# WLC Q #168 and John 6



## KMK (Oct 21, 2008)

> Q. 168. What is the Lord’s supper?
> 
> A. The Lord’s supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus Christ, his death is showed forth; *and they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace*; have their union and communion with him confirmed; testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with the other, as members of the same mystical body.



The scriptrure proofs for this section do not include John 6. Obviously, Jesus is not referencing the LS in this discourse, but how much can we include John 6 as a necessary inference for 'feeding upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace'? 

In other words,, do you teachers include John 6 when teaching about WLC Q #168?


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 21, 2008)

KMK said:


> In other words,, do you teachers include John 6 when teaching about WLC Q #168?



My pastor does.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2008)

Consulting Thomas Ridgley's commentary on the WLC, I found 3 references to John 6 in connection with the right partaking of the Lord's Supper, two of which were to point out the Papist erroneous interpretation of the passage, and one of which was employed to affirm that we are to feed upon Christ by faith.


----------



## Marrow Man (Oct 21, 2008)

Jesus does not say "body" (_soma_) in John 6, but "flesh" (_sarx_). There seems to be a theological distinction being made. Leon Morris, in his commentary on John, writes this:



> In a very startling statement Jesus defines the bread the He will give as His flesh. The future takes it out of the realm of the general, and looks to teh gift that would be made on Calvary. Those who understand the verse [v. 51] of the incarnation or the like usually ignore the tense. … Many commentators speak as though the word “flesh” self-evidently marked a reference to Holy Communion. It, of course, does nothing of the sort. It is not found in the narratives of the institution, nor in 1 Cor. 10, nor in 1 Cor. 11 in connection with the sacrament. … The usual word in sacramental usage is “body.”


Morris also states:



> This is the section of the discourse which above all is claimed confidently as referring to the holy communion. The language of eating the flesh and drinking the blood is said to be explicable only, or at least most naturally, in terms of the sacrament. But is this so? I think not. … The very strength of the language is against it. The eating and drinking spoken of bring eternal life (v. 54), and they are absolutely unqualified. Are we to say that the one thing necessary for life is to receive the sacrament? Again, “flesh” is not commonly used with reference to the sacrament. In every other New Testament passage referring to it the word is “body.” … I am not contending that there is no application to the sacrament. But I very strongly doubt whether this is the primary meaning. It seems much better to think of the words as meaning first of all the appropriation of Christ.



This is only one interpretation, of course. Over a year ago, I wrote a blog entry on this passage, posted here, that also includes comments by Calvin, some of the Early Church Fathers, and D.A. Carson on the text. The consensus, at least for these authors, is that this is not a passage about the Lord's Supper, although there may certainly be metaphorical allusions to the Supper.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 21, 2008)

Calvin and Gill's Commentaries shed some light on it.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (John Chapter 6)

Commentary on John - Volume 1 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library (calcom34.xii.ix)


----------



## larryjf (Oct 21, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> Calvin and Gill's Commentaries shed some light on it.
> 
> John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (John Chapter 6)
> 
> Commentary on John - Volume 1 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library (calcom34.xii.ix)



Isn't it a bit self-serving for "JohnGill" to reference his own commentary!!

Sorry...just kidding...back to the serious stuff now.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 21, 2008)

larryjf said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > Calvin and Gill's Commentaries shed some light on it.
> ...



Hard to be humble when you've written the perfect commentary.


----------



## KMK (Oct 21, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> Calvin and Gill's Commentaries shed some light on it.
> 
> John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (John Chapter 6)
> 
> Commentary on John - Volume 1 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library (calcom34.xii.ix)



Calvin:



> It is certain, then, that he now speaks of the perpetual and ordinary manner of eating the flesh of Christ, which is done by faith only. And yet, at the same time, I acknowledge that there is nothing said here that is not figuratively represented, and actually bestowed on believers, in the Lord’s Supper; and Christ even intended that the holy Supper should be, as it were, a seal and confirmation of this sermon.


----------



## MW (Oct 21, 2008)

I did a communion season on Christ the bread of life from John 6. One of the problems I consciously sought to overcome was the tendency to confuse the thing signified with the sign. The fact is that when Jesus taught the mutitudes of the necessity to feed upon Him, the Lord's supper had not been instituted. So clearly John 6 is speaking of what is signified in the Lord's supper, and not of the sign itself. The divines would not have had the opportunity to explain the distinction by simply appending John 6 as a proof, so one can understand if they omitted it to avoid confusion.


----------



## Staphlobob (Oct 22, 2008)

Not only does John use _sarx_ (literally "meat") for _flesh_, but in vv.54, 56, 57, and 58 He uses the word _trogo_ (munch, gnaw, chew - as in what I do with a t-bone steak) for the word _eat._ All of it's very graphic.

Of course He's not referring to cannibalism, but some wonder if _trogo_ can really be a reference to faith. I think it does - Reformed and Lutherans agree here. But papists definitely disagree and Anglicans aren't sure.


----------

