John 6 For Roman Catholics

And greetings. Welcome to The Dividing Line, a special Dividing Line today. Even though there's lots of things going on, we'd normally be talking about a number of different subjects.

We're putting all those things aside today because we're going to do a special program where we are going to walk through the sixth chapter of the

Gospel of John. Well, why would we do that? Well, we've spent a lot of time on John chapter 6 in the past.

There's a lot of reasons to spend time with the longest chapter in the Gospel of John.

But specifically, our intention in this program is to walk through this text with an eye to communicating to our

Roman Catholic friends. Many of us have Roman Catholic family members, neighbors, co -workers, whatever it might be.

I didn't take the time to grab a handful of books to give you citations and quotations.

All you'd have to do is tune in to EWTN today, watch some EWTN programming on television, and you'd probably multiple times encounter speakers saying that John chapter 6 in the

Bible is one of the clearest demonstrations of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, of the concept of the

Mass as a perpetuatory sacrifice, but specifically the element of that, of the concept of transubstantiation.

That is the idea that when the priest consecrates the host, the wine, when those words of consecration are said, used to be in Latin only, now it's in vernaculars and so on and so forth, but when the priest by his sacramental authority brings about this miracle of transubstantiation, then

Christ is made present upon the altar, body, soul, blood, and divinity.

And so this is why Roman Catholics genuflect when they enter into the church, why there is the reservation of the host in a pyx, a ciborium, a monstrance, tabernacle, all sorts of different terms used for the various ways this can be done.

But the idea being that Christ is physically present with his people in the

Mass and that this is a perpetuatory sacrifice. Now, it is a perpetuatory sacrifice that does not perfect, and if we were to spend most of our time today talking about my primary objection to the

Roman Catholic concept of transubstantiation and the Mass as a

Eucharistic sacrifice, that's what I would focus upon. I would look at what the Bible actually teaches about the effect of the death of Christ and compare and contrast that with what

Roman Catholicism teaches in regards to the Mass. But leaving that aside, because there's just only so much time and so many things you can get to in one program, we want this to be understandable, we want this to fit into some timeframe that would be somewhat meaningful.

It could take a while. We've been having some conversations with some folks about this on Twitter, and I don't know,

I just don't think 140 characters is really quite enough to do justice to all of the streams of thought and revelation and teaching and history that go into this particular subject.

But especially when I encounter Roman Catholic individuals who truly believe that this is one instance where we've got the

Bible on our side, you non -Roman Catholics, you are clearly ignoring what the

Bible is actually teaching here. Well, when I encounter folks that really believe that,

I want to have the opportunity to sit down and say, let's walk through this text together.

Let's see what it's really talking about. Because unfortunately, the majority of citations by Roman Catholics come from the end of the chapter.

And the reality is this chapter is a single whole. There is a theme.

Now, of course, chapter and verse divisions are a much later innovation. Chapters came along in the medieval period.

The chapter and verse divisions we have today, not until the middle of the 16th century. But still, in this instance, the chapter divisions that were added in later, fairly accurate at this point, because chapter 6, even though it's rather long, does have a continuous theme to it.

And unfortunately, if you jump to the end of the chapter, there's a grave danger of what's called eisegesis, reading into the text, something that would not have suggested itself to the original author or to the original audience to which these words were addressed.

And so we want to walk through this text and ask the question, what is being taught here?

And in fact, when someone such as myself looks at John chapter 6 and look at Jesus saying, when he says, eating my flesh and drinking my blood, this has nothing to do with any kind of concept of transubstantiation, which is dependent upon the use of Aristotelian categories of philosophy that would have been completely unknown to the apostles and the original audience of John chapter 6.

When I say that, am I just simply trying to avoid the clear teaching of John chapter 6?

Or is there a very clear teaching of John chapter 6? Let's look through the text.

We will be displaying the text, or at least attempting to display the text for you as we work through John chapter 6.

Now, because it is so long, if you will allow me to, let's just simply agree that at the beginning of the chapter, a tremendous miracle takes place in the feeding of the 5 ,000.

And you have here Jesus demonstrating his lordship over the physical creation.

You have here the provision that the Son of God makes for those who are listening to his word.

And yet we're going to discover that only a small percentage, a small number of those who are attending to the words of the

Son of God are actually believers. And so I'd actually like to pick up in verse 14, when after this great miracle, the teaching and the miracle that takes place, we read,

Therefore, when the people saw the sign which he had performed, they said, This is truly the prophet who is to come into the world.

And so there is a recognition on the part of the audience that Jesus is the prophet, the one coming into the world.

Now, there's a lot of discussion we don't have time to get into today concerning what that would mean to them specifically.

There were all sorts of different messianic expectations at the time of Christ. Some distinguished between the

Messiah and the prophet and the forerunner. And there's all sorts of things we get into there that's not overly relevant to our purpose here.

But there is a positive reaction. There is a positive reaction seeing the sign which he performed, the sign being the feeding of the 5 ,000.

So that concept of performing signs, very important in the

Gospel of John. So notice in verse 15, So Jesus, knowing, or as the

New American Standard says here, on the screen, by the way, we have on this side over here, we have the

Greek text. Over here is the New American Standard Bible. If you're wondering which translation is there, and there are times when

I will not be looking at the NASB, I'll be translating the Greek, so there will be some differences. But I want to have it there because obviously,

John chapter 6 was not written in English. The English language did not exist when John chapter 6 was written.

And so it's important to look at the original languages of the Bible when we're seeking, especially in the later verses, to get into some fairly in -depth exegesis.

Asking of the text, what it actually meant in its original context, what it's communicating to us today.

And so Jesus perceiving or knowing that they were about to or intending to come and to, literally it means to grasp him and to make him king.

So to make him king by force, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

And so Jesus is not seeking to be made a king.

He is not seeking to be put into a position of kingship or rulership through the actions of the people.

His is a kingdom that has a very different character in nature than that which they have in mind.

But certainly we can understand how people today, if someone has the ability to engage in the creation of food, miraculously, here's someone who could be a great king.

And so Jesus demonstrates that he has a knowledge, a knowledge of what's going on in the hearts and minds of these individuals.

And so he withdraws. He will not allow himself to be taken in by their particular plans.

Now, when evening came, verse 16, his disciples went down to the sea and after getting into a boat, they started to cross the sea to Capernaum.

It had already become dark and Jesus had not yet come to them. So I would imagine that the disciples are somewhat at a loss here.

Can you imagine their situation? Many of them do not yet fully understand

Jesus' messianic purpose, his mission. The nature of his kingship. And certainly they must have been pretty excited because they probably heard some of the whispering about making him king.

And if Jesus becomes king, then what about the rest of us? It means we're going to have a pretty good position here.

And right when the excitement seems to be the strongest, Jesus disappears.

There must have been a certain level of disappointment and confusion on the part of the disciples at Jesus' reaction.

This is probably for most of the disciples something they're really looking forward to. I mean, we've been trudging these dusty roads all this time.

And well, now it's finally starting to pay off and people are starting to get excited and Jesus disappears.

Right when maybe we've got 5 ,000 men, that's a good start.

And right then Jesus withdraws to the mountain by himself alone. And so there's probably a little confusion.

And then some disappointment on their part as they see the crowds dissipating and dispersing.

So they don't really know what's going on. So his disciples went down to the sea. After getting in a boat, they started to cross the sea to Capernaum.

It had already become dark and Jesus had not yet come to them. The sea began to be stirred up because of a strong wind.

Because a strong wind was blowing. And there's lots of discussion about what happens on the

Sea of Galilee and the weather phenomena that results in these types of storms and things like that.

Then when they had rowed about four or five stadia, three or four miles, they saw

Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat. And they were frightened.

They were filled with fear. And that certainly is understandable. Naturalists try to explain this that, well, actually they had drawn very close to the shore and so Jesus is just walking along by the shore, but they didn't realize that.

Or he was walking in the shallows and etc., etc., etc. But they wouldn't have been frightened by that.

These were accomplished fishermen. They knew where they were. And they knew what was going on here. And this is the second time in a 24 -hour period they have seen a tremendous miracle where Jesus demonstrates his sovereignty over the created order, both in the creation of food from a small amount, now in walking upon the water.

And so Jesus says to them, Ego ai me, I am, a phrase that we don't have time to get into today, but especially in the

Gospel of John, though it appears elsewhere, especially in the Gospel of John, there is a very significant utilization of this phrase that literally goes back to the divine name in the

Old Testament. And you can see that in John 8, 24, 8, 58, 13, 19, 18, 5 -6, places like that in the

Gospel of John. It is, I do not be afraid. So they were willing to receive him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.

Now, when it says, and immediately the boat was there, is this another miracle?

And it would probably seem to be, because they had only gone a certain distance.

And it could be, we don't want to read too much into it, it could just be that they had very smooth and quick sailing, the wind was behind them.

But it actually seems to be more likely that what you have here is another miracle in the transportation of the boat to the land to which they were going.

And so John does not invest a whole lot of time in that particular story.

He doesn't go into issues regarding Peter or any of these other things. But he does give us this information, and it is important,

I think, to keep in mind, that at the end of the chapter, instead of having 5 ,000 excited people, and that's just the men, there would have been many more than that, including women and children.

Having these large amounts of excited people, you have 12 confused disciples, one of whom is the devil.

And they have stood there watching, not only Jesus withdrawing in this early part of the chapter, so they can't make him king, but now his teaching in the synagogue

Capernaum is going to be so difficult, so hard, that the disciples, these other disciples, not 12, but these other disciples, walk away.

And Jesus not only does not stop them, but as we're going to see, he keeps repeating the one thing that offends them.

And I want you to be very careful that you don't assume that you know what that one thing is. A lot of people assume they know what it is, but we'll see what the text actually states when we get to it.

And so, there is a lot here about the disciples and what they would have been experiencing and how it was important for Jesus to communicate to them.

We're not looking for numbers. We're not looking for large crowds. We're not trying to fill up former basketball arenas.

There is something completely outside the realm of popularity and numbers that will determine the character and nature of my followers.

And that's what he's going to get into. And that's what he's going to teach in the synagogue Capernaum, even though, as I've said many times, it seems in John 6,

Jesus founded the church shrinkage movement. Not the church growth movement, but the church shrinkage movement.

Because he goes from 5 ,000 excited followers to 12 confused disciples.

But that was his choice. He did this purposefully. It's very clear that it doesn't get to the end of chapter. It's like, oh, man,

I guess I didn't think that through very well. No, this was exactly what he intended to accomplish, and he did it in the way that he intended to do so.

So, verse 22, the next day the crowd stood on the other side of the sea. The crowd that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other small boat there except one, and that Jesus had not entered with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples had gone away alone.

There came other small boats from Tiberias near to the place where they ate the bread after the

Lord had given thanks. So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there nor his disciples, they themselves got into small boats and came to Capernaum.

And I think it's interesting to note, notice this last phrase here. Seeking Jesus.

So, especially in our day, where we live in a secular society, where it's hard to get a secular person to even try to show interest in spiritual things.

The danger for us is we see someone who shows an interest in spiritual things and we're just all over them.

They just must be a true convert or whatever. We get to learn a lot from how

Jesus responds to these individuals because they've rowed across a lake seeking him.

They are seeking Jesus. And the temptation for us is to think, wow, as long as somebody's doing that, this must be a demonstration of true and abiding faith and so on and so forth.

It's not going to be the case. These same disciples are going to walk away at the end of the chapter.

They were seeking Jesus, but Jesus knows what they're really seeking. It says they're seeking Jesus, but once Jesus starts telling the truth about who he is, and what is necessary to be a follower of his, all of a sudden they're no longer seeking

Jesus. So, we can learn a lot from that. That description is given there.

When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, Rabbi, when did you get here? So, they're interested in how he got here.

Had he walked all the way? Nobody could walk all that distance. How could this be?

Jesus is not interested in fulfilling their inquisitory.

You are seeking me not because you saw the sign or signs, but because you ate of the bread and were filled.

So, Jesus goes to the reason why they are seeking after Jesus.

Understanding the signs. Obviously, throughout the Gospel of John, there's a lot of play on such words as hearing, but not hearing.

Seeing, but not seeing. The blind man in John chapter 9, for example. Hearing in John chapter 8.

There's a lot of discussion of how there could be so many people who follow

Jesus around and yet did not just understand, but accept the message that was given to them.

So, Jesus goes directly to the issue and he says, I say to you, you are seeking me not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the bread and were filled.

Do not work, and that term work, it's nothing esoteric about it or spiritual about it in some strange way.

It means to put out effort. It's the standard word for working. Do not work for the food which perishes.

Now, it's important that we start focusing in here now, because we're starting to talk about food.

And Jesus is going to describe himself as food, as bread. And so, one of the fundamental truths of exegesis is, and this is true whether you're reading secular or religious literature, when an author begins to introduce a concept, then you take seriously the definitions that they offer and then you apply them later on.

You don't jump into any author's discussion three or four pages in and ignore where they have laid out their categories beforehand and then come up with your own categories and think you're actually accurately representing the person that you're reading.

Well, the same thing is true here. He's raised the issue of eating of the loaves and being filled.

So, here's a discussion of food. It's coming into the discussion.

Well, what kind of food? Well, we are not to work for the food which perishes.

So, the food that he had miraculously provided the day before, it perished.

The people that ate that food did not live forever. They didn't glow the next day.

If they had gone out and run a foot race, they wouldn't have necessarily beaten somebody else just because they happened to have some of the special loaves and fishes.

It was food which perishes. And he says, do not work for the food which perishes.

And he's referring to that food because, as he says, you ate of the loaves and were filled. But instead, work for the food which endures to eternal life, which the

Son of Man will give to you, for on him the Father, God, has set his seal.

And so, immediately, there is a distinction being drawn between physical things which perish and spiritual things which only find their origin, their source, where?

Well, which the Son of Man will give to you. So, there is a future tense idea here that the

Son of Man in some way is going to give food which endures to eternal life.

It does not perish. It endures to eternal life. And here he calls himself the

Son of Man and he says that the Father, even

God, has set his seal upon the Son of Man. He has demonstrated that the

Son of Man is who he claims to be and that, of course, will even be made all the more clear in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So, therefore, they said to him, What shall we do in order that we might work the works of God?

Jesus had raised the issue of working. Do not work for this. Instead, work for that.

And so, they asked the question, What should we do that we might work the works of God? And Jesus' response is rather straightforward.

Jesus answered and said to them, This is the... Now, notice they used the plural.

They said ta erga, the works of God. Jesus' response is to use a singular, ta erga.

This is the work of God that you believe upon the one whom he sent.

You believe upon the sent one. And so, Jesus does not give them a long list of things that they are to do.

He does not give them a long list of penances or anything else. He says the work of God is that you believe upon him whom he has sent.

This is the work of God. This is what all men are called to do, is to believe in the one that God has sent.

Well, it's easy for us who are accustomed to reading the scriptures to sort of pass by the amazing weight of what that would have meant, because Jesus is talking about himself.

He's identifying himself as the Son of Man. He's saying he's sent by God the

Father. And you and I, who are accustomed to reading scriptures, like, yeah, we know who

Jesus is. We've read the book of Revelation, and we know how it all ends. But what about in the day in which these words were spoken?

These would have been amazing claims that were being made. And so, it's not overly difficult to understand why they then ask the question.

So they said to him, what, therefore, what do you do as a sign in order that we may see and that we may believe you?

What do you work? Or as the New American Standard says, what work do you perform? And so, they ask for a sign.

If you're going to make such an amazing claim that the work of God is to believe in you, then what sign do you give?

What evidence do you give that you're the one in whom faith should be placed as the very work of God?

And then they demonstrate that they had not stayed completely asleep during synagogue school.

They say, our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, he gave them bread out of heaven to eat.

And so, they hearken back rightly to the fact that God had provided miraculous sustenance to the children of Israel in the wilderness in the manna.

And so, if that's the case, that certainly was a sign from God of his favor upon the people of Israel.

It certainly was a sign that Moses was his chosen leader of the people of Israel.

And so, if Jesus can provide special food, well,

God had done that in the past. And is that the sign that he's offering? And Jesus corrects their understanding.

In verse 32, Jesus then said to them, truly, truly,

I say to you, it was not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but my father, who is giving you the true bread out of heaven.

And so, he doesn't allow them to switch the context back to something that happened in the past.

And he corrects their idea, it wasn't Moses. It was

God. And what God is doing now is on a different level than anything that has been done in the past.

It is my father. And remember, John 6, this is going to be a really deep observation here.

If you're sort of tuning out a little bit, this will undoubtedly refocus you. But John 6 comes after John 5.

I went to seminary to learn that, yeah. And what was in John 5?

Well, Jesus made that amazing claim in John 5. He talked about,

I am working, and my father is working. And he was doing that in the context of the

Sabbath day. And so the Jews understood that what he was claiming was divine prerogative.

And the rest of John 5 is a description on Jesus' part of how he can truly be divine, and yet he has been sent by the

Father, and how he is distinct from the Father. And yet everyone is to honor the Son, even as they honor the

Father. And they have different roles in bringing about redemption, and so on and so forth. It's deep

Trinitarian revelation in John 5. And so when Jesus says, my father, here in John 6, that needs to continue to have that same strong divine emphasis and the union of Father and Son that it did in chapter 5.

But now, it is my Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.

And what is that true bread? Well, for the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world.

Think about, this is the bread of God. The bread of God.

Well, there's a fascinating description. You wouldn't call the manna the bread of God.

It was just simply sustenance that was provided by God. But this is the bread of God, and it comes down from heaven.

And I suppose you could say, in a sense, the manna did. But obviously, there's much more to it in the sense of coming down out of heaven.

This is Jesus's claim as to where he has come from. This is one of the very reasons why so many liberals, whether Catholics or Protestants, reject the

Gospel of John as actually reflecting Jesus's words or having any meaningful historical basis.

I just want you to understand, I reject all of that. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to question the validity of the

Gospel of John simply because you're a naturalist. The Gospel of John wasn't written for naturalists, and they'll never have any real understanding of what is being found in this particular gospel.

But the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. So is this a temporary, perishable life?

Or is Jesus talking on a much broader spectrum than this? Well, I think as we continue on, we will see.

And so when he says this, verse 34, then they said to him, Lord, always give us this bread.

I mean, wow, the bread that comes down of heaven, it gives eternal life. This sounds great.

Always give us this bread. And notice what it says. They say, Kuri, Lord.

So here you have people. This is very important now. Here you have people. They've rowed across a lake.

We can't get people to show up for church on time on Sundays or even regularly from week to week.

They've rowed across a lake. And they're not arguing with Jesus.

And they even call him Lord. That's, man, in most churches, we're signing them up and putting them in positions of leadership right then and there, right?

But we're going to miss something very important if we don't see what's truly going on here.

Because they say, always give us this bread. They don't see the connection. They don't see what's going on.

They don't see Jesus' identification of himself. And so now it becomes very patent in verse 35.

Jesus said to them, and then again, again, it's egoimi, I am the bread of life.

I am the bread of life. So everything that comes with this, this means he has come down out of heaven.

He has been sent by the Father. This isn't just some mere prophet.

He is the prophet who is to come. But not just that. I say that especially for my

Muslim friends who pick and choose which parts of these words they'll accept. I am the bread of life.

This is Jesus' claim that it's so easy for us to not see the tremendous weight of these words.

Jesus says, I am the bread of life. No other prophet had ever said anything even remotely like this, nor could they have.

They never pointed themselves. But Jesus says things that absolutely demand our decision as to whether we're going to believe what he's saying.

I am the bread of life. And when he makes, he's identifying himself as the bread of life or the living bread.

There's different ways in which the genitive in the original language can be taken, the living bread or the bread of life.

Then, my friends, this is key right here, especially to my

Roman Catholic friends. Here we're talking about bread. Later on, we're going to talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

And clearly, he being the bread of life is the whole reason why we would do this, right?

Well, please note something. When he introduces this idea, when he introduces the idea of himself being the bread of life, makes it clear for everyone to understand.

He immediately says these words, the one coming to me will never hunger, and the one believing in me will never thirst.

So here you have hungering and thirsting.

And how is this hungering and thirsting in relationship to the bread of life satiated?

How is it avoided? How is it that you will never hunger? How is it you will never thirst? By eating physical bread?

Drinking physical wine? No. What are the terms that are used?

The one coming to me will not hunger.

The one believing in me will never thirst. Coming and believing.

We're going to see those two terms put in parallel over the next number of verses.

And the teaching that is presented to us will be very much about the very sovereign kingship of God in the matter of salvation.

But in the first place, we're hungering, thirsting, bread.

They're all brought together. Jesus defines that the actions being involved are spiritual actions.

Coming, believing. Nothing about chewing, drinking, swallowing.

The distinction's already been made in regards to that which perishes over against that which is not. But here, the first place in any fair analysis of any written document, if you're going to follow the argument from beginning to end, right here,

Jesus establishes the parameters of what he's talking about and that involves coming and believing.

This must be kept in mind. This must be kept in mind. Just as important is the next verse, verse 36.

But I said to you that you have seen me and you are not believing.

You're not believing. Now, again, think about what's going on here.

These men have walked into the synagogue. They rode across the lake.

They want to hear Jesus' teaching. They call him

Lord. They want to know what works they can do. They want the bread that comes out of heaven.

And Jesus looks at them and says, You're unbelievers. You're not believing. You've seen me.

You're not believing. Because what they were seeking after was the filling up of their belly.

They're seeking physical food. They did not understand that what

Jesus provides is for that person who is spiritually hungry, spiritually thirsty.

And he identifies them as unbelievers. You are not believing. That must have been a kick in the gut.

It's pretty abrupt, don't you think? But it's vitally important to realize that this statement must be kept in mind in regards to what

Jesus is going to say after this. And it also explains why it is that they're going to walk away.

Yep, the very same men who rode across the lake, the very same men who then went to the synagogue in Capernaum, the very same men called him

Lord. And what must we do? They walk away. And there's a reason for it.

There's a reason for it. And it's not because they're offended at ideas of cannibalism.

There's another reason. And it's a reason, unfortunately, that's normally skipped over when people look at this text.

Because as soon as Jesus says, You have seen me, and yet you do not believe.

He says, All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one coming to me

I will never cast out. I will never cast out. Now, again, it's easy for us to skip over the reality of the fact that Jesus is saying some amazingly exalted things about himself.

He is the focus of all of these things. He is the focus of the coming, the focus of the faith.

All that the Father gives me will come to me. Now, there can really be no question.

There are two actions here. There is the giving of the Father, and then there is the coming to Jesus.

What's the relationship between the two? Man's religions, man's religions, even religions that claim to be

Christianity, man's religions, which are focused upon man's accomplishment, man's works, the idea that God makes salvation a general possibility, a general offering, and then sits back to see if anyone will take him up on his offer.

Man's religions will always hear these texts and emphasize the power of man over the power of God.

But in the original language and logically in any reading of the text, the relationship of the two actions is very clear.

It is the giving by the Father that results in the coming of any individual to Jesus Christ.

If anyone is coming to Christ, it is because they were given by the

Father to the Son. The Father has the sovereign power, capacity, right, ability to give people to the

Son. And when he does so, the inevitable result, it says all, all that the

Father gives me will come to me. Now, I just stop.

I want to ask all of us, whether Roman Catholic or non, do we believe that?

If you believe that Jesus tries to save but fails, then you don't believe this.

If you believe that the Father is trying to save everyone equally, but it's all up to man, so with some he succeeds and some he fails, all because of man's choice, then you don't believe this.

All that the Father gives me will come to me.

That's Jesus' teaching. And yeah, it banishes every type of work salvation.

It banishes every kind of salvific sacramentalism because it's all of the

Father and the ability of the Son. And when we bring in the rest of Scripture, the applicatory work of the

Holy Spirit, all the Father gives me will come to me and the one coming, and it's present tense.

It's not the one who, point action, briefly tips the hat toward God.

No, it's the one coming. The one coming to me, I will,

New American Standard says, certainly not cast out. I translate as never cast out. It's a strong negative.

It's the strongest negative. It's not a possibility. I will never cast out the one coming to me.

We like that part. We really love hearing that the one coming to Christ will always find

Him to be a perfect Savior, and He'll never cast Him out. And how many times have the saints of God down through the ages rejoiced in that promise?

Because we know our own hearts. We know when we failed Him. We know the sin that we can fall into, and yet we have the promise.

The one coming to me, never cast Him out. But that's the second half of a sentence.

And when we ignore the first half of a sentence because we don't like what it teaches, and only the second half of a sentence because we do like what it teaches, we can't say that we're really being honest with the text at that point.

And so the one coming to me does so. Why? Because He's been given by the Father to the Son. So my continuous present tense coming to the

Son is because of something that the Father has done. This is the vast chasm that separates man -centered religion from God -centered religion.

A man -centered reading of Scripture separate from a God -centered reading of Scripture.

And when you recognize that, then you will see. And if you just follow the argument, follow the argument.

Let's see if that pans out. Why is it, according to verse 38, why is it that Jesus will not cast out any of those who are coming to Him?

Why? We know our own hearts. We know our own lives. Why is it that it would never be cast out?

Verse 38, For I have come down from heaven. Now remember, the true bread sent down from God from heaven.

For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.

So once again, going back to chapter 5, that perfect unity that exists between the

Father and the Son. The Son's not some separate deity off doing His thing. Perfect unity between the

Father and the Son. And so He's come down from heaven. He has voluntarily taken the role of the sent one.

He is the incarnate one. And so He's come down from heaven, not to His own will, but the will of Him who sent

Him. And who is that? God the Father. So God the Father has sent the

Son, and the Son, as the perfect servant, does the will of the

Father. Now are we told what the will of the Father is?

We are. One of the most beautiful and amazing verses in all Scripture. Verse 39.

This is the will of the one who sent me, in order that of all that He has given me,

I lose none of it, but raise it up on the last day.

Here we are given the privilege, and it is a privilege. Certainly not something

God ever was under any constraint to reveal to us. We are given the privilege, literally, of a brief insight into the inter -Trinitarian life.

And the will of the Father for the Son is that He save a particular people.

This is the will of Him who sent me, that of all that He has given me, and He uses the neuter here.

And that refers to an entire group when it's brought together as a group.

Now, we're going to see a number of places here that there is deep personal expression.

Deep personal expression of the relationship between the believer and God, faith, so on and so forth.

But in this instance, the people of God as a whole are viewed as a whole, and the will of the

Father for the Son is, here is the people, that of all that He has given me,

I lose nothing. Not that I do a really, really good job.

Not that I have a 95 % salvation rate. Wouldn't that be great?

No, it wouldn't. That would mean our Savior failed. Because His words are, that of all that He has given me,

I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

So, notice that to lose something would be no salvation.

Raise up on the last day is synonymous with what? Receiving eternal life.

Be raised up by the Son on the last day synonymous with receiving eternal life.

So, the real question that everyone has to answer, the real question that was asked at the time of the

Reformation as well, who saves? When you call

Jesus Savior, are you saying it's because He made salvation a possibility or that He actually saves?

Those are two different concepts. And in this context,

Jesus says it's the Father's will that He save perfectly all those that are given to Him.

Remember, that takes us back to verse 37. All the Father gives me will come to me.

And so, there you have it. He loses none of that.

That means He can save perfectly all those the Father gives to Him. And that results in the fact that they're raised up on the last day.

Raised up not to judgment but to eternal life. Jesus has that power.

Jesus has that capacity. That's why eternity itself will not be long enough for us to give thanks and praise for what

He has done for us. Not for what we helped Him to do. There's a big difference there.

Big, big difference. For this is the will of my Father, verse 40, that everyone gazing upon, to gaze upon the

Son, looking, and again, it's present tense, not a quick glance, not a quick tip of the hat, but the one who beholds the

Son, gazes upon the Son, and does what? Believes in Him. Why not use coming?

Coming, gazing upon, believing, they're all present tense participles.

They're all descriptive of what the work of God is in the life of those who are given by the

Father to the Son. And so the will of the Father is that everyone who beholds the

Son and believes in Him will what? Have eternal life, and I, myself, will raise

Him up on the last day. I, myself, will raise Him up on the last day.

And so, notice the order. Verse 39, the Son fulfills the will of the

Father in the salvation of a specific people, and He does not fail even once in the salvation of any of them.

Then in verse 40, well, what does that look like from our perspective? What does it look like to be one of those that are given?

Well, it's already stated in verse 37, but here's another way of putting it, and that is if you're given to the

Father, the Son, then you are going to be beholding Him. You're going to be looking upon Him. You're going to be believing in Him.

You're going to be coming to Him, and that one who does so has eternal life raised up on the last day by Jesus Himself.

Now, what has been the consistent focus here? Jesus is saying to them, you're not believers, and the reason you're not is because you've not been given by the

Father to Me. The ones given to Me by the Father, they're coming to Me.

They're believing in Me. Not you. And so, the focus is all upon Jesus as the source of eternal life.

Being the true bread, comes down from heaven, being the one to whom people are given, the one that they're to believe in, they're to look to, all of these things.

It's all focused on Jesus, and that can't help but cause some, well, the very first concept in verse 41, the very first word of verse 41 is a, it appears elsewhere in the scripture as gungusmu, the term to grumble in Greek.

I used to use it with my kids all the time. Stop gungusmu -ing back there. But, therefore the

Jews were grumbling. They were mumbling and grumbling, and they don't like it.

They were complaining. And that very word just sounds like complaining. And so, the

Jews are grumbling. What do you mean you're the bread that comes down out of heaven? You don't glow at night.

They have certain ideas of what it must be like to be one who comes down out of heaven.

I'm the bread that came down out of heaven. They were saying, is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?

How does he now say, I have come down out of heaven? What are you claiming for yourself?

You're just a regular man. Jesus answered and said to them, do not grumble among yourselves.

Verse 44, here it is.

No one is able to come to me unless the father, the one who sent me, draws him, and I will raise him on the last day.

Those are Jesus' words. How few believe

Jesus' words today? Because they're offensive. They're offensive.

No one is able to come to me. How many people really believe that? Oh, I know.

There are people who have developed this concept of what they call prevenient grace. And so they can say, oh yeah,

I believe that, unless prevenient grace brings everybody back to a neutral point, so you can make your choices from there.

Nothing in the Bible about prevenient grace. Nothing at all. No one has the ability to come to me.

If Jesus had stopped there, there would be no hope. There would be no good news. There would be nothing.

Thankfully, there is a unless, except. But we have to acknowledge the reality of the fact that Jesus said no one has the ability, the capacity.

So no one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

And I will raise up him on the last day. And the reason I render it that way is because when you think about it, who can come to Christ?

Only him who's drawn by the Father. Who's drawn by the Father? Those who are given by the

Father, the Son. All of them will come to Christ. This drawing is effective.

And so what's important to recognize is many of man's schemes will try to insert a division into verse 44.

Unless the Father who sent me draws him, and God does that to everybody, big division, and I will raise him, different him, up on the last day if that person believes.

It's not there in the text. It's the same him. Every him, every person drawn by the

Father is raised up on the last day. Well, the consistency of what we're seeing here in John 6 is striking.

Because the one coming, the one believing, the one looking, they're all the ones given by the

Father to the Son. And they are given eternal life. And Jesus himself raises them up on the last day.

And here it's described, Jesus uses the term to draw. It's the same word that's used later on in the

Gospel of John when the huge catch of fishes takes place and they draw the net, drag the net up onto the seashore.

It is very clearly an effective drawing. Not just an attempted drawing.

Not just a wooing. Because I can assure you that Peter did not stand on the seashore holding that net and go,

Come on, fishies, fishies, come up on the seashore, please. I've got some treats for you. That's not what happened.

They had to put some brawn into it. They had to pull. And so, this drawing of the

Father inevitably, without question, results in being raised up by the

Son. So, what are all those who are drawn? What's the description that was already given to them back in verse 40?

Or in verse 37? They're the ones coming. They're the ones believing. Why are they coming and believing? Because they've been given by the

Father and the Son. It's all of God. It's all of God. And then, describing that in verse 45, it is written in the

Prophets, They shall all be taught by God. This is what the drawing is.

And notice, this is something, because of the translational issue, we tend to,

I think, put the wrong spin on what's being said here. But this is something

God accomplishes. It's not just something He puts out there and then we take advantage of it or not take advantage of it.

No, this is something God actually accomplishes. They shall all be taught of God.

Everyone. Everyone. All. Of those hearing from the

Father. So, again, this is the Father has communicated. This is what the drawing looks like. It involves teaching, revelation of who

Jesus is, and hearing. Everyone hearing from the

Father and learning. And again, this is, we think learning is, you know, we're doing something.

No, this is, the Father is revealing, He's teaching, and we're receiving this revelation.

Everyone hearing from the Father and learning is what? Coming to me.

You see? You see the balance? It's beautiful to a person who has ears to hear.

And wants to hear what Jesus was saying. Tremendous.

It's a symphony is what it is. Different parts being played, but it's a symphony of divine truth to reveal to us what does it look like to be drawn by the

Father to the Son? Well, there's revelation from the Father as to who the Son is. There is a learning.

There is a gazing upon. There's a believing and a coming. Everyone here, everyone hearing from the

Father. Well, if the Father decides to make revelation to you, you're going to hear from the

Father. Is anyone really going to seriously say, well, you know, the Father is trying to do this for everybody?

No. No one has the ability to come to me unless the Father sent me, draws him, I'll raise him up on the last day.

The drawing is effective. It's not some general ineffective thing.

It accomplishes what God intends it to accomplish. Verse 46.

Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the one who is from God. He has seen the Father. So even at this point,

John wants to emphasize a theme. It's the gospel of John, all of scripture, but especially in John, you see this, this woven tapestry and every once in a while, one of these bright threads will come up.

And one of the threads of the gospel of John is the unique capacity of the

Son as the Logos, John 1 .1, in the beginning was the Word, to reveal the

Father, John 1 .18. No one has seen God in any time. The monogamistos, the unique God, he has exegeted him.

He has made him known. And that's what you have emphasized here. Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the one who is from God.

He has seen the Father. And Jesus identified himself as the one who is from God.

Right? So once again, it's amazing how many times people will look at John 6 and say,

Oh, it's just, it's just what Jesus said about eating his flesh, drinking his blood. That's why people walked away.

At this point, there is already so much that Jesus has said that is in the face of any unbeliever, of anyone who does not see

Jesus as the revelation of the Father. There's already so much there. Verse 47.

Truly, truly, I say to you, the one believing has eternal life.

Now again, I didn't spend a lot of time emphasizing this earlier, but I mentioned the use of present participles.

The one believing, the one coming, the one gazing or looking upon.

These are terms that describe an ongoing action.

Something that is habitual rather than something that's just a very simple action that takes place maybe in the past or something like that.

There is a contrast in the Gospel of John between saving faith, which is ongoing, and unsaving faith.

There are people in the Gospel of John who say they believe and Jesus doesn't trust them. John chapter 2. John chapter 8.

There are people who believe in Jesus, not ongoing action. And Jesus does not entrust himself to them.

He says they need to be saved. There's false faith. True faith is ongoing faith, but true faith, according to John chapter 6, is the result of being given by the

Father, the Son, and drawn by the Father, the Son. It's the result of learning, hearing, taught, being taught by the

Father. So, truly, truly,

I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. How do you have eternal life?

You believe. What's the work? What must we do? We might work the works of God.

This is the work, singular. Believe on him whom he sent. This is how you have eternal life.

Now, can anything change that?

Is it believe and have access to certain sacraments?

Is that going to be the argument here? Well, let's follow it through. He who believes has eternal life.

Ego aimi. I am the bread of life, which she has already stated. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they died.

So, that divinely provided provision perished, just like the provision that Jesus had made the day before, which they had filled their bellies.

Perishable. It only gives physical life in this world. It does not give eternal life.

Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, they died. This is the bread, which comes down out of heaven, so that or in order that anyone may eat of it and not die.

So, some type of a contrast is being laid out by Jesus between the physical manna miraculously provided by God and the bread which comes down out of heaven.

I am the living bread, verse 51. I am the living bread, which came down out of heaven.

If anyone eat of this bread, so what's the contrast? Preceding verse versus your fathers ate of that bread and they died.

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.

Now, stop right now. What did he just say about how you live forever? Believing in him.

So, what does it mean to eat of the living bread? It means to believe in what he has already said of himself.

And that would involve this amazing reality that Jesus is not fulfilling some role of an

Old Testament prophet here and pointing away from himself. He is pointing to himself as the one means of eternal life.

You must believe in him. You must be coming to him. You must be looking upon him.

Present tense. Continuous concept. Not just once, but an ongoing habitual thing.

Jesus is the source of life. That is what must be believed.

And what had the Jews been grumbling about back in verse 41? Bread that came down out of heaven?

What do you mean? We know his mom and dad and how can that be?

And Jesus says, 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, my sarx.

The logos became sarx. John 1 .14. So, how does this result in eternal life?

It results in eternal life because of the giving of his sarx. The giving of his life.

His flesh, I'm sorry. His flesh. And yet this is put into the future.

Doso is the Greek term. It's the exact same future term that's used in Matthew 16, by the way, just in passing.

I will give to you, Peter, the keys. Not I am. I will.

It's in the future. It's fulfilled in Matthew 18 along with the other disciples, the apostles, by the way.

But I will give. So, this is looking forward to the cross.

This is looking forward to the cross. The bread also which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.

Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat?

And so, where have they gone wrong? Because you see, if you're going to...

Are you really going to say they got it right? He is really talking about eating physical food?

No, they've already missed it. They've already missed the plain contrast that he's given. They've missed going all the way back to verse 35 where the parameters are laid out.

Eating, drinking, hunger, thirst. It has to do with coming and believing.

They've missed it. Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat?

So, Jesus said to them, therefore, Jesus says to them who ask this question, truly, truly,

I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you can have no life within yourselves.

Now, you've immediately got to ask yourself, first, first, please, try to lay aside your traditions for just a moment.

Please try to not read this in light of concepts that were nowhere to be found in the

Gospel of John, in the minds of the apostles, and certainly could not have been found in the minds of the people to whom

Jesus was talking. Please try to divorce your traditions and any concepts of Aristotelian categories of accidents and substance and everything which is nowhere to be found.

What would have been the literal meaning of the text? Now, what's a literal meaning?

When an author provides you with the parameters of definition of what he's talking about in the preceding sentences and paragraphs, then the literal meaning is to continue to allow the author to define his terms.

It is not the literal meaning for you to all of a sudden go, okay, preceding sections he talked about coming and believing and that's how you're filled and that's how you don't have thirst and the whole nine yards, yeah, he's made the strong contrast between the food which perishes and the food unto eternal life and people can eat the perishable divinely provided food and die but this eating of this food results in eternal life and it has something to do with being drawn by the

Father and learning and all the rest of this kind of stuff. Yeah, that's all there but we're not going to worry about that and instead we're going to jump into verse 53 and we're going to grab something that developed a thousand years later and we're going to read it in here and say it's the literal meaning.

That's not the literal meaning of anything. The literal meaning of John chapter six is when you follow the argument through the text honestly seeking to see does the author continue with the same theme and he will all the way to the end of the chapter.

All the way to the end of the chapter. So why would he say this to the Jews? Because he's already said you're not believing in me and the reality is and this is offensive to some people

Jesus does not court false disciples. He does not seek to collect them.

He does not seek to create them and so when they ask how can this be

Jesus doubles down on the centrality of himself the fact that they need to have an intimate relationship with him.

Truly truly I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in yourselves or to put it in a positive sense verse 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.

Now stop immediately where have you heard that last phrase before?

You see this is all one argument. That's what's so beautiful about this text is that you can start at the beginning and you can walk all the way through and you can listen to John and go hey

John I see what you're doing I see how you're tying it all together and look at this phrase right here

I'll scroll it up and I will raise him up on the last day.

We've seen that before we saw it back in verse 39 and verse 40 it's parallel with having eternal life who was raised up on the last day those that are given by the father to the son and as a result of being given as we saw in verse 37 they're the ones coming they're the ones believing they're the ones looking upon the son they're the ones in verse 45 who are taught by God they hear from God he reveals the son to them these are

God's people and they're the ones who then are drawn by the father to the son so this is a further description of what it means to do all those things and that is to eat present tense ongoing action do you do that even as a

Roman Catholic no you don't you don't do it you're not doing it continuously are you nobody eats continuously but you can be coming continuously you can be believing continuously you can be looking to Jesus the source of eternal life continuously the one eating my flesh and drinking my blood has eternal life already been told he who believes has eternal life this is not some addition there to as if believing is not enough you gotta go beyond that need to have a sacramental priest which the new testament knows nothing of to work a special sacrament that does a special miracle that's based upon Aristotelian categories of accidents and presents and does all this stuff so that you can have this sacrament nobody in the days of John would have ever had any idea of any of that but if you just allow

John to speak for John if you follow the argument then what you really understand is that to come to Christ to believe in Christ to look to Christ is to look to him only intimately and personally as the only source of spiritual life and how many

Christians how many people who call themselves Christians really do that today how many in reality have other crutches other things they're believing in their own good works their own accomplishments rather than that intimate union with Jesus Christ seeing him solely as the bread which comes down out of heaven

I don't look for anything else other than him he is enough for me my whole diet is

Jesus when it comes to spiritual things because if you try to sneak anything else in you won't have eternal life you won't have eternal life so remember if you allow the text to stand

I will raise him up on the last day Jesus has already defined who that is Jesus has already defined these things for us for my flesh by the way verse 54 remember back to verse 35 my flesh eats my flesh drinks my blood eating drinking that's what was fulfilled by believing all the way back in verse 35 nowhere is that broken and nowhere is the object of the faith changed from Jesus to some magical ceremonial change of substance and accidents through a sacrament that if we have time and it doesn't look like we're going to have time

I would argue very clearly developed much later in church history real presence and transubstantiation are not the same thing they're not the same thing we might have some time to look at some of that but I wanted to focus primarily upon John 6 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink verse 55 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood does what abides in me and I in him unless we're going to be willing to isolate

John chapter 6 from the rest of the gospel of John there's a lot said in this gospel about what it means to abide in Christ and to have him abiding in you and elsewhere the emphasis there is upon what it's upon the presence of the

Holy Spirit of God the Comforter amongst the people of God vine and the branches all of these things they're all talking about one thing this isn't talking about one sacramental thing and then everything else is talking about something else no it's all one message and it is not a literal reading of this text to break these verses apart from how they exist within the gospel of John itself as the living father sent me and I live because the father so he who eats me he also will live because of me so the living father has sent the son and I live because of the father so he who eats me will also live because of me where do we hear this language elsewhere in the gospel of John John chapter 17 there are those that the again the father gives to the son and they abide in the son and therefore they're in the father and in the son and to be in the one is to be in the other and this is how you have life

John chapter 14 John chapter 16 if you insist that this section specifically has some fulfillment that could not have been understood for at least hundreds if not a thousand years then what you're saying is the consistent reading of John that ties all of these together in this beautiful consistent woven fabric is is invalid that only this is talking about something else and then all these other things that talk about the same categories being raised to eternal life belief all the rest of that stuff that's talking about something else no the only disruption that can be brought into the gospel of John at this point is when you read into it something that developed at a much later period of time that's not a literal reading that's not a fair reading of the gospel of John this is the bread which came down out of heaven not as the fathers ate and died he who eats this bread will live forever now

I just in passing would note that within Roman Catholic theology there have been many who have eaten of this bread who then died because within Roman Catholic theology you can approach the

Eucharistic sacrifice over and over and over again in your life and still commit a mortal sin and be lost that's not what's envisioned in John chapter 6 the reason that in John chapter 6 verse 58 you can have the the simple statement the one eating this bread will live forever is because to eat of this bread is to be coming to Christ and believing in Christ and why is anyone able to do that?

because they've been drawn by the father and the son will not fail to save everyone that's drawn by the father to him that's been given to him by the father that's the message of John 6 it's all about God anytime anyone reads

John 6 and takes the emphasis off of what's being accomplished by the father and the son to their own glory you're missing

John chapter 6 in its entirety in its entirety and when you just start following the phrases, following the terminology used, you will see how

John is making sure that that chain remains unbroken all the way through all the way through this is the bread which came down out of heaven not as the fathers ate and died, he who eats this bread will live forever, these things he said in the synagogue as he taught at Capernaum, I love that because for so many these words were never putting them in Jesus' mouth sadly a large portion of New Testament scholarship today, that's what they would say yet John roots this in history and a place you can go visit today synagogue

Capernaum has been rather thoroughly excavated and can be visited today alright verse 60 we're going to get there it's going to be a little over an hour and a half but we're going to get there therefore many of his disciples when they heard this said skleros estin halagos hutas skleros hard, you've heard of arteriosclerosis that's where we get it from sklero, to make hard skleros hard this is a hard word, this is a hard saying, who is able to hear it, and again in the gospel of John to hear, in John chapter 8

Jesus can say why don't you hear my words because you're not of God he was God, hear my words, if you're not of God you don't hear my words who is able to hear it now what was this hard saying well some people say well it's all about the flesh it's all about cannibalism but this is a summary statement of everything

Jesus said everything he said, the centrality of him, the giving of the father the inability to come to him unless drawn by the father etc, it's all of it, it's a hard saying, who can listen to it, who can hear it, but Jesus conscious that his disciples grumbled at this, there's some more

Gungus moving going on verse 41, said to them does this cause you to be scandalized it's skandalize to stumble what then if you see same word that was used earlier about looking to the son of man what then if you see the son of man ascending to where he was before if what

I've revealed to you about my role in coming to you is offensive to you then what are you going to do when you see me glorified when you see it proven that I was the bread that came down out of heaven if you're going to be scandalized then you're truly going to be scandalized then it is the spirit who gives life the sarks profits nothing now this is said right after talking about eating the sarks of the son of man but here the contrast between spirit and flesh it's the spirit who gives life the flesh profits nothing, the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life they're spirit and they're life so don't switch the ordained and defined meaning the argument of John beginning talking about food eating and drinking,

I'm talking about faith, I'm talking about coming I'm talking about spiritual things, don't destroy that distinction the flesh profits nothing it's the spirit that gives life but there are some of you who are not believing there are some of you who are not believing, for Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe and who it was that would betray him

Jesus knows that's why he was able to say back in verse 35 you're not believing and Jesus always knew about the black heart of Judas he always knew who the son of perdition was but then and here's what actually prompted our doing this one of the things that prompted doing this having a discussion with a

Roman Catholic I asked a question and the response not being examined on the basis of just the text itself verse 65 and he was saying notice

I did not say the reason I say he was saying is because the verb here lego is in the imperfect and so this is something that was being done repeatedly he didn't just say it once he said it repeatedly and he was saying for this reason

I have said to you that no one can come to me now where did he say that?

John 6 44 which proves once again the argument didn't change from 37 through 45 once he starts talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood it's the same argument it's the centrality of Christ through all of it nothing has changed to sacraments or anything else so this proves it because even at the end knowing the disciples are complaining

Jesus says for this reason I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the father now think about what that means no one has the capacity no one has the ability to come to Christ unless it has been granted to them from the father and how do you start off this entire discourse in verse 35?

you're not believing you're not believing he's explaining the unbelief of these individuals and what

I asked a Roman Catholic a couple days ago was what is the antecedent of ek tuta?

tutu means because of this because of this many of his disciples withdrew and were not walking with him anymore because of what?

because of what? and the answer is verse 65

Jesus' repeated assertion of the father's kingly freedom and man's inability and we have further evidence of that in the rest of the gospel of John in John chapter 8 when certain false disciples believed you shall know the truth the truth shall set you free set you free in the chapter they're picking up stones to stone him because of this many of his disciples withdrew and were not walking with him any longer and it was because Jesus kept emphasizing

I have said to you no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the father

Jesus wasn't using all sorts of trickery and appeals to the flesh, entertainment seeker sensitive services or anything else this is about as unseeker sensitive as you can get and as a result many of his disciples withdrew and were not walking with him anymore and so Jesus said to the twelve you do not want to go away also do you and by the way the form he uses there is that he's assuming the answer is going to be no

Simon Peter answered him Lord to whom shall we go you have words of eternal life we have believed and have come to know that you are the holy one of God Jesus answered them did

I myself not choose you the twelve and yet one of you is the devil now he meant

Judas the son of Simon Iscariot for he was one of the twelve was going to betray him so why did they stay

Jesus answered I chose you I chose you and yet the distinction is clearly made between the choosing of the eleven and the choosing of Judas because Judas has a role to play it's not a salvific role but he has a role to play now

I do want to just briefly mention one thing from history we have we've looked at John chapter six and we have seen that you can walk through John chapter six noting the language noting the the line of argumentation following it all the way through we don't have to cut it up we don't have to say and now of course there's a huge barrier here there's a wall built here this part of the chapter is about this, this part of the chapter is about something else, no walk all the way through all the way to the end we have the same concepts being used, same language being used we can consistently deal with the text as it was written without having to appeal to anything other than the language and what people would have understood at that time, the context of the book as it was written in the first century and yet we invited our

Roman Catholic friends to listen to this because you have been taught other things you have been taught that this text is speaking of transubstantiation and all these other things and you've also been taught that at least many of you have been, that all the early church fathers believed the same things here that this would have been the faith of the early church.

Let me just mention just a few things to you, just take some time to consider these things, look them up for example if truly there was a belief in the concept of transubstantiation in the early church, then isn't it strange that while today after transubstantiation has been formally defined you have the reservation of hosts you have all the rules and regulations that go along with how you're to care for the consecrated hosts and things like that and you have all the stories that have developed over the years of bleeding hosts and miracles associated with hosts and all the rest of that stuff.

When you look through history when did those stories begin to develop? Post 1000

A .D. Post 1000 A .D. You don't have that kind of thing in the early church.

In fact, when you, and you can look at the Catholic Encyclopedia to find these well,

I know some of you are rolling your eyes there's different versions of it. Go to the older more conservative version if you want doesn't matter to me.

The historical reality is that in the early church while the host and the wine would be brought to the sick who were not able to come to the services, they were not reserved and they were not worshipped.

They were not reserved. In other words, no one had any problem with once the supper was over with what do we do with God now?

It wasn't something that they believed in. It wasn't something that was a part of their thinking. You won't find monstrances and pixies and saboreums and that kind of stuff in the primitive church because this is a belief that comes from a later time period.

But, didn't they believe that Jesus was truly with them? Didn't they use, they most certainly did.

But real presence and transubstantiation are not the same thing. Are not the same thing.

You can believe that Christ is present with his people when they're obeying his command to observe the

Lord's Supper. It does not follow. It does not follow that you believe in something called transubstantiation.

And I would like to give as evidence some of the statements of some guy that you may have heard of may have heard of before by the name of Augustine.

Augustine. And let me read you some quotes. This is from, see which letter is this.

I don't have the photocopy cut off, but just read you a quote here.

Chapter 41 from Letters. Again, I'd have to look for the specific section here.

But when you think of Christ our Lord, the only begotten Son of God, equal to the Father, and likewise Son of Man, in which respect the

Father is greater than he, do not doubt that as God he is everywhere wholly present. And also as God he dwells in the same temple of God, while in his true body he is in some part of heaven.

Augustine for some reason believed that the body of Christ, well, he wasn't a

Lutheran. Lutherans believe in something called the ubiquity of the body of Christ where the divine qualities, the divine principles are communicated to the physical body.

Here also in letters, same letters, chapter 10. Do not doubt then that the man

Christ Jesus is now there whence he shall come again. Cherish in your memory and hold faithfully to the profession of your

Christian faith, that he rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and will come from no other place but there to judge the living and the dead.

And he will so come on the testimony of the angel's voice as he was seen going into heaven, that is, in the same form and substance of flesh to which it is true he gave immortality, but he did not take away its nature.

According to this form we are not to think that he is everywhere present. We must beware of so building up the divinity of the man that we destroy the reality of his body.

It does not follow that what is in God is in him so as to be everywhere as God is.

The Scripture says with perfect truth, in him we live and move and are, yet we are not everywhere present as he is.

But man is in God after one manner, while God is in man quite differently, in his own unique manner.

God and man and him are one person, and both are the one Jesus Christ who is everywhere as God, but in heaven as man.

Although in speaking of him we say that God is everywhere present, we must resist carnal ideas and withdraw our mind from our bodily senses and not imagine that God is distributed through all things by a sort of extension of size.

The body of Christ is in a particular place. There are some other quotes here.

There's just so many that I don't want to go through all of them. So many that we could go through here, but let me just give you one other quotation that I had marked here that I wanted you to see.

So Augustine, we're staying with Augustine here, believes that Christ is present with his people while the physical body of Christ remains in heaven.

And listen to some of the language he uses here. Not represent.

Commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship while it retains its symbolical authority.

Symbolical authority? People actually talked of symbols? Why yes, when

God by the prophets repeatedly declares that he needs no offering as indeed reason teaches us that offerings cannot be needed by him who stands in need of nothing.

The human mind is led to inquire what God wished to teach us by these sacrifices for assuredly he would not have required offerings of which he had no need except to teach us something that it would profit us to know and which was suitably set forth by means of these symbols.

These symbols. The Hebrews again, in their animal sacrifice which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ.

This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ.

Commemorated. Not represented but commemorated.

Continue on just a few more. Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was foreshadowed in the animals slain.

In the passion of Christ, the tithes were fulfilled by the true sacrifice. After the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament.

Not represented, commemorated in the sacrament.

Over and over again. In other quotations, Augustine says that we have been deprived of the body of Christ until the second coming.

Doesn't sound like these individuals believed in what is taught today. Oh yes, it is very, very, very easy if you are willing to engage, to find things in the early church that sounds like what modern

Rome teaches. But we don't want to misuse church history and engage in anachronism.

That is, taking things that would not have been a part of their context and reading them back in from a later period of history.

And if you try to avoid doing that, then you will come to understand the development that took place.

Now, I know Rome has developed its own concept that the entire development hypothesis had to to explain how things that were not present in the apostolic age, not present in the early church, can now be understood as dogma.

Don't want to get too much farther into that right now. There is much that could be said. The point is this, and we'll close out with this.

When I hear a Roman Catholic saying, well, look, the Bible teaches transubstantiation,

John chapter 6, I want to make sure that with as much clarity and charity as could be offered, that an answer has been given, no, if you allow

John 6 to speak for John 6, if you will simply walk through the text, if you will listen to what the text is saying, there's nothing here about transubstantiation, there's nothing here about priests, there's nothing here about a partial, non -perfecting, propitiatory sacrifice.

There is everything about a sovereign father giving a people to the son, and the son who saves perfectly, and that to be one of those given by the father to the son results in an intimate union with him.

That's what eating the flesh of the son of man is about. It is directly paralleled with believing, seeing, gazing upon, coming to, learning about from the father, hearing from the father, being taught by the it's all referring to the same thing.

It's not just merely taking in factual knowledge about Jesus, it is an intimate dependence upon him as your sole source of spiritual sustenance.

That's what John 6 is all about, that's the consistent message of the gospel of John, that's the consistent message of the 6th chapter of John.

I just simply ask you, read it yourself, lay aside your prejudices, lay aside your traditions, read it for yourself, and see if that's not exactly what it is teaching.

I thank you for taking the lengthy period of time if you have listened to all of this. I hope it's been helpful to you.

I hope that you will indeed consider what we've presented to you today, and it's our prayer that Christ would be honored and glorified in what we've done this day.