Is John 6 about the Lord's Supper? 

It is a very blessing episode. You have been given a great gift from Christ our God. May God always preserve and bless you.

Blessings to you Chad as you serve the church

Another connection I am wondering about is John 4:30-31. Jesus alludes to the idea that He is fed and sustained by food from God, so now Jesus offers that same food to those who follow Him.

Thank you, awesomeness with every video and an awesome new book also. God's peace be with you.

What a fantastic find. I am teaching through the sacraments to a small group of believers here in Albania who have only ever been presented a Zwinglian, remembrance-only understanding of the Eucharist, and have been taught rather stringently that baptism is nothing more than the convert's public proclamation to the world and to God that he/she is a believer now, and has nothing to do with the remission of sins, as is found everywhere in the NT. It's the commonly held position among memorialists that John 6 has absolutely nothing to do with the table. I'd go so far as to say that they need this to be true, in order for the non-sacremental position to hold up. This video does such a fantastic job of explaining that spiritual eating (belief) is absolutely necessary and truly the main purpose of the text. However, it is in no way separated or divorced from physical participation in the sacraments by Christ. One is not set against the other by Jesus, rather, they are both set forth as two facets of the same saving truth. What Jesus does not choose to separate, let us not separate either.

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ from Ukraine! Thank you very much for your wonderful presentations! Formerly I also was of opinion which is closer to yours. Now I am more inclined to the Luther's position. Among objections I would also list the use of different word for body and flesh (σομα / σαρξ) and the absoluteness of language of John where the main context is about believing. Also let us not forget about the main theme of the Gospel of John (20:31). Thank you ones more!

Yes it’s about The Lord’s Supper ✝️✝️✝️

So happy to get your insight from the OT.

Yes, it is Jesus telling them what is going to come soon.

Thank you for sharing this.

I think you might have brought out a couple more relevant points. 1. The overall context of the discourse, which Jesus kept circling back to, was that people need to believe in Him for eternal life. But the people had gotten a free meal and they pursued Him across the lake in hope of more food. They were the ones that kept pulling Jesus back to the theme of eating. Jesus gave them food analogies which they could not comprehend. This stands against the proposition that the discourse was meant to teach about the Eucharist. 2. In the Last Supper, it is supposed that Jesus turned bread and wine into His body and blood (Roman Catholics would say He turned bread and wine so completely into His full physicality and divinity that only the accidens remained). But in the John 6 discourse, it's the exact opposite: Jesus said, 'I am bread,' which, taken as literally as they want to take the rest of the discourse, means that Jesus turned Himself into bread. Note the contrast: turning bread into Himself, versus turning Himself into bread. This stands against the proposition that the discourse was meant to teach about the Eucharist. 3. Taken as literally as RCs and some others would like, John 6:53 imposes a condition of performing a "work" or "deed" upon salvation. This is in opposition to many scriptures such as John 3:16-18, Romans 10:9-10, Ephesians 2, Galatians 2 & 3, etc. 4. Taken literally, John 6:53 is a command to drink blood. It is beyond belief that our Lord would impose such a requirement upon people, when God's will that people not drink blood has been clearly expressed.

There are three audiences: 1. The original, when Jesus spoke, who may have been shocked, in part, due to their prohibition against consuming blood (showing their misunderstanding and non belief of who Jesus was and what the blood symbolized), 2. the audience, who were alive when John's letter was written, having knowledge of the resurrection and the church, 3. and present day audience (us). I am sure there is a world view difference between the present day audience and the audience who were contemporary as of the writing of John's letter. There is a parallel of the Lord's supper with the peace offerings that the priests ate amongst themselves, hopefully in remembrance of the Lord. The priests were never to eat offerings of atonement which were to YHWH addressing sin. When you read 1 Corinthians chapter 11, Paul quotes Jesus concerning His "body" and "blood" and remembrance. In 1 Corinthians chapter 9 Paul speaks comparing his right to "eat and drink" with the priests right to partake of the peace offerings. The question at hand then, is there any other grace associated with the Lord's Supper other than you are with the body of Christ in remembrance of Him?

I believe I'm actually consuming Christ but by Fath that and being applied by the Spirit.

great video. Well done! John 6 is about the sacrament of the Eucharist. The Apostles believed that. The early Apostolic fathers believed that. The Orthodox Christians believed that. Every faithful Christian believed that for 1500 years. To believe it's only symbolic is to say that the first 1500 years of Christianity got it wrong.

The short answer is, "No." The long answer is, "No, of course it's not. Why would you think it is? There's nothing in the text about any kind of ritual or ceremony. It's teaching about the same thing as the Lord's Supper is about, but it's not about the Lord's Supper."

Why did you quote Levi/Enoch, they’re apocryphal/pseudoepigraphical books?

Chris, please help me..... I am trying to help myself and others read the Bible in the context that it was written. So when we are in scripture I make sure I use my interlinear resources and look at the actual words that were used and then how they would have used that word in the context of the verse. With that being said, you use the word "manna" in this video for the "unleavened bread" that Jesus is comparing his body to. My research shoes that the word "manna" means what is this? and not the word for unleavened bread, "massa". I'm not trying to be right, I'm just trying to understand and not use what is traditionally taught and teach what is the truth. Thanks!

Do you believe that the Lord's Supper is about receiving the real body and blood of Christ? If you don't then the question is moot.

The answer is yes. Now commune all the baptized children of believers and end the prohibition started by Rome

The tree of Life just gives immortality. Not salvation. Nothing spiritual. The reference to manna yes. If Adam and Eve had eaten from that tree, they'd be like the Angels. And God didn't want that.