In 'Lord's Supper Part 4', Robert Bosley explores the relationship between John 6 and the Lord's Supper. He argues that while John 6 is often cited in discussions about transubstantiation and the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it does not directly teach about the Lord's Supper. Instead, the chapter uses the metaphor of Jesus as the 'Bread of Life' to emphasize spiritual nourishment and the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation. Bosley outlines the discourse's context, metaphor, complaint, and conclusion, highlighting the importance of understanding the spiritual rather than literal aspects of Jesus' teachings. He contrasts the views of Calvin and Luther on this passage and argues that John 6 illustrates the need for faith and union with Christ, which the Lord's Supper symbolizes. The sermon concludes with a call to the congregation to evaluate their spiritual state and seek true communion with Christ.

Well, good afternoon church. If you would take out your Bibles and open up to John chapter 6. John chapter 6, we're going to be continuing the series on the Lord's supper and we have looked at the major passages, really the dominant passages that positively teach us about the supper itself. We looked at Luke 22 as one of the gospel passages regarding the institution of the supper on the night the Lord was betrayed. We looked at 1 Corinthians 10, we did the last three in 1 Corinthians 11, and so those passages are really the primary passages that give us clear positive instruction about the nature of the supper, its purpose and what it does and what it is.

Today we're going to do something a little bit different. We're going to look at a passage that is often brought up in our discussions and our debates about the Lord's Supper, but a passage that I personally do not believe has direct teaching on the Supper, but application to it. Often in our conversations with Romanists or those who are in some sort of orthodoxy in the East who believe in a doctrine of transubstantiation or some sort of a strong view of a local physical presence of Christ and the elements, they will go to this passage and some of the language used by the Lord here to defend their belief that the elements themselves transform into the actual body and blood of Jesus. I do not believe that's what we have here as I hope to prove this afternoon. And this passage has been regularly appealed to by men on either side of the debate in some form or fashion all the way back to the early church we can go back and we can look at what Augustine said on this passage and it is largely in line with what I will present this afternoon.

And Augustine's two most famous Reformation disciples disagreed about this passage. Calvin, who taught our Confessions view of the Supper essentially, said that this passage is not about the Lord's Supper, but secondarily has application to the Supper. Luther, unsurprisingly, took a very strong hard stance on this passage, but perhaps surprisingly, if you know his view of the Supper, that Christ is bodily present there, surprisingly he said that John 6 has nothing whatsoever, even in application, to do with the Supper. He said it does not refer to the sacrament in a single syllable. So there is debate about exactly how this passage applies to our topic of this session.

Those who hold to a bodily local presence of Christ, they will often run here to defend that doctrine, I believe, acontextually and incoherently. And those on the more Reformed spiritual presence, still a real presence, but a spiritual presence of Christ will come here and say, this is not about the Supper, though often we will say that it does have application. That is where I am going to go with this. What I want to do is a little bit different. This is largely going to be more apologetic in a sense, not in the sense I'm apologizing to you for what I'm going to say, but in a defense of the faith type of a presentation.

I want to walk through this passage kind of point by point to explain why it does not teach what those who hold to a a kind of transubstantiation or consubstantiation would say and why it does teach what we and our confession says it teaches. And so we're going to look, John 6, 22 through 66, the whole Bread of Life discourse and the conclusion. We're going to fly through this. I'm going to try not to belabor any one point too long. So let us pray and then we will begin.

Our Father, we come before you this afternoon so thankful for your word. Thank you Lord for the clear instruction we've received already and I pray Lord that you would continue to speak to your people. Lord give me the words that you want your people to hear and may you, like you did with Lydia, open the hearts of your people to receive these things and to take heed to them. In Jesus name we pray, amen. So I want us to fly through the Bread of Life discourse, that's what this passage is called, in four main headings.

First the context in verses 22 through 29, the metaphor in verses 30 through 40, the complaint in verses 41 through 52 and then finally the conclusion in 53 through 66. And because we are covering such a wide range of verses, I'm not going to read it all. I'm going to go through it paraphrasing, sometimes quoting. Hopefully you can follow along just fine though. So beginning with the context, verses 22 through 29.

Now this passage as I said is often called the bread of life discourse and this follows on the miracle of the Lord feeding 5, 000 men plus women and children simply using the contents of a little boy's lunch. One of the most amazing miracles, I think it's if I remember correctly offhand, it's the only miracle aside from the resurrection attested to in all four Gospels because it is such an amazing display of Christ's divine power. And after feeding the people, they are astounded at this. It's an amazing miracle. They see it and they want to take Jesus and make him their king.

They think that they can make Jesus king and he's going to drive out the Romans because after all what could a king do if he is capable of feeding an entire army with a little boy's lunch? What a great king this man would be. What a great kingdom we could have. We can get rid of the Romans if we can make this man our king. Well, Jesus knows their intention and he hides himself in the mountain.

And after the disciples leave in a boat, they go across the sea, he joins them in another display of his divine power by walking on the water to meet them. And the discourse begins in verse 22, verses 22 through 25, with the people the next day wondering, where did Jesus go? There was only one boat the previous day, and they saw the disciples use it to leave, and Jesus wasn't with them. What happened? Well, other boats come and the people use them to cross the sea and they find Jesus and they're wondering and they're asking him, how did you get here?

What happened? And the Lord doesn't answer their question. Rather, he rebukes them in verse 26. He rebukes them because they're not seeking Him, not because of the miracle itself per se, as a display of His divine power or what it means about who He is. They are seeking Jesus simply because they want more food.

They were astounded at what he did and they want Jesus to do the trick again. Their only interest in the miracle was their own material gain and comfort. The Lord rebukes them and he tells them not to labor for food that perishes but for the food that culminates and leads to eternal life. And this food only comes from the Son of God, the Son of man, as he is the authorized representative of the Father. Verse 27.

In the next two verses, the people latch on to this word of labor or work, it's the same word in Greek, and ask what is the work that God requires? And Jesus responds by redefining what it is to work. The work that God accepts is faith alone in the Messiah. That is the work that God accepts from his people. And so this is the foundation for the entire rest of the discourse.

If you miss this, you won't understand anything else that happens. You won't understand the rest of the discussion. And this is why when our opponents in talking about the Supper begin with the end of the chapter, why they go so wrong, because they did not start where they needed to start to understand what Jesus' message is actually about. The immediate background is the feeding of the 5, 000, An incredible display of God's power over the most basic and fundamental element of human existence, our need for food. And the people have followed him not in an effort to satisfy their souls what that miracle ultimately pointed to, but to fill their bellies.

And Jesus takes this language of their earthly pursuit and their physical desires and redirects it towards spiritual things as the Lord often does when he interacts with the people. So this background sets the stage for the metaphor that's coming up, the metaphor of food or bread. The word for bread that is used here is often used for all kinds of food, drinks included, which is important later on. Jesus gave more than 5, 000 people bread or food and they wanted more food. And they have forgotten that everything that God gives us, including and perhaps even especially our daily food, is meant to point us to our need, a greater need of God and His grace.

And so Jesus takes this language of food, of bread, as a metaphor for finding the satisfaction for your souls, not merely filling your stomach. That's the context. So the metaphor, verses 30 through 40, the people seemingly in an effort to goad Jesus into performing another miracle of providing food for them asks, well what evidence will you give us that we may believe in you? And they they give a not so subtle clue as to what they would like. Well Moses gave our fathers bread from heaven, hint hint.

And Jesus corrects their misunderstanding. Moses did not give you the bread. He was the instrument. God was the baker. God is the one who ultimately gave the manna to Israel.

And in the same way that God gave the manna, now he offers true bread. And this true bread isn't simply wafers of bread falling from the sky as miraculous and amazing as that was. It was a type pointing to a greater reality. This bread, this true bread that has come down from heaven is a person. Verse 33.

And the people still don't get it. They still don't understand. They ask him to provide for them this bread as often as they want. And he explains to him that he himself is the bread of heaven. He himself is the food that satisfies spiritual hunger and thirst.

Verses 34 and 35. These people are like the woman at the well in John chapter 4. They don't understand what Jesus is doing. They don't understand the language. Now the difference is the woman at the well eventually understood.

These people seemingly don't. In the end they walk away. Just like there when he spoke to the Samaritan woman about a well of water springing up to her eternal life, She at first misunderstood and thought he was talking about literal physical water. But then her eyes were open, her heart was open to heed what the Lord said. But here the people don't get it The Lord is taking the object of their desire bread or food and using it to illustrate their need of something far greater Physical bread satisfies for a few hours, but you will need it again.

And no matter how much food you eat you will eventually die You need another bread That is the message here. You need another bread. You need true bread. You need what bread points to you need the true bread that grants eternal life. And verse 35 is absolutely critical for understanding the rest of the discourse.

This one I will read verse 35, and Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life, He who comes to me shall never hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst." Notice the language and the connections that Jesus makes. He is the bread of life. Coming to him is what satisfies hunger. Believing in Him is what satisfies thirst. In other words, to eat or drink the bread or the food from heaven is to believe and come to Christ.

That is the imagery. That is the metaphor. This is the metaphor that governs the whole discourse. Jesus, by using this language of eating and drinking, being filled and satisfied, is telling them that when it comes, what it means to come and trust in Him and find life and forgiveness by faith, He is not instructing the people about the Lord's table. That's not what he's teaching about.

He's teaching about what it means to believe in Him and to be a member of that kingdom that we heard about this morning. In verses 36 through 40, he primarily focuses on the sovereign act of the Father in giving a particular people to his son. We don't have time to camp out here, but John 6 is not only critical to our understanding of what it means to have union with Christ, but of course the doctrines of grace. But our series is on the Supper, not Calvinism, so we'll move on. But the point here in verses 36 through 40 is that no one can have that sole nourishment that Christ provides without the Father graciously giving that one to the Son first.

And again, I do want to Note the language of verses 39 and 40. The Father has given a people of whom not one will be lost. Instead, they will all be raised on the last day. Verse 40 emphasizes this particularly. All who see, all who believe in the Son will have eternal life and be raised on the last day." This language appears again at the end of the discourse.

And we need to keep in mind what Jesus has said here is seeing and believing Him. That is what guarantees forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and resurrection on the last day. So that's the metaphor, the metaphor of food. Now the complaint verses 41 through 52. Of course, the people don't understand.

And like most of us, when we don't understand something, we complain about it. They do the same thing here. They say, we know this man, we know who he is, we know his parents. What an outrageous thing for him to say that he has come down from heaven. What an outrageous thing for him to say these things.

We know Him. We know where He's from. And Jesus responds in about the least seeker sensitive fashion you can imagine. He doubles down on every point. He doesn't give them an inch.

He repeats that no one is even capable of coming to him without the sovereign act of the Father and that eternal life with God can only be found in him. Verses 43 through 47. And this intensification of his claims continues when he takes up the metaphor of bread again in particular. He says that I am the bread of life. I'm the bread of life.

I give a better life than the manna that the fathers had when they ate the manna in the wilderness. That manna provided for them for 40 years, they still died. God fed them miraculously for an entire generation. They still died. But I am a better bread.

I am the bread of life. And not only am I the bread of life, the bread that gives life is the idea there, but I am also the living bread. He's the bread of life and the living bread. All life is found in Christ because he has life in himself. He's the author of life.

He sustains all life and he is the one who grants eternal life. So he is the bread of life but he's also the living bread and this life that he has is what will make the world live if they will believe. You get to verse 52 and what is the result? Their hard hearts have given them hard heads and they still don't understand. This is why what we heard this morning is so important for our understanding of how we evangelize our neighbors, how we preach the gospel, without God opening the heart, our words accomplish nothing.

God must save the sinner. Your words can't. The most eloquent preacher is speaking mere air if the Spirit of God does not move. God must open the heart. They complain again, how can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Verse 52. And now they are right to raise this question. It's not wrong to ask questions of God. Abraham asked questions, Sarah asked questions, David asked questions. We see saints of old asking God questions.

The question about your questioning is what is the state of your heart? Is it simply you want to understand or is it a question born from disbelief? And here it's a question of disbelief and hardness of heart. But they're right to ask questions about eating his flesh. That's something that's forbidden under the law of God, and it was a sign of covenantal judgment on the people.

But they miss that he's not speaking about literally consuming his body and his blood. Fundamentally, they have the same problem that our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox debate opponents have when they insist on taking the language of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in a very literalistic fashion. They miss the metaphor and so miss his point entirely. They start at the end, assume their conclusion, and then let that override what Jesus has already established at the beginning of the chapter. So they complain, how can this man give us his flesh to eat?

They don't understand and so they complain against Christ. And then the conclusion, verses 53 through 66. I will read this first paragraph 53 through 58. Then Jesus said to them, Most assuredly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father so he who feeds on me will live because of me this is the bread which came down from heaven not as your fathers ate the manna and are dead he who eats this bread will live forever." So in this conclusion to the discourse Jesus uses his strongest language yet. Eat the flesh and drink his blood. My flesh is food indeed. My blood is drink indeed.

This leads many to assume that Jesus is teaching some sort of high view of a local presence of his body in the sacrament, some sort of local physical presence, some transubstantiation or something like that. But again, that's not the context that this language is occurring in. He isn't teaching about a sacrament that he has still not yet instituted. He's not teaching about the means of grace for the Christian life. He's using the metaphor of food to describe what it means to have real saving faith as seen earlier.

This intense graphic language isn't intended to change his purpose and now change the topic to something else entirely, rather it's to emphasize the absolute necessity of trusting in Christ alone, His work alone, what He accomplished in His body and blood alone as the source of your salvation. That is the point. And I believe this very paragraph, the one that our opponents so often will run to, is very proof that he is not talking about the Eucharist. Consider what the Lord says is the consequence of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Verse 54, whoever does this has eternal life and will be raised on the last day.

Verse 56, the one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Christ and Christ in him. Verse 57, the one who feeds on Christ will live because of Christ. Verse 58, he who eats this bread, talking about his body, will live forever. These are very dogmatic, unqualified statements. Eating and drinking in this paragraph without fail results in union with Christ and eternal life.

However, we know that not everyone who partakes of the Lord's Supper has eternal life. Sometimes the supper is rather a means of judgment than a means of grace, as we saw in 1 Corinthians 11. Sometimes false brothers come in and partake without faith, and they do not receive Christ in the ordinance. Merely receiving the bread and wine does not cause them to have their sins forgiven. Christ is not here teaching salvation by sacrament, as if the Eucharist on its own affects justification in the heart of a sinner.

No, apart from faith, the communion table is simply another way of heaping up judgment to yourself if you partake unworthily. So if he was talking about the table, his dogmatic, unqualified statements here in this paragraph would completely contradict what the rest of the New Testament says about the supper. And so we know that that is not what he's talking about here. Both because the established metaphor earlier in the passage and the rest of the teaching of the New Testament, Jesus is not speaking of the Lord's table. We hold to sola scriptura but also tota scriptura, all of scripture.

We do not proof-text our theology. That's the danger here. You simply, well Jesus says my flesh is food indeed therefore transubstantiation. That's not how we do theology, not if you want to have good theology. We believe all of Scripture and what it all says about a doctrine.

So then why do the disciples say that this is a hard saying and some of them leave? The argument is often made that the people are offended at the doctrine of the bodily presence in the supper and so they abandon Christ. But that isn't supported by the passage itself. Why do they leave? Because Jesus in this message has centered all of salvation entirely on Himself.

The flesh, your own works, your lineage, your religious habits, whatever you want to do to try and earn a right relationship with God, it profits you nothing. That's what Jesus says in verses 61 through 63. And verse 65, he said, Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by my father. From that time many of his disciples went back and walked with him no more. What was it that really was the straw that broke the camel's back here, it was the teaching of the absolute sovereignty of God.

That is what caused some to abandon Christ. So as we've walked through this, the context, the metaphor, the complaint, and the conclusion, I think we can see that this passage is not directly instructing us about the Supper. It's not here. But I agree with what Calvin says. Quote, this discourse does not relate to the Lord's Supper, but to the uninterrupted communication of the flesh of Christ which we obtain apart from the use of the Lord's Supper." So what he's saying there is this is how we have union with Christ, by faith not through the sacrament.

And a little further on Calvin continues, 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. And yet, at the same time, I acknowledge there is nothing said here that is not figuratively represented and actually 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. I think he's dead on.

The passage is not about the supper, but the supper is a symbol of what is happening here. That is why we take the supper. It is a means of communion with Christ. It's also a symbol of what it means to partake of Christ. We believe in Him and so we receive His benefits and when the table is presented the bread and wine are given you are taking that and it is a sermon illustration in physical form of what it means to believe in Jesus and have communion with him.

That is what is happening. And as one other commentator FD Maurice said, if you ask me then whether he is speaking of the Eucharist here, I should say no. If you ask me where I can learn the meaning of the Eucharist, I should say nowhere so well as here. So it's not directly about the Supper, but it is a teaching us of what the Supper ultimately means. You have communion with Christ by faith.

And that is repeated every time we take the ordinance. So why does it apply to the Supper when it's not about the Supper? Well of course the language of the body and blood being consumed mirrors the institution passages. But again it was not instituted when Jesus spoke these words, but it was when John wrote them. And I believe that's probably why this was included.

John does not have an institution section. John does not record the institution of the Supper like the other Gospel writers. Here he does. This is likely John's institution passage in a sense. It's likely why it's included.

He is intending to instruct us about the table. And again, the point of the passage is ultimately our union and communion with Christ. We draw near in faith and we receive Jesus as our spiritual food, the nourishment that our soul needs. The supper is a symbol of this and a means of grace for those who have already tasted the goodness of God in Christ. And so the supper gives to us afresh what we already have by faith It's a special means of grace not a means of special grace What you receive in the supper is what you already have just more of and again and again strengthening you We were reminded that the Supper gives us Christ but only those who already have Christ.

It is a means of grace but this is a means of grace effective only for those who have already received grace in their hearts. If you partake without faith it will do nothing for you. So this passage is not about the supper but it applies powerfully to the supper and it is a call to each of us to not be like these who had hard hearts, selfish motives, and simply wanted material gain from Christ without having their souls first satisfied. So I echo the call of our elder today from this morning. Has your heart been opened?

Where is your soul before Christ? Have you turned to Him to find Him to be that true living bread that you need? Come to Him today. The bread of heaven is given to you. Take and eat and see that the Lord is good.

Let's pray. Oh Father, we come before you so thankful for your kindness, thankful for your grace. Oh God, may you continue to instruct and teach us and help us to live in light of all you've done in your son We thank you Lord For these means of grace we've had today May you use them to conform us to the image of Christ and to strengthen us until we can gather again this next Lord's Day. Be with us Lord and may we glorify you in all the things you put before us over the coming week. In Jesus name we pray, amen.

Thank you. Thank you.