that teaches salvation
by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) Paul got pretty upset when the
Jewish faction in Galatia sought to introduce a sacrament
(circumcision) into God's salvation plan. He eyeballed Peter over the
matter (Galatians 2:11) If salvation is by the Lord's Supper or
by the Mass…then the repentant thief in Luke 23:40-43 could not
have been saved since he did not partake. Furthermore, all who have not
partaken of the mass including millions of baptised Catholics (infants
etc) and billions (over the ages) of Protestants could not be saved.
This is the logical outcome of the doctrine. We need to think it all
through. It is not enough that we should lay hold on a few words and
make them fit into a pre conceived doctrine. Where truth is not rightly
applied or interpreted, there is usually some fly in the ointment to
spoil the erroneous view.
JOHN 6:53-56 DOES NOT STAND UP TO LITERAL INTERPRETATION:
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.
A/ A literal reading of these words leads us (as Augustine points out
above) to conclude that Christ commanded naked cannibalism. The Concise
Oxford Dictionary defines a cannibal as "a person who eats human
flesh…hence cannibalism" Unless we change the meaning of the
word, we can come to no other conclusion.
B/ The drinking of blood was prohibited by the law of God (Leviticus
17:10/ Deuteronomy 12:16) Christ did not come to destroy the
law…but to fulfil it. (Matthew 5:17) The New Testament Church
upheld this prohibition of blood (Acts 15:29/21:25) which thing could
not be if literal blood was being drank at the Lord's Supper.
JOHN 6:53-56 DOES STAND UP TO A FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION:
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.
Scripture always interprets itself. Clement of Alexandria observed:
"The way for understanding the Scriptures is to demonstrate out of
themselves, concerning themselves." John 6:35 is the key to the whole
passage:
35 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.
Here is one of the "I am's" of Christ. We take the others figuratively:
I am the door…the true vine…the bright and morning star
etc., Likewise the Bread of Life. The hunger and thirsting which
Jesus speaks about is obviously spiritual. Later on, Paul was to record
that he experienced literal hunger and thirst (2
Corinthians 11:27) which would negate the word of Christ unless
Christ's words were figurative. They denote the hunger and thirst of
the soul. Eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking his blood is
just the same as believing on Him. We may use other terms to denote
this one act of coming savingly to the Lord Jesus: receiving Christ -
converted - drawn to Christ etc., Compare v54 with John 3:15/36:
6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;
3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
3: 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that
believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth
on him.
You cannot have everlasting life by two ways and so the terms are
synonymous - one graphically describing the other - and therefore by
one act.
OBJECTION: WHY DID CHRIST NOT
CALL BACK THE OFFENDED JEWS (WHO HAD OBVIOUSLY TAKEN THESE WORDS
LITERALLY v52) SAYING: YOU HAVE GOT IT ALL WRONG - NO NEED TO TAKE
OFFENCE - THE WORDS ARE FIGURATIVE?
Frank Duff concludes that such an explanation would have drawn them
back and that they would no longer have been offended. But this cannot
be proven. Christ was preaching salvation by faith. Look at vs
29/35/40/47/53-56. Although they were termed his disciples (v66) yet
they had not faith (v36) at least not the faith of God's elect (Titus
1:1) i.e. a real God given genuine faith. Their faith was akin to that
of devils (James 2:19) i.e. intellectual only but not of any purifying
consequences to the heart. This doctrine of Christ that a man is
justified without the deeds of the law (Romans 3:20) is ever offensive
to proud man who believes that he can contribute something to his own
salvation. Paul preached this doctrine again and again: Romans
3:20/28/4:1-16/5:1/Galatians 2:16/Philippians 3:9 etc., Even had Christ
summons them back again and explained to them that he was teaching
salvation by free grace alone, the people would still have forsook him.
The fact is that no man can come to Christ except he be first drawn of
the Father (v44/65) and this sinks the thought of any form or any
degree of creature merit without trace. It was only the preserving
grace of God that prevented even the apostles likewise forsaking
Him: Lord [Cp. 1 Corinthians 12:3 where we read: no man can say
that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. ] to whom shall we go
thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure
that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. v68-69.
CONCLUSION
I think that we have proved conclusively that John 6 is not connected
to the Eucharist nor can be the thought of eating the flesh of the Son
of man and drinking His blood be taken literally. We have drawn from
leading Catholic theologians and observed the very strong words of
Augustine who points out that if taken literally, then they enjoin a
vice or a crime.
It is a great pity that the passage is shrouded in theological
controversy…both during the event itself and in the centuries
afterwards even unto this day. Peter's words are highly
significant. Only Christ has the words of eternal life. Only He is the
giver of eternal life. We vainly seek it elsewhere e.g. in a sacrament
or in a church of whatever creed. Eternal life is exclusively linked to
a Person and that Person is Jesus Christ alone. Faith in Him secures it
and does so for all eternity.
THE END
Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt
(Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland