Beyond the Bread: Spiritual or Literal?
Season 3 Episode 2 Transcript
Special Guest: Cory Reckner
Zechariah Eshack: 0:00
Welcome to the Restless Theologian podcast, where we focus on having insightful conversations in biblical history and theology. I'm your host, Zachariah Ishak, For our second episode of Season 3,. We're going to be discussing the Lord's Supper, also commonly known as the Eucharist, which is a Greek word for Thanksgiving. This is from the Britannica quote. The Eucharist is the central act of worship Christian worship and is practiced by most Christian churches in some form, and back on with us, I have my good friend, Corey Rechner, to help provide our listeners with an overview of the sacrament. How are you doing, Corey?
Cory Reckner: 0:47
Restless theologian. I'm good. How are you sir? Good, good, good.
Zechariah Eshack: 0:52
How are the kids doing? They're good, good.
Cory Reckner: 0:54
They're good. Yeah, we were talking a little bit before we hit record. Kids are at a crazy stage right now, so it's a very exhausting time, but it's rewarding, so it's going good. Good, what are their ages? Again, four, two and the youngest is going to be one here in a couple of weeks.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:09
Yeah, it's pretty crazy. Crazy time for all of us. Yeah, that's awesome, yeah, and then obviously, you celebrated with me during our wedding in January, so that was a lot of fun.
Cory Reckner: 1:20
Congratulations. Thank you Again. Yeah, appreciate it.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:22
Yeah, I appreciated you kind of like participating in it and doing some of the scripture readings, so that was great.
Cory Reckner: 1:27
Yeah, it was fun.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:28
Yeah, I mean, katie, really appreciated you doing that for us. So I wanted to focus on the bread of life discourse, which is one of the famous seven I am statements in the gospel of John.
Cory Reckner: 1:45
And if you wouldn't mind reading for us John 6, verses 51 through 56. Yeah, no problem. So this is John 6, 51, verses 51 through 56. I am the bread of life. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them 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 you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day, for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.
Zechariah Eshack: 2:40
Awesome, thank you. So I wanted to start this off by going into trying to just basically establish what I think is a common occurrence in the Gospels. To mention that, I'm going to give seven examples of misinterpreted teachings in the gospels just to kind of lay the foundation that this was a common occurrence. Jesus is speaking and then it was quite frequent where his audience didn't understand his true meaning. So we have the woman at the well in John 4, 11, where she responds to Christ. Quote the woman said to him, sir, you have nothing to draw water with and the well is deep. Where did you get that living water? Obviously she missed kind of what Christ was saying and thought he was speaking literally, when he was speaking more of a spiritual term, and then destroy the temple. That's the second example in John 2.20.
Zechariah Eshack: 3:44
The Jews then said it has taken 46 years to build this temple and you will raise it up in three days. So it went over their head that Jesus was talking about the temple of his body. Three, the bread of life discourse John 6.52, which is obviously what we're going to be talking about. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat so right off the bat, like they were confused by Jesus's language. We have Matthew 16, 7, and they began discussing it amongst themselves, saying we brought no bread. Five about being born again John 3, 4. Quote. Nicodemus said to him how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born? Six Jesus has food that they don't know about, and that's in John 4, 33. Quote about and that's in John 4, 33. Quote. So the disciples said to one another has anyone brought him something to eat? And then, point number seven Lazarus is asleep. In John 11, 12,. The disciples said to him Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover. Obviously it kind of went over their heads that he was speaking of Lazarus being dead, not just asleep.
Zechariah Eshack: 5:07
So I know that that was repetitive and that was kind of redundant, but I just wanted to lay the foundation that this is something that you can see is a repeated pattern in the Gospels. So with that established, we have to ask ourselves as to why, like why, this happens. We have to ask ourselves as to why, like why, this happens. And that leads us into talking about the figurative language in which Christ speaks.
Zechariah Eshack: 5:32
Now there are seven different, like main figurative types of speech that Christ engages in in the New Testament and that's going to be metaphor. And that's going to be metaphor simile, parable, hyperbole, symbolism, synecdoche and metonymy. Now, out of those seven, we're going to focus a little bit more on hyperbole and symbolism and maybe metonymy is probably going to be the biggest one. Now, it's funny to me how I'm studying this and I come across, like you really start to see all the different types of figurative language, even though, like I, even though I knew that there were figures of speech, I didn't really know what, how to categorize them. So, are you familiar with most of those, um, most of those terms?
Cory Reckner: 6:18
yeah, yeah, and I know um, especially in old testament language a lot of times. Yeah, this is very relevant, like each one of the examples you gave. All of these are just all over the place with the Old Testament too. So, yeah, it's not uncommon going into the New Testament, especially with Jesus. So, like you said, yeah, yeah.
Zechariah Eshack: 6:41
So I think it's important to kind of figure out in which way Christ is speaking because, obviously, him being God, god, he's going to be the master of language and the way that he communicates things is just amazing, because there's so many different ways in which he can communicate uh, some of his um, I mean god's law, just um, obviously, with the parables and about the kingdom. There's just so many different ways in which he expresses himself and it's like a different rhetorical devices that serve specific purposes. So I wanted to give some examples of metonymy, since that's where we're going to kind of head in a direction of later on. Metonymy, since that's where we're going to kind of head in a direction of later on. But just at the outset I wanted to bring up a biblical example to start out.
Zechariah Eshack: 7:31
Um, when jesus mentions, you know, moses and the prophets, it's usually represents the whole of the old testament scriptures. That is a form of metonymy, and some other examples that are not biblical are suits, a metonym for business people, sword metonym for conflict or violence. So you get the idea that it's usually one term that's either related to or to stand in place of something else. I think.
Cory Reckner: 7:59
Yeah, and when it's declared, the term is familiar with people in certain cultures and people groups and all that. So when they hear that they just know automatically, they're like, oh, it's related to this, like you said, with suits a metonym for business people. You and I both work pretty corporate office jobs right now and if we hear, oh, the big suits are coming in today, we're like, oh, we know who that is, you know. Yeah. Yeah, we're like what's the? The quote unquote important people, right, the bigger guys they're coming in?
Zechariah Eshack: 8:30
Yeah, or the clients or corporate. Yeah, yeah, for sure. Yeah, yeah, definitely. So, with that being said, I wanted to jump next to eating and drinking in the scriptures and what that oftentimes represents. I'm going to make the point. Well, I'm trying to make the point that eating and drinking is often a sign of believing and internalizing God's word, and I want to establish that by going through both some Old Testament and New Testament examples. So if you wouldn't mind just kind of reading the Old Testament examples, for me, that'd be great.
Cory Reckner: 9:07
Sure. First one is Psalm 119, verse 103. How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth. And the second one is Ezekiel 3, verses 1 through 3. And he said to me, son of man, eat what you find, eat this scroll and go speak to the house of Israel. So I opened my mouth and he gave me this scroll to eat. And he said to me, son of man, feed your belly with this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it. Then I ate it and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey so I wanted to provide some new testament examples as well.
Zechariah Eshack: 9:55
In this whole episode I'm going to be quoting, quoting a lot. Yeah, just because I wanted to, um, make sure I did my due diligence on this, just because, um, it's such a heated and controversial topic between, um, a lot of different groups within.
Zechariah Eshack: 10:10
Christianity. Um, you know, the Lord's something that's meant to unify the Christian people and um, but I wanted to uh, just provide some context, um, for those people that are kind of see things in black and white, where it's either literal or it's just a memorial and there's no in between. So we'll get a little bit deeper into that and some you know, later on. But so the New Testament examples I wanted to provide were Hebrews 5, 13 through 14. It's reasoned. A lot of scholars maintain that it's Paul who wrote Hebrews, although they're not 100% certain. Arthur Pink actually has a really good introduction to the book of Hebrews as to why he believes it is indeed Paul. So this is Hebrews 5, 13 through 14.
Zechariah Eshack: 11:01
Quote you need milk, not solid food. For everyone who lives on, milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. John 4, 33 through 34. So the disciples said to one another has anyone brought him something to eat? Jesus said to them my food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work. So in those passages, in both the Old and New Testament. You can see how the Bible does very frequently reference food and drink to signify something else. Reference food and drink to signify something else, like in the book of Hebrews, for example, how you need milk, not solid food. You know it's in relation to, as I'm sure you're aware of, new believers who you know read the scriptures, but they might need just some of the basics to start and not to overwhelm them right away with more of the more of the difficult doctrines or more of the difficult sayings in scripture.
Cory Reckner: 12:10
Yeah, and it's also like you said, it's compared to food, which is interesting.
Cory Reckner: 12:14
We have a baby my wife and I do right now, and she's going to be one here in a couple of weeks and you know we've recently transitioned her over into, you know, starting to eat solid foods yeah so it is such an applicable thing to think of it in these terms, to think of like a newer believer, like a baby christian, so to speak, needing like really simple things at first, or just needing like the the really like, like the stuff that you actually need, right, like babies just need milk, you know yeah but then like transitioning into solid Like babies just need milk, you know, yeah, but then like transitioning into solid foods.
Cory Reckner: 12:48
That's where you start to, you know, work out more right, your jaw starts to actually like work out and you're starting to chew on things, you know, once your teeth develop and all that. So it's a really nice analogy here, because it's like you know, when you come to know the Lord, you are a brand new believer and you have this new spiritual life and you do need to start off. I don't want to say slow, but you need to really get the simple things first, yeah kind of a little bit more of the core, just fundamental beliefs.
Zechariah Eshack: 13:16
Yeah, yeah yeah, obviously, in Christianity. I think the Nicene Creed is great for that because it's a good summary statement of what the Christian religion believes. And I would say it's also a unifying creed because at its core, this is what we're saying about the Godhead. So, yeah, I think it's, like you said, definitely applicable to what we're talking about, definitely applicable to what we're talking about. So, yeah, definitely, eating and drinking in the scriptures are the internalization of God's word and spiritual growth, which this leads me to understanding when to reading the scripture passages, just so we don't make incorrect applications of the word. So I was trying to figure out what the term for this is, but I wanted to talk about I think it's funny that I just stumbled across this this morning but it's called inference to the best explanation. And now here's the definition from Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Inference to the best explanation is the procedure of choosing the hypothesis or theory that best explains the available data.
Zechariah Eshack: 14:39
The factors that make one explanation better than another may include argument. In my opinion doesn't really hold up when you examine it closer. Wanted to mention that for the sake of honesty and transparency. Obviously we have to admit that jesus christ could have been speaking. That like this is, literally and corporally, his body and blood, like you know what I mean, like that's. That thought has crossed my mind, as I'm sure it crossed your mind, and obviously from those people who have more of a literalist view, they hold to that position. You know, I'm sure that they've thought about, maybe in their heads it's possible that it might not be.
Zechariah Eshack: 15:31
So the question then becomes is there a reason to believe otherwise? Because the seven I am statements in the gospel of John uh use symbolic, metaphorical language to reveal spiritual truth and since the bread of life is included as the one of the seven I am statements, a person has to argue as to why this one out of the others is the exception, as an outlier, if you will. Um, so I'm holding and I'm taking the position that if a person, when you see the seven I am statements, and especially if we're going to focus on the bread of life discourse, that if it's going to be an outlier, you have to have a very good reason as to why, and I think the burden of proof is a the best explanation. The factors that make one explanation better than another may include depth, comprehensiveness, simplicity and unifying power. I think that focuses more on simplicity and also quote unifying power. Because of the cohesiveness it has with the six other IM statements. What are your thoughts on that? The cohesiveness it has with the six other I am statements. What are your?
Cory Reckner: 16:46
thoughts on that. I think that's super true and, like you had asked a little bit ago I don't want to get off subject here, but you had asked a little bit ago like when you read the passage where Jesus says unless you eat of my flesh or drink of my blood, you can't partake with me I want to say when I first started getting into reading the Bible and coming across passages like that, it's funny because maybe it's just how I'd automatically assumed Jesus was talking in reference to this already, like the inference. Like you said, yeah.
Cory Reckner: 17:25
But I never really like assumed Jesus was saying like you do need to eat my physical flesh, like I to me. It's just never popped in my head Like I think he really does want us to like you know, not to you know, for lack of better words become kind of cannibalistic here and just like, like, make us eat his holy flesh or something like that, right? Yeah.
Cory Reckner: 17:45
Um, I cause, you know, especially in John, like you gave the seven, I am statements in John, bread of life. It's like I'm like, oh, okay, when I first came across him, like Jesus is using like a metaphor here he's using this reference to like food, saying if you eat of me, you know you will have life. You know, and obviously the last supper, and you know the statements where Jesus is like unless you do this, you can't partake with me. Even then I'm like, okay, I don't.
Cory Reckner: 18:15
I personally had never thought like he really does want us to like assume this is like his actual flesh that we're eating or his blood that we're drinking, because to me it just doesn't make sense. I'm like I I don't know why jesus would say like you know, like love your enemies right and do these things that are not like old testament driven necessarily like eye for an eye and all that, but like pretend like you're eating my physical flesh here. You know, it almost kind of sounds somewhat out of character of God to be telling people to do something like this, especially because so many biblical passages, other biblical passages, say don't do these crazy things that people in the world do. Like something like that right. Yeah.
Cory Reckner: 19:02
So to me and that's just me, right that I'm I'm sure everybody out there interprets things somewhat differently sometimes with some of these passages.
Cory Reckner: 19:08
But, um, I know, like the Catholic church holds to the Eucharist, being very specific with this and saying, like the overall Catholic church, I should say I'm sorry for anybody listening.
Cory Reckner: 19:18
Um, that assumes I was just talking about you know, like umbrella terming Catholics here. But uh, I know the Catholic church at large does say, like the Eucharist, is this, like you know, powerful transaction happening every time you do communion, every time you do all this stuff, where you're like literally, like imagining that this is physical flesh, like it's becoming Christ's actual physical flesh and then Christ's actual physical blood, right, right, with all of those passages you just recited, I'm like there's just so much you know illustration going on and I love how you put those things together because it's like if you get to read through the Bible, especially the book of John, you'll see there's just so much illustration always happening and Jesus makes so many references and inferences to like the idea of food and drink and that's nourishment for people. But he's saying that like he is the food and drink you know, metaphorically, and then you're going to have life if you partake in that, as if you were to like, you know, like he's your meal. Quote, unquote, right.
Zechariah Eshack: 20:25
Yeah, so I think how it would be presented, maybe from a little bit more from a Roman Catholic standpoint, because they would read John 6 and the Bread of Life discourse and you know the passage where some of his followers said you know how can this man give us his flesh to?
Cory Reckner: 20:41
eat Right.
Zechariah Eshack: 20:43
And so, since it was a hard saying that's why they went away, it's because they didn't understand as protestants, obviously we agree with that that they they didn't understand, and so they would see it as we're the ones who are walking away from christ because, um, because we misunderstood. You know, he is talking literally. I mean, that's what they would hold.
Zechariah Eshack: 21:12
He's talking literally and that was too harsh for them and that you know he doesn't go.
Zechariah Eshack: 21:16
I think it might have.
Zechariah Eshack: 21:16
I'm trying to think if it was Brant Petrie or someone else I was watching someone, a Roman Catholic apologist, and they said that you know, if Christ had meant something else then he would have explained it further on.
Zechariah Eshack: 21:27
Well, I do think that it is kind of presented in John 6 where Jesus says you know, when he's kind of clarifying and he says the words I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life. Because if you go back to earlier, he says in order to have true eternal life, that you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. But then also, further down, he says the words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. So it's kind of interesting how you see the correlation there and we'll dive deeper into what Roman Catholics believe and obviously what the Reformed believe. We won't get too deep into some of the other traditions, but I did want to say at the outset that I've been seeing it online very frequently right now that it's an either-or, where it's either a memorial view, very empty figures, or it's transubstantiation those are the two categories you have.
Zechariah Eshack: 22:26
When you really look at it it's like the Orthodox and Anglican are kind of similar. It's the real presence but it's mystical. The Lutherans even though I don't think they like the term consubstantiation, that's what it's kind of formally known, I think, in history. But I think the Lutheran view has kind of evolved from that. So I think that Christ is in or with or along there with the bread and wine, almost like he's united himself to that, and obviously a Lutheran is going to be able to explain that view more clearly. It's not my. I'm not going to focus too heavily on that, because my purpose of this is to compare and contrast the two very I shouldn't say opposite, but the Reformed view and the Roman Catholic view.
Cory Reckner: 23:10
Yeah, yeah, and I know you and I are both not really like expert specialists in like every single denomination out there, right? So every denomination could hold this teaching, in particular of the Eucharist, especially, you know, under a certain light, and I like how you said that, though I think that's really good, and I guess my stance on anybody that does assume that Christ wants you to think literally of this physical flesh and physical blood. There's a good passage that you shared with me. Actually it's in the New Testament. It's Matthew 16, 11 and 12.
Cory Reckner: 23:49
And in this passage Jesus says he says how is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Right, he says beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And then the Bible says and then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Right, yeah, and a little sidebar, then we'll get back on track here. But I'm currently reading Corinthians right now. 1 Corinthians, yeah, and Paul quotes a passage where he says a little bit of leaven, I'm sorry, a little bit of yeast leavens, the whole lump of bread, right, but he's talking to these Corinthians who are listening to teaching from these bad teachers.
Cory Reckner: 24:40
That's a really good point actually, you know, yeah, so it's like he's literally saying, saying like, think of it this way, and you know, everybody's familiar with with grain and bread at this point, but like back then, like you know, like we're talking like primitive times where people were like kneading dough and and you know, like like farming, you know was very normal for most people, um, but to associate bread with like teaching would have been pretty common sense to people. Let's say, like you're hanging out with people and you've got a teacher and they're like, hey, that one guy in your group there, he's bad news man and he's going to like tell you guys and girls to do this certain stuff and if you're not careful it's going to spread and maybe all of you will start doing this stuff. He's like, and imagine it this way right, imagine if it's a lump of bread and you put just a little bit of yeast in there, right, it's just going to spread it, the whole lump of dough. Right, it's going to spread the whole lump of bread. So it's so associated with this like social idea.
Cory Reckner: 25:37
You know, and I think so much I love the examples you gave earlier where you're talking about like you know how do you pronounce it Metonymy, metonymy, metonymy, metonymy where you're referring to a person instead of this other person, but people would understand you're talking about that second person, or metaphor, where it's like it could be, like an example would be it's like this instead of this, right? So I think that we have to always consider when we check out these Bible passages, there could be a case where it's not completely taken literally, although it would make more sense to us at the time that it should be taken literally, right? Yeah.
Cory Reckner: 26:13
I think we just always have to remember that, because God's word is just so vast, and the more you study it, you're gonna learn so much more about some of the depth behind the background of it too. So yeah, I just wanna throw all that out there.
Zechariah Eshack: 26:23
No, I just want to throw all that out there. No, I like that. That's what Paul is speaking about, like you said in Corinthians, just about us being one bread, one loaf, and just about it Like obviously what you had said about it, kind of false teachers almost infecting the whole and kind of spreading throughout the bread, which would be, you know, the body of Christ, because obviously he compares the bread, the one loaf, to the body of Christ. So, yeah, I find that type of language just kind of fascinating that he uses that, because it makes a lot of sense when you put it in those terms, absolutely lot of sense when you put it in those terms.
Cory Reckner: 27:02
Absolutely.
Zechariah Eshack: 27:04
So this leads me to Augustine, you know, which is one of my favorite early church fathers. I mean, there's so much wisdom in his writings. So I came across this passage and you know I've recently there's been quite a few people who have referenced it because I think it's so important. There's Gavin Ortland, his YouTube channel, truth Unites, and then William Webster. He's another Protestant theologian, slash apologist. He's got a few books out.
Zechariah Eshack: 27:42
So this is Augustine's rule for interpretation. So he says, if the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or a vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, says Christ, and drink his blood. Ye have no life in you. This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice. It is therefore a figure enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that his flesh was wounded and crucified for us. So when people are asking you, where does Augustine ever reference the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist as figurative.
Zechariah Eshack: 28:37
I think that that's pretty clear. I mean to me it. You know, augustine is one of the ones that, like, even when you ask, like you ask AI, I've asked it to categorize the early church fathers and it's really cool how sometimes where they put one early church father may change depending on how you ask the question. It's really kind of interesting to see it because more often than not it puts Augustine in an ambiguous area. More often than not it puts Augustine in an ambiguous area not strictly literal, not necessarily strictly spiritual, but just kind of more ambiguous because he's a little bit harder to pin down on what he actually believes about this.
Zechariah Eshack: 29:21
But I think from that passage and another part on Christian doctrine which we will get into after this, I think will just further prove this point. So the scriptures use dramatic, hyperbolic language, metonymy oftentimes to prove a point, and I think that eat my flesh and drink my blood is no exception. So would you do me the favor, do me a favor and if you wouldn't mind, greeting John Calvin. This is Institutes from the Christian Religion, book 4, chapter 17, section 5, for me.
Cory Reckner: 29:51
Sure, the same thing happens with the sacraments, which are signs of God's promises. They are not in themselves the things signified, but they bring them to us by way of the metaphor. In this way, the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are not the body and blood of Christ themselves, but they signify the body and blood of Christ. Thus, when Christ commands us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, he does not bid us to do so in a carnal or material sense, but in a spiritual sense, as he teaches in John 6, 63. The sacrament is a sign of the thing signified and therefore is a metonym, that is, the sign stands for the thing it signifies. The bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ, not in substance, but in their function as symbols and means of grace.
Zechariah Eshack: 30:55
Yeah, that's what kind of was the first time I had actually kind of heard the language of metonym being used for John 6. Yeah. You know, I was reading just the Institutes of the Christian Religion, just that section on the Eucharist. Even though it's not super long, I thought it was super helpful. Yeah.
Zechariah Eshack: 31:17
Just because that type of language that you know. Like he says, the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ, not in substance, but in their function as symbols and means of grace. And that's when I was like, up until this point, I mean, I didn't even know what a, I didn't know what a metonym was. I mean it's not often.
Zechariah Eshack: 31:36
I mean, you hear like metaphor, symbol, hyperbole, those are things you kind of hear a little bit more frequently in our culture, but I don't. Synecdoche and metonyms are something I don't really hear referenced at all. Yeah same, I actually had to figure out how it was pronounced. I mean, I kind of took a guess on it.
Cory Reckner: 31:56
But when I was studying it.
Zechariah Eshack: 31:58
So this leads me back to Augustine on his work on Christian doctrine. This leads me back to Augustine on his work on Christian doctrine. This directly applies to what Calvin has said and kind of reinforces it. He says Now as to follow the letter and to take signs for the things that are signified by them is a mark of weakness and bondage passage. And I did like that because in his work I think he's he's explaining, you know, as I said earlier, just about when to take a passage, literal versus figurative. And then he even further goes on to say to take the signs for the things signified by them as a mark of weakness and bondage. And it's like to me that means that what he's saying is that if you interpret the sign for the actual thing it signifies, it's a mark of weakness and bondage.
Zechariah Eshack: 32:51
You're not truly understanding, because the whole purpose of a sign is to point to something. It's not to be that something necessarily, but it's to point to something Right. So I think that Augustine's view is just the bread and wine signify Christ's body and blood and that reducing their elements, I think of the Eucharist to just to kind of more materialism and the corporal presence. We're going to get into some of the difficulties that lie in that approach. Did you have anything you wanted to touch on in that Like? Have you heard any of this from Augustine?
Cory Reckner: 33:29
Not that I can remember.
Cory Reckner: 33:31
I've heard people say I've never heard it put that way Like it's weakness and bondage.
Cory Reckner: 33:38
Right, if you're mistaken, literal for metaphor, metaphor for literal I like that. I also would say that it reminds me of just sometimes, people growing and learning new things all the time, and what I mean by that is remember when Jesus taught the parable of the sower I think it was the parable of the sower, but the disciples afterwards were like, can you teach us what that means? Yeah, right, and then he did, and then he told them he's like you know, for those who I want to reveal this to, I will, but for the rest, everything's going to be kind of a big metaphor, right, it's just going to be this big illustration that you might not ever settle with, right, yeah, but with the disciples he did share the actual literal meaning of what he was talking about with that parable, and I like that because it shows that, like these were his students, you know he was the rabbi and he's like let me just give you a really illustrative idea of like the kingdom of God, you know, and spiritual growth and all this stuff, and I'm trying to imagine, like the disciples and their reaction. They're probably listening to this parable and they're like what, what do you talk? What is that? Yeah, sower Like who's who here, you know. Yeah.
Cory Reckner: 34:51
But then he's like, okay, I'll explain it to you. You know, have you ever had like a teacher who does that He'll like run through something, or she will run through something? And then after you're like, can you teach me that again or explain it a little bit more in depth? Right, and then they have to, otherwise, you know, you're just not going to get it To me. I feel like it can be weakness and bondage, but I also feel like it could be a part of your growth, part of your learning process.
Cory Reckner: 35:17
Learning process in your relationship with God, because there's a lot of stuff in our relationships with God where we think we kind of nail it at some point and then God will come to us and show us like it's incomplete, right.
Cory Reckner: 35:30
We have not reached that end zone yet with the understanding of that. I want to say for myself, the last couple of years a lot of that has happened, especially as I've kind of done like this little bit of independent Bible, studying biblical studies on my own, as we talked about a little bit ago. I kind of done like this little bit of independent Bible studying biblical studies on my own, as we talked about a little bit ago. I kind of dove into the Old Testament stuff a little bit more and kind of like exactly what we're talking about. I found that it is just so immense with metaphorical language, a lot of times symbolic language, especially with the prophets right, the prophets like Isaiah, sometimes Jeremiah and some of the minor prophets when they discuss things. It can just be this illustration of things you know and it's fascinating. It's cool.
Cory Reckner: 36:14
It's really cool because it shows that the Bible can't just be slimmed down to just one form of language. Right. You know. So I just wanted to show that. I thought that was cool. I'm sorry, I don't want to get off track, but I know we're talking about?
Zechariah Eshack: 36:24
No, you're not off track at all. Augustine's stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. The whole the disciples asking Christ to explain something. You know, because they even ask him. You know why do you speak to them in parables? Right and he says in seeing, they do not see, and in hearing, they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Zechariah Eshack: 36:42
He says but blessed are your eyes, for they see and blessed are your ears for they hear, and he even goes on to explain that, like the Pharisees, for example, that some of them, it was just their hardness of heart and that God, literally I mean he makes it sound like that God has the power to harden people's heart. I mean he makes it sound like that God has the power to harden people's heart. Going to Romans, paul thoroughly explains how Pharaoh, for example, god hardened his heart. It's a scriptural, biblical thing to reference and it's like God has that power, he has that authority, power. He has that authority and then to be able to open. Open up what's to be understood, or the true meaning of things. Um, sometimes it's. I mean, obviously, I think it's the holy spirit's work, kind of what you were saying and that that enlightening us. Um, you know, I know we've talked about matthew 16. Blessed are you, simon barjona, for flesh and blood hasn't revealed, revealed this to you, but my father, who is in heaven, yeah.
Zechariah Eshack: 37:46
So it's like you have that revelation, that revealing of the kingdom, of just that deep insight of the true meaning of the scriptures that takes place, and I think that for believers, I think it just when you mature, I think you start to understand more and more as the Holy Spirit reveals it to you.
Cory Reckner: 38:07
Yeah, 100%.
Zechariah Eshack: 38:09
So, before we touch on comparing and contrasting the Reformed view and the Roman Catholic view, and I wanted to touch on one last quote from an early church father, clement of Alexandria, in his work. The Instructor, so he says, noted the mystery of the bread in as much as he speaks of it as flesh. But since he said, the bread which I will give is my flesh, and since flesh is moistened with blood and blood is figuratively termed wine, thus in many ways the word is figuratively described as meat and flesh and food and bread, and blood and milk. The Lord is all of these to give enjoyment to us who have believed on him. Let no one think it's strange when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk, for is it not figuratively represented as wine?
Zechariah Eshack: 39:15
So here you have Clement of Alexandria. He expresses the many ways in which Christ and his word are figuratively represented in different forms as spiritual nourishment to our souls. And so, but I will say for some of the argumentation I see a little bit more online, coming more from an Orthodox or a Roman Catholic background, and it's not always the case. Some are obviously can be charitable, but you get a little bit of this where it's like the main purpose of their page or their Instagram page is to just kind of tear down another denomination Like that's like their whole premise and um, which I find more value, or appreciate people that it's a little bit more of like they talk about what they like about their own denomination.
Zechariah Eshack: 39:57
It's not just a hundred percent dissing another denomination. But I felt like this conversation, just because I I see it too readily assumed that you're a Protestant. You don't have any other early church fathers on your side. Early church history belongs to the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. They do not belong to the Protestants. That's the approach and that's what we're told. That's just how it is when we have to accept it. And it's like I definitely don't accept that because I've read some of the early church fathers and from a cursory, high level view, when you start to dive deeper into this stuff, you kind of see that, oh wait, some of what they believe is a little bit more complicated. It isn't just this black and white like. You know what I'm saying.
Cory Reckner: 40:42
Does that make sense? It does, yeah. Yeah, I think, and that's true of any I'd say any denomination. Even like if I've tried to dive into any historical belief of a denomination or anything, there's always something new to learn about them, right? Where they stand on things, really specific things too but also just why they came to that settlement, that conclusion in their belief structure Right. Right.
Cory Reckner: 41:08
And I think, yeah, that's that's true of even you know, non-christian religions too, like, like in Islam or something Right. It's like they landed on a certain point due to a certain reason.
Cory Reckner: 41:17
Um, and I think what we're talking about mostly is based upon scriptural context and, like the early forefathers, it's like why has this belief maybe continued on, right, like, why has it just been eradicated or disappeared over time through trial and error or, you know, through just you know, consideration among, maybe, sects of different belief structures in the Christian religion, like why is it still going, know, and yeah, I mean the forefathers especially? It's interesting to hear if people kind of justify that like maybe protestants aren't a part of the same household of faith as maybe, you know, let's say, strictly roman cath. It's like I think we're kind of getting a little too far beyond scriptural definition of what the household of faith actually is, you know. Yeah.
Cory Reckner: 42:11
So yeah, so that's. I want to comment on that. That's a good one.
Zechariah Eshack: 42:14
Yeah, yeah, I've definitely you know. I like you know, even though I don't always agree with these two guys, I like that they're a little bit more ecumenical. I'm not a universalist, but I am a little bit more.
Cory Reckner: 42:26
You're not. I thought you were landing there now, okay, oh, I'm sorry I'll have to leave now. Yeah, I'm just kidding.
Zechariah Eshack: 42:31
No, but I am a little bit more ecumenical in the sense that I try to be charitable and have respect for people of other denominations, people of other denominations, even though that can be challenging at times because when you feel like it's a little bit more of an attack on your beliefs, where I guess, when it comes to people that make that their primary focus and.
Zechariah Eshack: 42:52
I get a little bit too deep into the weeds with that and I, you know I try not to. I try not to engage or like argue on online just because it's so easy to it's easy to and it just it seems unhelpful because it's like I'm not going to convince anybody. Um, you know, I'm not going to convince anybody in an argument online, right of my position, especially if I'm nasty yeah so it's like for me, it's like I'd rather be.
Zechariah Eshack: 43:19
You know, try to do my my best about listening to others and their approach, but I also think too that when there's caricatures of our beliefs or you know, and a little bit more of very dismissive attitude, where, like I said, just a lot of belittling, and I tend to find that people that I meet in person typically, you know, you usually see the stuff from people that are just, you know, I think that anonymous Well, not just really anonymous, but like I feel like social media, like it has a way of of of highlighting and really propping up the people that are more go out of their way to be controversial go out of their way to be antagonistic because more people engage with it right yeah, I mean no one, they do they say you know, you put something out there.
Zechariah Eshack: 44:11
Say love your neighbor, you know. I don't think too many people are going to give you a hard time about that, but but there will probably be at least one.
Cory Reckner: 44:17
Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's gonna be some guy out there he's's like oh really, what do you mean by that? You know.
Zechariah Eshack: 44:22
Yeah, yeah. I think you get the overall premise. Yeah, yeah. It's kind of a fine line to walk because you want to do your due diligence to.
Cory Reckner: 44:35
Be decent, right Be decent Be civil, be civil, be organized. You don't want to like have these emotional outbursts on people that do not share the same identical beliefs that you do. Right, right.
Zechariah Eshack: 44:46
Okay, so now this leads us to, now that we've discussed a little bit more of the early church fathers, and, like the diverse views that are presented, I thought it would be helpful to kind of go into the Roman Catholic and Reformed view of the Eucharist.
Zechariah Eshack: 45:04
And so I wanted to start off with the Reformed perspective on the Eucharist, and this is going to be the Westminster Confession of Faith Worthy receivers outwardly partaking of the visible elements and crucified in all benefits of his death, the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with or under the bread and wine, yet as really but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. So, from a Reformed or Calvinistic standpoint, there's an emphasis on spiritual, real presence, you know, and not corporally or physical, and we'll get into the reason as to why in a little bit. It does hold that the bread and wine are symbols and that there's like the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. I've learned a little bit more about that recently, um, just because it it points to like a spiritual reality. Okay.
Zechariah Eshack: 46:04
So same thing with baptism. So this position seems to be somewhat closely aligned with Ambrose Augustine in his later works Origen and Athanasius. So the early church fathers didn't all agree. Sometimes they're at variance even with themselves, even as John Calvin notes in the Institutes. So it's like they didn't always agree with each other. Nor did they. If they're at variance with themselves, sometimes they change their views. I wanted to see if you could read for me this is jumping to the Roman Catholic perspective on the Eucharist. So this is Catechism of the Catholic Church, part two, the celebration of the Catholic Church. Part two, the Celebration of the Christian Mystery. Article three, the Sacrament of the Eucharist. And this is section 1374, if you wouldn't mind reading it for me.
Cory Reckner: 46:51
Yeah, the mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist, above all the sacraments, as the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all sacraments tend. In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, is truly, really and substantially contained. This presence is called, in quotes, real, by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence, as if they could not be real too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense, that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, god and man makes himself holy and entirely present.
Zechariah Eshack: 47:48
I did like how they mentioned that this presence is called real, by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence, as if they could not be real too. Yeah, I think it's good that they noted that. I appreciate that type of language because obviously, from the Reformed perspective, they believe in more of like a spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or at least the fact that Christ's body and blood are present to the faith of believers. So the spiritual eating, the spiritual nourishment is the eating is spiritual, it's a spiritual eating rather than a corporal eating of the actual literal.
Zechariah Eshack: 48:28
So it's like the mode is what we're discussing so spiritual is no less real, it's just. I guess it's the way the Holy Spirit communicates the body and blood to us in a spiritual way rather than it being, you know, from a Catholic perspective, like it says in the catechism here it says that in the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity. So body, blood, soul, divinity, they're all there. Obviously, the wine and wafer appear to be there, but that's the accidents. But that's not truly what it is. They're no longer there, but Christ's body and blood and soul and divinity are there.
Cory Reckner: 49:09
Yeah, it says he's substantially contained.
Zechariah Eshack: 49:13
Is that what it says?
Cory Reckner: 49:14
Yeah, in the middle there. It says in the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, is truly, really and substantially contained.
Zechariah Eshack: 49:29
Yeah, I think what's good about this definition, or the fact that they have a definition? I think it's a lot easier. You know, it's still a little complex, but I think it's a little bit easier to have disagreements and discussions when there's a formal definition laid down.
Cory Reckner: 49:47
It's like mapped out for you yeah, you can see what, what the the whole reasoning is.
Zechariah Eshack: 49:52
Yeah, yeah so, like anglicanism and, like I said, orthodoxy, not like, not that they have a bunch in common, but I would say that when it comes to the eucharist, they're a little bit more, have a little bit more in common from my understanding, just because they both approach it, that the Eucharist, that they believe in the Christ's real presence, but it's more of a mystery you know, it's a mystical sense, so they don't bother to elaborate how that is actually done With Roman Catholicism.
Zechariah Eshack: 50:18
They have explained. This is what we think actually happens, and so I think it's important to note that the concepts of transubstantiation, where the bread and wine are changed in substance into the actual body and blood of Christ, though the accidents or the appearance of bread and wine remain. So I think that that's really interesting. So it looks like, for this view, some of the early church fathers that are notable that would have kind of held more to a literal presence, even though obviously the who knows how much they would agree or disagree with the concept of transubstantiation, which, the way it's presented by the Roman Catholic Church, it looks like Irenaeus, cyprian and Ambrose affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Zechariah Eshack: 51:14
Even though that the precise vocabulary wasn't present, it seemed like their views more closely aligned with the literalist view. So it was the fourth ladder in Council in 1215 that formally defined transubstantiation, and then it was reinforced later on down the road between 1545 and 1563 at the Council of Trent. So it's like here you don't have a definitive statement about the Lord's Supper and the way in which transubstantiation is until 1215. So that's a whole you know over a thousand years after Christ. So it's like you got to think there was a lot of different views in the early church and in the Middle Ages. Right.
Zechariah Eshack: 51:51
I think that people would like to just see it as black and white. It was an either or, and that all the early church fathers held to a literalist view. But I think any historian or apologist in my opinion who's honest, I think has to admit that it's simply not that straightforward as history often isn't yeah right, right, even 100 years.
Cory Reckner: 52:17
like how much variety within a belief structure could there be within 100 years? You multiply that by 10. You've got 10 times the amount of variety you know.
Zechariah Eshack: 52:26
Yeah, yeah, I was listening to um. I've read the book, but I was listening to Keith Matheson, who I think has a very helpful book. It's like 90 pages maybe, but his book is on the Lord's supper. He's explaining, uh, common questions and answers, um, but in a he mentions how Cyprian was the first one to actually use language, of the Eucharist being a quote, unquote sacrifice. So I think that that in and of itself a sacrifice or sacrificial language being used, because obviously, from a reform view, you understand that Christ was a sacrifice and that you know he was the lamb. He's both the lamb and the priest at the same time. Um, so we'll get a little bit into that.
Zechariah Eshack: 53:11
So this leads me to the position I'm going to hold, that Christ's presence is spiritual and not physical. So this is a warning from Christ in Matthew 24, verses 23 through 24. He says so. Those who hold to like a literal, corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, who knows, you know, maybe this is unfair, but it does seem to me that they're saying look, here's the Christ body, blood, soul, divinity. He is there. So the question then becomes should we believe them, since Christ himself is explicitly warning us to be wary of people making that claim. So, but the question is is how can the scripture speak about Christ being both with us and not with us? And I think this is where a couple passages I think are helpful. So Matthew 28, 20, it says teaching them to observe all that. I commanded you and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.
Cory Reckner: 54:32
And then do you mind reading John 16, 7, and then Matthew 26, 11 for me? Sure, john 16, 7. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you. Then Matthew 26, 11, for you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.
Zechariah Eshack: 54:54
Yeah, I thought those were good passages and relevant to bring up. Yeah, so Christ is both speaking in these passages that he's with us you know he remains with us and then also that he is not with us, not here, not here yeah.
Zechariah Eshack: 55:12
So I think that that's really cool to think about, because I could see that someone who is non-Christian being like well, this sounds like a blatant contradiction. How can we reconcile these two things? He's saying he's always with us and then he said it's to your benefit that I go away. So I think that that's the importance of the ascension of Christ, because obviously we have the incarnation that proves that he's human both equally. Became man yeah.
Zechariah Eshack: 55:39
Son of man and equally son of God. So we're going to try to figure out how that plays out. So this leads us to talking about the Chalcedonian definition and then also about the communication of attributes. Do you mind reading the Chalcedonian definition? For me, yeah.
Cory Reckner: 55:59
One in the same Christ, son, lord only begotten. Acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly I've never said that word in my life Acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably, the difference of the natures being in no way removed because of the union of the natures being in no way removed because of the union, but rather the properties of each nature being preserved and, in parentheses, both concurring into one person and one. Hypostasis. Hypostasis, I think that's how you pronounce it not as though he was parted or divided into two persons, but one and the self, same son and only begotten. God word, lord Jesus Christ, even as, from the beginning, the prophets have taught concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself hath taught us and as the symbol of the fathers hath handed down to us.
Zechariah Eshack: 57:05
Yeah, that's great. So have you read that before? I don't think so. You don't think so, I think I went over it with Zach Hum in one of our episodes about the Son of man.
Cory Reckner: 57:13
Okay, nice, nice.
Zechariah Eshack: 57:15
So basically, what I wanted to touch on, in that the Chastodonian definition kind of gives us these guardrails, kind of gives us these guardrails Helping us to avoid error or even, potentially, heresy, is what I think it's laying down, because it's trying to explain how the two natures interact. You know, the two natures being how he's both equally son of God and son of man. How can he both be God and man at the same time?
Cory Reckner: 57:42
That can be really confusing and a lot to wrap your head around. It is yeah.
Zechariah Eshack: 57:46
But I do think it's helpful that it says that the two natures are unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.
Zechariah Eshack: 57:54
The difference of the nature is being in no way removed because of the union, but rather the properties of each nature being preserved, but rather the properties of each nature being preserved, and I think that that's going to be really important in the next area that we're going to cover. So the communication of attributes or the communication of properties. So it is a Christological concept about the interaction of deity and humanity in the person of Christ. It maintains, in the view of the unity of Christ's person, his human and divine attributes and experiences might properly be referred to his other nature, so that the theologian may speak of quote unquote the suffering of God. So I think that the way in which we can look at this because, as we know, christ hungered, he thirsted, he got tired, you know a lot of these human traits that, like some of them, of which obviously we cannot ascribe to God in his divinity Like we can say that God died on the cross because he did in the person of Jesus Christ.
Zechariah Eshack: 58:58
But, as we know, divinity itself doesn't die because it's everlasting, it's immortal. So you can properly say, I think that this is why we can say, as Christians, that Mary is the mother of God, because she is, because she gave birth to Jesus Christ, obviously, and the Son of man was united to his divinity, although it's not to be confused that she had anything to do with his divinity, and I think that that's where people get a little bit tripped up. So, jc Ryle, I came across this passage listening a long time ago to John MacArthur, who I'm not a big fan of actually.
Zechariah Eshack: 59:34
So this is kind of a shortened part of it. So JC Ryle mentions if the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same time, it is not a body like our own. And then Jesus was not the last Adam in the truth of our nature. I did have to read that a couple times. Yeah, it took me a second.
Cory Reckner: 59:54
Yeah, I might have to read it again.
Zechariah Eshack: 59:55
Yeah, I'll read it for you yeah, go ahead. Yeah, if the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same time, it and Mary can be in more places than one at the same time. It is not a body like our own and Jesus was not the last Adam in the truth of our nature.
Cory Reckner: 1:00:08
Okay, that makes more sense now Okay.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:00:10
Yeah, how I view it is. What he's saying is that for Christ's body to have ubiquity or omnipresence because omnipresence is an attribute of divinity- Sure.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:00:25
So, but the body of Christ, if you think about it in the Chalcedonian definition, both natures, they are preserved, meaning that Christ's body is preserved in its human nature, not to be confused or mixed with his divinity. So this isn't something new, like they're two blendings. Both natures are preserved here. So, as we know, the incarnation. So this speaks to the truth of him having a real physical body. And a real physical body cannot be in more than one place at the same time.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:01:02
So that's why it is argued that those people that hold to a corporal or literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, his body, the body of Christ, cannot be in it does not have ubiquity, does not have omnipresence, when the scriptures speak about Christ's ascension, and that he's seated at the right hand of the Father. This is why his divinity is with us. Like you know how, like he says you know, I am always with you, even into the end of the age. I think, with that being said, like JC, Ryle is trying to emphasize the humanity of Christ, because if you take away um his humanity and give it on the presence, then it's no longer humanity. The properties of his human nature are taken away.
Cory Reckner: 1:01:46
I see what you're saying. Yeah, so if you split his human body into all over the place to be in more place than one, then it's no longer human.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:01:56
Yeah, it's denying his humanity in a way.
Cory Reckner: 1:01:59
Yeah, that makes sense, then Okay.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:02:02
I could see how that right there can be really difficult because you have a Christological problem here, One I think is really downplayed by people that hold this view, Because I think it's a serious thing, because it's like once you start going against the Chalcedonian definition, I think you can potentially run into error here.
Cory Reckner: 1:02:25
So yeah, it also makes me think, as you were talking about just the spiritual implications as well, of, you know, like the Eucharist and participating in the body and blood. We read a passage a little bit ago where Jesus said unless I go, I can't send a helper. Yeah. Right and he's like so. Therefore it's better that I go, and I think that's interesting. I've always found that passage to be very like encouraging. Yeah.
Cory Reckner: 1:02:55
In a weird way almost Hear me out here Because Jesus is a man, but we also believe that he is God Jesus. When he came down to the planet, he could only be in one place at a time, like all of us, like as humans, and I love how this passage he's like. But if I go, I can send this helper right and we believe the helper to be the Holy Spirit. Right.
Cory Reckner: 1:03:21
Right. And then there's passages that talk about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So I love that whole idea because Jesus is like if I don't go, we can't go to the next stage of this God with human relationship here, and that is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who will come once I leave, right. And then we see that in the book of Acts, right, pentecost, day of Pentecost. So I think that's really cool because Jesus is even saying me being a man, being at one place at one time, I'm gonna go, but then we're gonna get a little bit more universal here with the Church and send the Holy Spirit so that the Holy Spirit can indwell the believers right, the believers of God.
Cory Reckner: 1:04:01
So therefore there is already a spiritual happening going on between the Holy Spirit, you know, indwelling believers now in the church, jesus still being a man, but also God, yeah. And so therefore it's like okay, so there is always spiritual stuff happening inside of the people of God and I just feel like to me that's that's really important to remember, because that means that you know, the Holy Spirit indwells us and he's working in us and he's, you know, according to the Bible, he's making us more into like Christ, but Christ is still that man right, that resurrected, while he's God, but like the Holy Spirit's everywhere you know. So it's like the implications I'm getting at here. I don't want to make this too confusing. I feel like I'm kind of talking a little bit.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:04:50
No, no, I don't think you're making it too confusing, Okay cool.
Cory Reckner: 1:04:52
So, like the idea here is, we have this Holy Spirit who can indwell into everybody, right? But, Jesus is still that individual man who is now glorified and he's resurrected and he's still God. But the Holy Spirit works differently than Jesus, you know. So it's like there's two different members of the Trinity that are operating differently still you know, but they're still intertwined because they're part of the Trinity, you know.
Cory Reckner: 1:05:19
So to me that's cool, because it's like the physicality of Christ is separate from us right now, but the spiritual side of the Trinity is indwelling us. Yeah. So there will be a spiritual thing that's always happening every time we interact with God, no matter what you know, Right? So I hope that kind of makes more sense with what I was trying to get at there.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:05:37
Yeah, right, so I hope that kind of makes more sense with what I was trying to get at there. Yeah, it does. I think that the Holy Spirit, the helper, since we are the body of Christ, it's like the Holy Spirit unites us to the body of Christ the head in heaven.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:05:51
Because Christ says I go to prepare a place for you and that's why he leaves. And then obviously he does his mediatorial work there in heaven after making his one sacrifice. That was sufficient. And then it's like he enters the Holy of Holies and then he makes intercession for us and obviously I think that we could probably try to unpack that. I think that there might be a lot there.
Cory Reckner: 1:06:19
Yeah, another subject another time. Yeah, another subject another time Exactly. Yeah, we'll stay on topic. But yeah, I just think that's cool because, like I said, in identifying the relation between what we're doing here, like, let's say, like the Eucharist, right, yeah.
Cory Reckner: 1:06:32
It's always going to have somewhat of a spiritual impact and if we're devoting it to Christ, it's like we are trying to devote it to Christ, but like the difference in, maybe, belief systems. Here is what's actually going on Like is it becoming, like you said, a corp, a corporal thing, a physical thing, or is it going to be an empowering spiritual thing? Right? Right. Tying it more to the Holy Spirit and his activity connecting us with God.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:06:59
So yeah, yeah, as Christ says. You know, the Spirit gives life.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:07:02
Yeah exactly In John 6. So I know there's a lot there because with the Eucharist, for example, there's the idea of the representation of Christ in the Eucharist according to Roman Catholicism and obviously it's perceived by some from the Protestant side that that is a re-sacrifice of Christ. Like BB Warfield, for example, he holds that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice, it is a participation in that one sacrifice. It's a sacrificial meal but obviously from a Roman Catholic perspective it is a sacrifice each time it's carried out. Now I think in terms of like, if they were to leave it at, you know that it was a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, I think I would be okay with that type of language. But obviously according to them it's a propitiatory sacrifice but it's an unbloody one. But I think you run into a little bit of difficulty there, because it's supposed to be one in the same sacrifice, but they say the mass or the Eucharist is a sacrifice itself. So there's a little bit of verbal judo that has to be done, I think, because so are you saying? At one hand they're saying it's one sacrifice, on the other hand it's saying it's these are an unbloody sacrifice. But as we know, without the shedding of blood, according to Hebrews, there is no forgiveness of sin, so it has to be a bloody sacrifice. So I think that that's where you run into a little bit of it of an issue.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:08:32
But before we kind of briefly touch on that, so this is going to be St Athanasius.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:08:37
He says on that, so this is going to be St Athanasius.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:08:42
He says the reason for his mention, talking about Christ into heaven, of the Son of man, was in order to draw them away from the material notion that thenceforth they might learn that the flesh he spoke of was heavenly food from above and spiritual nourishment from him. For he says, what I have spoken to you is spirit and life, which is as much to say what is displayed and given to the world salvation, or for the world salvation, is the flesh which I wear. But this flesh and its blood will be given to you by me spiritually as nourishment, so that this may be bestowed spiritually on each and may become for individuals a safeguard to ensure the resurrection to eternal life. Nice, so I thought it was relevant to kind of bring in, you know, some of what the early church fathers say, because I don't think it should be underestimated the spiritual connotations of the Eucharist and what it does which you know, I don't think I fully, obviously understand um, but I think it's worth noting that there are other ways.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:09:42
That's not just this whole, just memorialism, kind of empty symbols versus the literalist view. You see what I mean there's a little bit of more of a nuance and a little bit more.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:09:57
yeah, I think it can be both figurative and I also think it can be spiritual nourishment, and I think it's. It's unification of the body of Christ as believers, both um horizontally, and then obviously the vertical aspect to it, the connection and union with Christ, right Um. So there's a lot going on there. I think that can't be summed up easily. So, going back to what I had said about the Eucharist, and obviously it's a celebration of that once-for-all sacrifice of Christ and then obviously, once he's made that sacrifice, he goes to prepare a place for us and makes intercession for us to the father. So Hebrews 10, 14 says for by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. So I thought that that was kind of a good passage to end on. Was there any other thing that you will kind of wanted to touch on, or any anything that doesn't add up to you or anything that you wanted to kind of wanted to touch on or any anything that doesn't add up to you or anything that you wanted to kind of reflect on?
Cory Reckner: 1:11:02
Um, I would say just, I always think of this with myself, like not to sound selfish, but, um, cause you had mentioned, you know, the one-time substitutionary atonement for sin, versus, like this repetitive substitutionary atonement because of what we might be able to do Right, like, let's say, you miss communion or mass one day. Well, if, if your belief is that you have to participate in that in order to stay atoned for it'd be really easy to, you know, fall into danger pretty quickly because something could come up and you might miss it, you know. But I've found comfort in recognizing that, yes, I'm a sinner. Because of my sin, whether it's what I will do now or what I have done, I do need a Savior to make me right with God, and to recognize Christ as being the one who has connected me to God is really life-changing. So for anybody that's out there listening, you know, so for anybody that's out there listening, if you think that you need to keep making yourself right with God and you don't believe Jesus did that one time, for all substitutionary atonement, I would say you're going to exhaust yourself because I think it's impossible to keep up with that chore list honestly, and I've come to find out with my relationship with God that Jesus is very real.
Cory Reckner: 1:12:41
I've prayed to him so many times and I've seen things happen because of my prayer, life with him. Holy Spirit's real, god the Father's real, the Trinity I believe is truly, 100% real. And the more I interact with the Trinity through Christ, by the Holy Spirit's power and God the Father's providence, I've just seen a real nice life change happen. And I'm all about people being able to grow into the Lord. And the one thing I hate I guess I just kind of hate this about life in general is I hate seeing people get bullied. You know, I don't like people getting bullied at all. I think it's not great, you know. Yeah, I never liked getting bullied you know in school and stuff.
Cory Reckner: 1:13:20
So I'm sure most people really don't like it, unless you're kind of crazy.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:13:23
Unless you are the bully, then you're not going to like it. Yeah, that's a problem. Please go to counseling?
Cory Reckner: 1:13:28
No, I'm just kidding. So I think recognizing that you can have confidence in that one-time substitutionary atonement for Christ is going to relieve a lot of weight off your shoulders and your job, from this point, moving forward, based off of what Christ taught, is to continue to have faith, to continue to seek him, whatever that looks like for you. Sure, you know, but it's the most important thing. Yeah.
Cory Reckner: 1:13:56
And I would say even with, like, the Eucharist and mass and all that cause. I have friends who are Catholic. I have, you know, family that are Catholic and they're very devoted and lovely people too, but they're very committed to making sure that that is a normal practice in their life, which you know. They're just expressing their faith that way, I would say, just to make your life easier, right, I would say just to make your life easier, right. Worry about your connection with Christ through prayer more than anything else, through scripture reading more than anything else. Not a traditional thing, not a teacher teaching you stuff, maybe not even us, right, it's just your relationship with Jesus Christ, mainly through prayer and scriptural teachings and the belief in that substitutionary atonement, through that one-time sacrifice.
Cory Reckner: 1:14:42
To me that's very important because, I feel like if you are trying to continue to have that substitutionary sacrifice repeated over and over again, you're never going to be completely 100% right.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:14:57
You're never going to be completely taken care of. I think it's almost like the, you know, maybe there's an acknowledgement of the one-time sacrifice of Christ, obviously, and His atonement, but it almost seems like, I guess, what it could be perceived as is that the application of it is, since we're finite beings and we continue to sin, that we would need the application of that forgiveness over and over again, repetitively yeah, in which in which we do, I think, by christ, I think that he, you know, for I think he, I think he forgives us and continues to forgive us, um, but I also think, in a real sense, obviously we are forgiven as a whole yeah
Zechariah Eshack: 1:15:37
and I think that that's where like justification comes in, because I mean the, and I think that that's where like justification comes in, Cause I mean the scriptures talk about that it's God himself that justifies the ungodly. And then, and I think in Romans eight, I think near the end, it talks about how, um, if God, who justifies, who is he? Who can, who can condemn? I think that those are really so. I think what we're seeking as Christians oftentimes is, um, just that peace with God. Right, I think what we're seeking as Christians oftentimes is just that peace with God. I think that that's really what it's about, because I think different Christian denominations do it in different ways. But I think in the Reformed view it's a little bit more of like that one-time atonement on the cross, and we still doubt because we're human, and you know, we still doubt because we're human. But I think that when we focus a little bit more of like if Christ says that we are forgiven, it's like who are we to undermine that? And doubt him.
Cory Reckner: 1:16:27
Sure, you know what I? Mean.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:16:28
Like how can we doubt his, I guess his word in that Like because does that kind of make sense?
Cory Reckner: 1:16:35
It really does, because does that kind of make sense? It really does. And to add on to that, because I think that's great, I would also say, like you said, because I like how you phrased that you said, you know, just putting more emphasis on the most important thing, and that is that once you are born again, you are forgiven, right, you just are. Yeah.
Cory Reckner: 1:16:56
Jesus did an eternal sacrifice by that cross and it was awful, it was one of the worst things anybody could ever imagine going through just for the for all of us right to be redeemed to god, um, so I think that was really well said and I would also just say, like I kind of emphasized a little bit ago, to scripture, scripture, scripture, scripture, scripture is a mountain to climb and it's very difficult to get through sometimes, but it is the most rewarding thing you could do once you actually finally start diving into it and, like I'd mentioned earlier, to help settle a lot of confusion which I think sometimes comes, because it comes about because of man and tradition and teachings and all that.
Cory Reckner: 1:17:36
I think scripture always kind of outweighs all man and and tradition and teachings and all that. I think scripture always kind of outweighs all of that. And you're going to learn more just from even hopping into the Bible and studying it, doing deep diving studies, um, and that'll take care of you more than like sometimes learning like what a tradition says about a scripture passage sometimes. And what I mean by that is, like I told you earlier today, I got you know, the past couple of years have been kind of an Old Testament focus for me and that thing is just a giant right. The Old.
Cory Reckner: 1:18:05
Testament is one of the biggest beasts you'll ever come across when it comes to like length and depth and metaphorical meaning and all that stuff.
Cory Reckner: 1:18:13
But the more I get into it, the more I feel like I just learned some of the coolest stuff ever, and the New Testament is just making so much more sense to me now.
Cory Reckner: 1:18:21
You know there are times where, like I will get into an Old Testament passage you know that maybe I'd read once in my life and now I'm like I'm reading through it and I'm like, oh, this is like exactly what Jesus taught, right, and never saw it ever before in my life. And then by the time I get to the New Testament it makes more sense. I'm like, oh, this is why he's pretty much reemphasizing this teaching or this idea again. So I think it's really important that kind of systematically we do get into the entire Bible. Like I said, it's a very hard thing to do and it's very challenging, but it's the most rewarding thing you can do. Honestly is the most rewarding thing you can do honestly. So I think that that's going to help when it comes to some of these confusing ideas like whether a passage should be interpreted literally or metaphorically or you know, whatever have you? Yeah.
Cory Reckner: 1:19:06
But it is one of the best ways you can become more discerning, more, I should say, aware of some of the possibilities of what a teaching could be, you know, implicating sometimes.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:19:18
So, yeah, just want to add that, no, that's great. I think too, what you said kind of made me think of something else, about like going to the hyperbole aspect of it. It's just like you said, you know, understand they want to take a passage literally versus figuratively, and you can run into some serious complications or serious problems if you misinterpret. Because, for example, you know Jesus says if you know your right eye causes you to sin, cut it out. So I don't think he's advocating for self-mutilation.
Cory Reckner: 1:19:50
A bunch of one-eyed Christians. Yeah, yeah, but to literally.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:19:54
you know, obviously your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. You know that whole statement it's like, well, if we were to take that literally, that could be a problem, because he's talking about the seriousness of sin and cutting out those things that cause you to have temptation. Or, you know, he who does not hate his father and mother is not worthy of me At face value. If you take that literally, jesus is saying to hate your father and mother.
Zechariah Eshack: 1:20:19
This is where Augustine's role for interpretation really comes into handy, because it seems to enjoin a crime or vice. So I think what he's saying is there is that basically, it should mean love less, that you should love God and you should love Christ the most, and obviously they should not hold the place of God. You know what I mean. You shouldn't treat them in such a way. That should be reserved for God, I guess. But anyway, yeah, thanks for coming on. I really appreciate you unpacking this with me. It's been a very fun topic. I mean, hopefully we've been charitable to those who disagree with us and we love talking about theology. But, yeah, thanks again for coming on, corey, and I'll see you next time.
Cory Reckner: 1:21:03
Yeah, it's my pleasure, brother, Thank you.
