Sermon
Food Indeed and Drink Indeed
February 24, 2002
Pastor Donald Sheley

It's nice to see you all in God's house today. I trust that you all have sermon notes. If you need them just raise your hand. It's imperative because we're going to discuss possibly one of the most difficult passages in the Bible, and I've gone to great lengths to prepare your notes, and I'd like for everyone here to have one. So if you don't have one, just raise your hand and the ushers will be pleased to give them to you, and you'll have then the notes to take home for further study. If you'd like to read the text today we're in John chapter 6. I think it's page 718 in your red pew Bibles, but for your convenience we've printed all the text on the sermon notes and so if you'd like we can study from them together.

Jesus says, "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."

The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" 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 at 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." These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Let's follow along in our notes. To most of us this is a very difficult passage, hard to understand. And the reason is because it speaks in a language and moves in a world of ideas which are quite strange to us and which may seem even fantastic, and at some times, even grotesque. But to those who heard it first, it was moving among familiar ideas which went back to the very childhood of the race. These ideas would be quite normal to anyone brought up in ancient sacrifice.

Now this is the way their mind worked. The animal was very seldom burned entirely. Usually only a token part was burned on the altar, although the whole animal was offered to the god. Part of the flesh was given to the priests and a part to the worshipper to make a feast for himself and his friends within the temple precincts.

At that feast the god himself was held to be a guest. In other words, those pagans believed that their god was present at that feast of which they have now come to celebrate. So once the flesh had been offered, that is the animal, whatever was the nature of the sacrifice, it was offered to the god, it was held or believed that that god entered into it; and therefore when the worshipper ate it he was literally eating the god.

Now those are strange thoughts to us, but I'm telling you what went through the mind of the pagans. So when people arose from such a feast they went out and they believed that they were literally god-filled. We may think of it as idolatrous worship. We may think of it as a vast delusion, yet the fact remains that these people went out quite certain that in them there was now the dynamic vitality of their god. To people used to that kind of thought and experience a section like this presented no difficulties for them because they understood from their pagan past.

But for us as Christians, what do these words mean? Let's begin first by noting what they do not mean. Many have looked at the sixth chapter of John and the verses before us as referring to the Lord's Supper. But this is certainly a mistake, and that for the following reasons.

And before I give them, remember, here was the setting -- Jesus had fed the 5000 and then He asked them to put their trust in Him. And they answered back, why should we trust You? You only fed us once. Moses fed those 2 million people in Egypt for 40 years with meals every day. Why should we follow You when You just gave us one lunch? Just think of all the manna that Moses passed out. And it was the issue of the manna that brought up the subject. And Jesus is talking to unbelievers not to believers. So back to our text.

First, the Lord's Supper had not yet been instituted when Christ delivered this discourse. Second, the eating and the drinking here spoken of is in relationship to salvation, or coming to salvation, or the order to salvation. But eating and drinking at the Lord's Table are for those whose hearts and lives have been touched by the grace and the forgiveness of Jesus Christ. It's a memorial to that great event when salvation was procured for us at Calvary.

So my two reasons suggesting -- and most theologians would agree that Jesus is not making reference here to the communion service. He's going to use this message to invite people to put their trust and follow Him. Now back to our text.

Now the text is used by those whose theology gives a high and mystical value to the sacraments. Generally speaking, there have been three major views of the Lord's Supper. The first is highly literal. It is the view of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions, as well as of some high church Anglicans and the Episcopalians. And this is what is generally believed: according to these churchmen, the bread and the wine of the communion service are literally transformed into the flesh and the blood of Jesus Christ by an ordained priest and thus become, at least to some, a reenactment of Christ's sacrifice.

So, clearly, to those who take such a position, the words of Christ in this passage must refer to the Mass, or the Eucharist. They literally describe what is happening. The worshipper literally feeds on the Lord. Now let's stop there

I thought it would be interesting for us today, in that we've brought up the issue of the communion, to go back and just research for a moment the history of how the concept of communion and the Lord's Supper has developed and come into the life of the church. And when I use reference to various denominations or beliefs, I do this for information and never judgmental. I think it will be exceedingly interesting.

How many folks are here who have an Anglican or a high churchmen background? How many of you come from Catholic backgrounds and Catholic teaching? A vast majority. And some of you have never gone back in the history of how that teaching developed into the church.

So what I did -- just put your notes down because these are not in your notes. I wrote some extra notes and put them in mine. I went to the theology books of Berkhof and others, and I wanted to learn the concise history of how the Lord's Supper and how people interpreted it down through the history. He says that while some of the early church fathers -- now a church father were the great church leaders in the early days of the church. We have a great amount of information. I have 38 volumes of the writings of the church fathers from the first, the second, and the third century. We have massive, massive resources for the information that was written during the early church time. So they were called the church father: such as Origen, Basil, Gregory of Nyssene, and they retained the symbolical or the spiritual conception of the sacrament.

But there were others of these brilliant minds such as Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom; they held that the flesh and the blood of Christ were in some way combined with the bread and the wine in the sacrament. In other words, even in the early days of the church there were many of the great minds who said, no, it's symbolic. It has a spiritual application, but it's not literal.

And others said, well there has to be something wherein the blood and the flesh of Christ becomes involved. So from the very early moments of the Christian church, 2000 years ago, there has been this fluctuation and this debate.

Now Augustine, who was one of the brilliant theologians, and most churchmen look back to him because of his brilliant mind, he took the position: he said that the bread and the wine -- he looked at it as the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, but he distinguish between the sign and the thing signified. But he didn't believe in the change of substance, and because he held such a high powerful position as a theologian in the early church, they catered to his point of view and the literalists kind of faded into the background.

But then we come to the Middle Ages, and in the year of 818 -- so 800 years have gone by and the church has struggled trying to define what really is meant by the communion. There was a man by the name of Radburtus. He was a bishop, and he stood up and he made the declaration that it was the literal body and the blood of the Christ that was the result of the transformation taking place in the host. Well, he met with very strong opposition because the predominant teaching of the first 800 years of the church was that it's simply a symbolic spiritual, but it's not literal.

Then we come to the 11th century. You see, the wrestling has always been going on, the arguments. And in the 11th century there was a furious controversy that broke out on this whole subject of the communion because the church didn't have a unified voice. A man by the name of Lanfranc made the crass statement in one of the great meetings. He said, the very body of Christ was truly held in the priest's hand, broken, and chewed by the teeth of the faithful.

Well that view was finely defined by Hildebert of Tours in the year 1134, and it was designated as the doctrine of transubstantiation. So the official theological position of the Roman church is transubstantiation. The result was that when they came to the year of 1215, now it's time to formally put in agreement in the cannons of the church -- what does the church really teach? And they wrestled with the issue. If we say that in that host, in that box that sits there on the communion table, if when the priest prays, when does the actual moment happen when the ingredients become the literal body of Christ? What was the moment that that took place?

Then there was a great concern in the churches, the worshiping of the host, that centerpiece there in the altar area. But they finally come to the conclusion, we'll make it official. At the council of Trent they recorded it in their decrees and their cannons, we'll take the position it is the literal body and the blood of Christ. So now you folks who have a background in your Catholic faith now understand that for 1200 years they wrestled, the church primarily was not a literalist, but at that time they decided to take that position.

Then along came the Reformation, and the reformers. And the reformers one and all rejected the sacrificial theory of the Lord's Supper and the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation. They just simply said, we're not going to believe that. And so in the Reformation, part of the Reformation was the discarding of the church's teaching on transubstantiation.

In fact, they became so adamant about it that when you go into northern Europe, even to this day, in the far northern countries, they'll only have communion once a year. And the reason is, they've always had that fear that they would be associated with the literalists, and never wanted to, so they just discarded the communion almost entirely to once a year.

Then came Zwingli, and in opposition to Zwingli, Martin Luther insisted on the literal interpretation of the words of the institution and on the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. However, he substituted for the doctrine of transubstantiation to a doctrine called consubstantiation.

You say, well what's the difference pastor? Well here's what Luther said, when that priest blesses that host, that is not when it changes to the literal body of Christ. Luther went so far as to say it's only when I take the elements and I put them in my being, that then they become the literal body of Christ. Do you see the difference?

The church said, no, it happens there (at the altar); Luther said, no, it happens here (inside a person) by faith. That was a change.

Zwingli, another one of the great reformers, then denied absolutely in the bodily presence of Christ, but he gave it a figurative interpretation, and he saw it as a sacrament primarily as an act of commemoration; though he did not deny that it was Christ spiritually present in the faith of the believers.

Then Calvin, another one of the great reformers, he said, well, I'll go halfway. He took an intermediate position. Like Zwingli, he denied the bodily presence of the Lord in the sacrament, but in the distinction from the former he insisted on stressing the Lord's Supper as an act of man which was an expression, first of all, of the gracious gift of God, and then as a commemorative service.

Then the Lutherans started rethinking their position, and they had what they called the mediating theologians. And in the early years of the Lutheran Church, these theologian said we can't go as far as our leader, Luther. We cannot say that it becomes the literal body of Christ once I take it into my body. So we'll be more comfortable if we just take Calvin's position and call it a spiritual experience.

So now you see what we have. You have a history where what we're talking about -- different points of view. And that's why across the board in the Christian churches today you have the various points of view. And I say this so that you can respect others who've been taught differently than we. They came from a historical background. They've been taught, and we now understand how it has grown into where we are today.

Now let's go back to our notes, at the bottom of the page. Now we've discussed this literal position of the first one. Now let's come to the second one. The second view of the Lord's Supper is that it is a mere memorial or testimonial. This understanding focuses on the words "Do this in remembrance of me" and on Paul's statement "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."

Now let's stop there. Most of us as evangelicals come from this teaching. And that is, that the communion is symbolical in its meaning: the bread and the cup symbolic of the body and the blood of Christ. And that's it is a memorial which we celebrate the death of Jesus Christ; but it's only a symbol. Now that's where I came from. I was raised in that very fundamental setting.

But I write something here: certainly, there is truth in this view, but it is weak in that it does not indicate how Jesus can be present in any special way to those taking part in the service. Let me comment -- over the years I've had to rethink this whole matter of the communion. And I've often said, if it is only symbolic then why is the judgment so severe if I partake unworthily?

Paul said to those Corinthian Christians, he said, there are a lot of people of you who are sick and some of you have died, and the reason is because you've misused the communion service. You've had the wrong attitude. It's something sacred and you've treated it lightly, and because of that, you're suffering, and some of you have died.

Now if something is symbolic, why, I ask, is the judgment so severe if it's participated in wrongly?. Now there's another problem, and this is what I observed, if it's only symbolic then it doesn't carry the weight and the importance that maybe another position, another opinion, might be. And I say that in the light -- where I grew up in church our pastor, we had communion service on the first Sunday of the month, if he remembered it was the first Sunday of the month. And if he didn't, it didn't care because it wasn't important to him.

And I'm sitting there as a little boy and I say, why is something so sacred so nonchalantly looked over? Sometimes months would grow by before in our church they felt it important enough to take communion. I think that was sad, terribly sad. But if something is only a symbol, it doesn't carry the weight of importance as something very sacred.

Now let's go back to our notes The third view then is that Jesus is actually present in the communion service, but that He is present spiritually, not in any physical way. Some theologians refer to this as the "real presence" or the "mystery" of the Lord's Table. We often say, in speaking of God, that God is everywhere present. It does not mean that He is physically present in physical objects, for that would be pantheism. But it means that He is present spiritually.

We also say that God is present in a special way with those who are His children; that is, He dwells within them. So He is present in Christians in some ways more than He is in the world. Moreover, even as Christians we often say that God is with us more at some times than at others, by which we mean that we are more aware of His presence or that the lines of communication are more open. It is in this progression but in an added sense that we speak of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord's Supper. This presence is spiritual. It is, therefore, received spiritually, which is to say, by faith.

You say, what are you saying pastor? I'm saying that communion service to us has a deep spiritual dimension. Throughout the week as I'm thinking and praying for these services I'm praying, God, I want You to so reveal Yourself in all of Your wonder and Your grace as we come to You at the communion time. There will be people in that service who need Jesus as Lord and Savior, and may it be a wonderful time when You reveal to their hearts their need for You. And you know folks, almost at every service at communion people turn their lives over to Jesus Christ. It becomes a moment when they are face to face on their knees with Christ.

So my prayer is that when we come to the communion time there is that sacred sense of awe, and that His presence ministers to each of us where we are. I had a lovely lady come up to me just last Sunday. She said, pastor, every time I come to your church I cry all the way through, especially at the communion services. And I'm saying, thank God. Because what she's saying is there's something I experience at that moment that's so deep. That's why we get on our knees. We just want it to be a time when each of us has a personal confrontation with Christ.

So I'm saying I would never be comfortable with the literal interpretation. I've lived with the symbolic idea, but I really am much more comfortable approaching the communion time as a sacred moment between my heart and God; and I think you'd agreed. That's probably the best understanding of the communion service.

Now back to our notes. I'm down on page 3. So I said, then, these three are the great understandings of the meaning of the Lord's Supper which have prevailed in the church and according to which, particularly in the first instance, that is, in the literal interpretation, the sayings of Jesus in this passage have been interpreted.

So we'll move on in just a minute, but here's the point -- if you use John 6 as the proof for your theological position on communion, it would not be in agreement with what Jesus was saying. It's not proper to use John 6 to formulate an argument in preference to a literal interpretation of the body and blood of Christ.

So then the question is, if these verses do not refer to the Lord's Supper, then what is their meaning? What does it mean to feed upon Jesus? When Jesus spoke these words, we must remember that the Jews of that day often used the language of eating and drinking when they wanted to refer to taking teaching into their innermost being. It is easy to listen to a teacher's words in a superficial way. Then we say, "What a fine teacher," but take no notice of what he says. We may perhaps say of someone who profits from the teaching that he takes to heart what he has heard.

The Jews of the day spoke of eating and drinking the teaching. We do the same thing. We sometimes say, I was drinking in every word. I remember some years ago I went to hear a great preacher. His name was Dr. John Brown. And I sat there for 90 minutes absolutely spellbound as that great theologian; I just drank in everything he had to say. I mean my soul was saturated, and filled, and thrilled with the great truths of God. And you can honestly say when somebody so moves you that way, I've just been drinking in the wonderful truths that I've learned. It's taken from another and making it a part of yourself.

So back to our notes. For example, there is a rabbinic treatment of Proverbs 25:21: "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink." This is said to mean: Resist your enemy "with the bread of the Torah." Now the Torah was the Law of God. As you read "Come, eat of my bread" (Proverbs 9:5); and "if he be thirsty, give him water to drink" --the water of the Torah, as in the verse, 'Ho everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the Torah' or come ye to the water. The implied is if you're thirsty for spiritual drink, drink from the truths of God.

Now the word of God is often likened to food and drink, which must be taken within oneself. So the figure of "eating" is very suggestive. And I hurry along. First of all, it deserves careful meditation. Eating is a necessary act if I am to derive that advantage from the bread, that is, bodily nourishment. I may look at bread or food and admire it; I may philosophize about it, analyze it, talk about it, eulogize it, handle it, be assured of its excellency-but unless I eat it, I shall not be nourished by it.

All of this is spiritually true with the spiritual bread of Christ. Knowing the truth, speculating about it, talking about it, contending for it, will do me no good. I must receive Him into my own heart. He must be more than just a person of history. He must become personal to me.

Secondly, eating is responding to a felt need. That need is hunger, unmistakably evident, acutely felt. Once a sinner is awakened to his lost condition; once he is truly conscious of his deep need, once he becomes aware of the fact that without Christ he will perish eternally; now he knows his need. And it's in responding to that need he turns his life to Christ as Savior and Lord. He's responding to now a known need. I need Christ.

I'm down at the bottom of page 4. Eating implies the act of appropriation. The table may be spread, and loaded down with delicacies, and a liberal portion may have been placed on my plate, but not until I commence to eat do I make that food my own. Then, that food which previously was without me, is taken inside, assimilated, and becomes a part of me, supplying health and strength. So it is spiritually.

Christ may be presented to me in all His attractiveness, I may respect His wonderful personality, I may admire His perfect life, I may be touched by His unselfishness and tenderness, I may be moved to tears at the sight of Him dying on the cruel cross for me; but, not until I receive Him as mine, shall I be saved. Then, He who was before outside, a figure of history, now becomes my indwelling Savior. I have by faith assimilated Him into my very being. He's become my Savior.

Now the other idea about eating, it's an intensely personal act. It's something which no one else can do for me. There is no such thing as eating by proxy. I can say, now Paymon, I want you to go out and eat lunch for me today (congregation chuckles). Now he can eat lunch, but it does me no good. Right? Nobody eats for you by proxy.

If I am to be nourished, I must, myself, eat. Standing by and watching others eat will not supply my needs of nourishment. Thusly, no one can believe in Christ for me. The preacher cannot; loved ones cannot. Do may have witnessed others receiving Christ as their personal Lord and Savoir, you may later hear ringing testimonies; you may be struck by the unmistakable change wrought in their lives; but, unless you -- you! -- you have "eaten" the Bread of Life, unless you have personally received Christ as yours, it has all availed you nothing.

Jesus said, "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live." Now to verse 51: in our text it reads, "And the bread that I will give is my flesh." Now to give, if we went back to the original the thought of giving is speaking of offering Himself as a sacrifice. It's the cross. He's talking about dying on that cross. He says, the bread that I will give is My flesh.

Now here, then, Christ presents Himself, not only as One who came down from heaven, but as One who had come here to die. And not until we reach this point do we come to the heart of the Gospel. As an awakened sinner beholds the person of Christ, as he reads the record of His perfect life down here, he will exclaim, "Woe is me; for I am undone." It is only in a crucified Christ that poor sinners can find that which meets their spiritual need. And His flesh He gave in voluntary and vicarious sacrifice for the life of the world. Not merely for the Jews, but for all mankind who will believe in and trust in Him as their Redeemer and Lord.

Jesus is saying, then, that His death is the one means of salvation and that we appropriate His dying for us when we come to Him by faith. This is the one way of salvation, for unless we receive Him in this way we have no life in us.

The cross is at the heart of the Christian way. It is only by the death of Jesus that we are able to enter into the life that He died to provide. Jesus said, I'm going to die for you. I'm going to give My flesh.

I always enjoy great writers, and I'm constantly looking for great writers. And one person that I think many of us have come to enjoy is the name Max Lucado. Max has written many, many books. His heart is stuck at Calvary. Almost all of his books are about Calvary. He pastors a great church down in San Antonio Texas. He writes many books, and he wrote a book some years ago entitled "No Wonder They Call Him Savior".

He paints with one word sentences the picture of Calvary. It's genius. It's just kind of with one stroke, with one word. So I want you to imagine now in these last four or five minutes of our service: you're in San Antonio Texas and you've visited, you're there at church with Pastor Lucado, and he's come to the same verse I've come to -- the bread that I give is My flesh. I want to talk about Jesus' death. I want you to close your eyes and watch the picture that he paints with one word sentences.
Road
Dark
Stars
Shadows
Four
Sandals
Robes
Quiet
Suspense
Grove
Trees
Alone
Questions
Anguish
Father!
Sweat
God
Man
Prostrate
Blood
No!
Yes
Angels
Comfort
Footsteps
Torches
Voices
Romans
Surprise
Swords
Kiss
Confusion
Betray
Fearful
Run
Wrist
Bound
Marching
Courtyard
Priest
Lamps
Sanhedrin
Caiaphas
Sneer
Arrogance
Beard
Plotting
Rope
Calm
Shove
Kick
Ananias
Indignant
Messiah
Trial
Nazarene
Confident
Question
Answer
Punch
Peter
Me?
Rooster
Thrice
Guilt
Proceedings
Court
Rejection
Prosecute
Weary
Pale
Witnesses
Liars
Inconsistent
Silence
Stares
Blasphemer
Anger
Bruised
Dirty
Fatigued
Guards
Spit
Blindfold
Mocking
Twilight
9 AM
Marchers
Palace
Herod
Uproar
Prisoner
Hushed
Pilate
Innocent!
Bedlam
Barabbas!
Riot
Despair
Christ
Back
Whip
Scourge
Tears
Bone
Moan
Flesh
Silence
Whip
Silence
Whip
Silence
Thorns
Stinging
Blind
Laughter
Jeering
Slap
Governor
Distraught
Eyes
Threats
Yelling
a Basin
Water
Compromise
Blood

Jesus said, the bread that I'm going to give is My flesh. I'm going to die on that cross. Ladies and gentlemen, you know, we've studied this conversation that Jesus has had -- what glorious truths He reveals to them. He says you gave Moses the credit for the manna; it came from God. I am the manna, and if you'll just assimilate Me, if you'll just take Me into your life, if you'll make Me the very center of your being, if you will feed on My words, and you will live in the trust that what I did in My flesh at Calvary in dying for you, you shall live forever.

That's what He meant when He said, He who drinks My blood and eats My flesh, He said, if you drink in Me as a person, make Me the very center of your being, you'll have eternal life.

Jesus, we've tried to handle some very difficult words today. We really tried as a congregation to understand. Now we think we do just a little better. Lord Jesus, there's no one else to turn to for our spiritual needs, there's no other source of salvation, there is no other fountain from which we can draw the meaning of life, but from You. So today in devotion and adoration we bow before You, Lord Jesus, and we proclaim You to be that bread of life that feeds our hungry soul. Thank you. It's in Your name we pray. Amen. God bless you folks. God bless you.