It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. —Gospel of John, chapter six
The Spirit hath done much for our salvation, by means of the flesh. —St. Augustine
In the words of His disciples, Jesus’ teaching in the Bread of Life discourse is “a hard saying; who can hear it?” In this passage of the Gospel of John, we find Jesus repeatedly insisting that His followers eat His flesh and drink His blood, lest they have no life in Him. What could this possibly mean?
In an effort to ease the force of this strange command, one possible response is to cite the verse above. After Jesus claims that His followers must eat His flesh, He goes on to tell them that the flesh profiteth nothing. Thus, in His previous words about eating His flesh, surely Jesus must have been speaking figuratively. Crisis averted.
Not so fast, interjects St. Augustine: “Join the spirit to the flesh, and it profiteth much: for if the flesh profited not, the Word would not have become flesh, and dwelt among us. The Spirit hath done much for our salvation, by means of the flesh.” Augustine argues that when Jesus states that the “flesh profiteth nothing,” surely He must be referring to His flesh as considered apart from His spirit (“a carcass that was to be cut up and sold in the shambles, not of a body animated by the spirit”). Indeed, had Jesus been insisting that His followers eat His lifeless corpse, such a thing would be profitless. On the contrary, Augustine points out, Jesus was insisting that His followers eat of His living flesh. Of course, the logic behind Augustine’s interpretation is that if Christ had meant that His living flesh profited nothing, then His Incarnation itself would be rendered profitless. And Christmas would be meaningless. For what is the Incarnation if not a resounding affirmation of the profit which the flesh can indeed bring?
We are left then with an inkling of why Jesus would ask His followers to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Somehow the Christmas mystery is involved. As St. Hilary explains, “This then is our principle of life. While we are in the flesh, Christ dwelleth in us by His flesh. And we shall live by Him, according as He liveth.” Christ wants to indwell His followers completely. This entails not only a spiritual indwelling—Christ’s spirit dwelling in our soul—but a physical one. Because we are embodied creatures, Christ also wants His flesh to indwell our flesh. “The Word,” Augustine writes, “being the principle of life in all things, having taken up soul and body, cleanseth the souls and bodies of those who believe.”
Thus, the Eucharist is the completion of the Christmas mystery. We humans are made of body, blood, and soul. The Word became flesh and then sought—indeed, seeks—to indwell us body, blood, and soul—and divinity.
And this last Reality of His indwelling is the reason why Christ’s flesh is no ordinary flesh. As Blessed Theophylact writes, “For it is not the flesh of man simply, but of God: and it makes man divine, by inebriating him, as it were, with divinity.” This call—that of theosis—is indeed the essence of the Christmas spirit.
December 22nd, 2009 | 6:13 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by First Things, Chris v C-B. Chris v C-B said: Night night, all. I'll leave you with this brilliant commentary on Christmas as the Church Fathers saw it: http://bit.ly/6C4RB0 [...]
December 23rd, 2009 | 9:16 am
“And this last Reality of His indwelling is the reason why Christ’s flesh is no ordinary flesh. As Blessed Theophylact writes, “For it is not the flesh of man simply, but of God: and it makes man divine, by inebriating him, as it were, with divinity.” This call—that of theosis—is indeed the essence of the Christmas spirit.”
Indeed!
“For He was made man that we might be made God; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality.”
Dear Penal Substitution,
You suck.
Sincerely yours,
Blessed Theophylac,
St. Athanasius,
and most eveybody else as well
December 23rd, 2009 | 11:20 am
One need not jump to St Augustine….the Gospel of John itself has the answer to this relatively recent ‘confusion’ as to what Jesus meant.
First with Nicodemus and then with the woman at the well, Jesus said provocative things, had them MISinterpreted by the above, and then corrected them. Finally in John 6 he preaches to all his followers about eating his flesh. They ask how this can be and instead of explaining it away, he doubles down.
Unlike with Nicodemus or the woman, he does not say “My word is flesh” or “eating me means listening to my words” or some similar stretch. Instead he says his flesh is real food, real drink.
At the last supper he takes real food, real drink, says the blessing, and says “this is my body….my blood”.
With the two on the road to Emmaus he says the blessing, hands them the bread and vanishes. What was that bread then? Just bread?
I’ve never understoon why any Christian would accept the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, specifically the ‘hypostatic union’….but then baulk at the concept of Transubstantiation. If we accept that God unites his divine nature to human nature via the person of His Son…. and we accept that God is “ipsum esse subsistens”, the I am who am…. that is, being himself…. how is it ‘impossible’ or even unlikely that the Incarnate God could or would offer his body to us under the appearance of bread and wine?
Have we learned nothing from the Old Testament theophanies? From the allusions of God as Israel’s King and shepherd but also Lamb? To disbelieve the Eucharist is to doubt God’s power and closeness to us.
It’s to disbelieve that reality is not primarily perceptible (don’t we recite in the Creed “seen and unseen”?) but includes the conceptual…and that as far as conceptions go, “In the Beginning” before any THING was, the “spirit hovered over the waters”… i.e. that Spirit is primary in the order of being.
You look at a host and see nothing but bread. If you had lived with Jesus you would have seen nothing but a man. The skeptic (or fool) would have seen the theophanies of the Old Testament and perceived “only” natural phenomena. But wait, aren’t we to have faith? Aren’t humans distinct from animals precisely because of our CONCEPTUAL knowledge and not mere perceptions? That is, we can infallibly know the truth of something without seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting it. Like the reality of gravity or the heliocentric dance of the Earth.
The man who raised the dead, calmed the storm, walked on water, multiplied (ex nihilo) bread and fish to feed a crowd, also said “believe and you will be saved”. And Protestants say his other words “my flesh is real food….take and eat this is my flesh…” is impossible? For mere flesh, yes. But not for the spirit, but that’s the point isn’t it?
St John tells us that Jesus was truly a man…but also that he is God. Jesus’ flesh was real human flesh…he suffered and died and rose. But also that His words were from the Father, that he was the ‘finger of God’, the Kingdom come in flesh (for where ever the King is, there is the Kingdom).
Ponder in what way Jesus was man and yet God and you’ll understand in what way he can say “this is my body…this is my blood” and make it be so.
When we get down to it, is not disbelief in the Eucharist the beginning of materialism and metaphysical skepticism? I.e. the a priori that reality is only physical or that “spirit” is allegory, allusion, symbolic and not Being itself?
December 23rd, 2009 | 2:36 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by ROFTERS: The Fathers on Christmas and the Eucharist http://bit.ly/6C4RB0...
January 27th, 2010 | 12:03 pm
[...] we have a Buddhist and an Islamic perspective on Christmas while John Lee looks at the celebration according to early Church Fathers and Will examines the Magi as Kings in [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact