Home

Continuing in this series, we get to the heart of the matter:

The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same.

I must make some explanation as to how the holy Virgin got involved.

Many are familiar with the Trinitarian controversies in Christianity (you can get more details on these here.) But as this was winding down we got into the Christological controversies, or more specifically how God and man are one in Jesus Christ.

At the risk of oversimplification, there were two extremes set forth. The first was the idea that Jesus’ two natures existed in a parallel way, without really coming together. The name usually associated with this is Nestorius. There’s a good case to be made that the Qur’an is the most widely published Nestorian book out there, because Nestorian dualism (to the point where Jesus’ divinity is denied) permeates the book.

On the other extreme are those who believe that there is an absolute, divine unity in Jesus Christ. The Copts are normally associated with this. To put it in simple terms, the Lord of glory himself was crucified.

Orthodox and orthodox believers alike believe and confess (well, they should) that Jesus Christ had two natures—human and divine—and that these two natures were in perfect union one with another. That’s why, for example, it’s proper to refer to Mary as the “mother of God.” (That was one of Nestorius’ objections to this line of theology.) That union is essential to Jesus Christ being the perfect mediator between man and God; he is both fully God and fully man, able to partake of our human condition and thus be the High Priest he is described in the New Testament.

John is saying there that, just as uncreated God and created flesh were united in Jesus Christ, so also are uncreated God and created bread and wine united to effect the transformation of the latter into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. While he was on this earth, Jesus Christ was no less fully God than he was in heaven, and his actual body and blood were likewise that of God himself. His blood, it should be added, was of such a quality that it was able to procure the remission of our sins, and by the stripes on his body we are healed.

That transformed quality—and the quality of the elements of the Eucharist after consecration—is the result of union with God, not because of physical change. It’s the same with the new birth in us as well.

He also makes a physical connection between the bread and the wine and our body and blood, by pointing out the obvious: as food, the bread and wine become our own body and blood. In doing this, and in a theoretical process of reversal, he establishes a continuum between the two.

It’s not the most “technically” appealing connection, but it makes sense. The indwelling of Jesus Christ in our life is central to our being Christians, and the Eucharist establishes that on a physical basis in addition to a spiritual one.

Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment.

I spoke earlier about the “volitional” role in our relationship with God. There’s nothing we can do to merit the grace of God in our lives, but somewhere along the way we must say “yes” and that yes be a decision. Once we do that, as Keith Green would say, he’ll take care of the rest.

That in turn leads to the transformation of our lives; that’s being “born again.”

Once we’ve experienced the rebirth, our relationship with God isn’t automatic. That’s where the whole business of worthy reception comes in: “Therefore, whoever eats the bread, or drinks the Lord’s cup, in an irreverent spirit, will have to answer for an offence against the Lord’s body and blood. Let each man look into his own heart, and only then eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For the man who eats and drinks brings a judgement upon himself by his eating and drinking, when he does not discern the body. That is why so many among you are weak and ill, and why some are sleeping.” (1 Corinthians 11:27-30)

In order for us to worthily receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, it is necessary for us to be in a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ. But it’s also necessary for us to examine ourselves and seek forgiveness of our sins. That’s a high standard, but one which God makes possible for us to fulfil. Once it is fulfilled, then we can certainly enjoy the benefits of “remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body,” but in sacramental systems it’s too easy to forget the preliminaries.

Forgetting things is easy when we’re tired, so I’ll pick up next time.

I pick up from last time in John of Damascus’ The Orthodox Faith, 4,13:

For it was fitting that not only the first-fruits of our nature should partake in the higher good but every man who wished it, and that a second birth should take place and that the nourishment should be new and suitable to the birth and thus the measure of perfection be attained. Through His birth, that is, His incarnation, and baptism and passion and resurrection, He delivered our nature from the sin of our first parent and death and corruption, and became the first-fruits of the resurrection, and made Himself the way and image and pattern, in order that we, too, following in His footsteps, may become by adoption what He is Himself by nature, sons and heirs of God and joint heirs with Him. He gave us therefore, as I said, a second birth in order that, just as we who are born of Adam are in his image and are the heirs of the curse and corruption, so also being born of Him we may be in His likeness and heirs of His incorruption and blessing and glory.

His reference to the Incarnation is important, as it is germane to a proper understanding of the Eucharist.

Now seeing that this Adam is spiritual, it was meet that both the birth and likewise the food should be spiritual too, but since we are of a double and compound nature, it is meet that both the birth should be double and likewise the food compound. We were therefore given a birth by water and Spirit: I mean, by the holy baptism: and the food is the very bread of life, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who came down from heaven. For when He was about to take on Himself a voluntary death for our sakes, on the night on which He gave Himself up, He laid a new covenant on His holy disciples and apostles, and through them on all who believe on Him. In the upper chamber, then, of holy and illustrious Zion, after He had eaten the ancient Passover with His disciples and had fulfilled the ancient covenant, He washed His disciples’ feet in token of the holy baptism. Then having broken bread He gave it to them saying, Take, eat, this is My body broken for you for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:26) Likewise also He took the cup of wine and water and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it: for this is My blood, the blood of the New Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the death of the Son of man and confess His resurrection until He come. (Matthew 26:27-27)

Now we begin to get to the heart of the matter.

1. “…both the birth should be double and likewise the food compound.” He draws an analogy between our birth and rebirth being separate events and the two natures of the food of the Eucharist. Part of the weakness of transubstantiation is that it minimises the compound nature of the food. But John’s view of the Eucharist is incarnational.
2. It’s interesting to note that he regards foot washing as a token of baptism; that’s an analogy I hadn’t considered. In the Church of God, foot washing is regarded along with baptism and communion as at least ordinances. In our consideration of sacramentality, foot washing will certainly have to be included in our considerations, and we’re pretty much on our own on that.
3. John tells us that our new birth is via baptism. This is something I cannot agree with. It is an occupational hazard of sacramental systems that they come to regard their actions as the entire necessity for their followers to attain a relationship with God and eternal life. Ultimately we regard the “second birth” (which John makes repeated reference to, obviously familiar with John 3) as volitional. And, in fact, sacramental systems cannot work without being proceeded by volition on the part of the believer. The Eucharist is a prime example of this, as we will see.
4. John’s recitation of Matthew’s account of the Last Supper—and comparison with those in Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians—should be enough to demonstrate that Our Lord was not instituting a symbol. I believe it was his desire that, like everything else in the New Covenant, the Passover meal be taken to a new level. It is entirely appropriate that this supper be the partaking of God himself, just as God’s own indwelling in us is a central part of our right relationship with him.

Let’s continue John of Damascus’ presentation.

If then the Word of God is quick and energising, and the Lord did all that He willed; if He said, Let there be light and there was light, let there be a firmament and there was a firmament; if the heavens were established by the Word of the Lord and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth; if the heaven and the earth, water and fire and air and the whole glory of these, and, in sooth, this most noble creature, man, were perfected by the Word of the Lord; if God the Word of His own will became man and the pure and undefiled blood of the holy and ever-virginal One made His flesh without the aid of seed, can He not then make the bread His body and the wine and water His blood? He said in the beginning, Let the earth bring forth grass, and even until this present day, when the rain comes it brings forth its proper fruits, urged on and strengthened by the divine command. God said, This is My body, and This is My blood, and this do ye in remembrance of Me. And so it is at His omnipotent command until He come: for it was in this sense that He said until He come: and the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit becomes through the invocation the rain to this new tillage. For just as God made all that He made by the energy of the Holy Spirit, so also now the energy of the Spirit performs those things that are supernatural and which it is not possible to comprehend unless by faith alone. How shall this be, said the holy Virgin, seeing I know not a man? And the archangel Gabriel answered her: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. And now you ask, how the bread became Christ’s body and the wine and water Christ’s blood. And I say unto thee, “The Holy Spirit is present and does those things which surpass reason and thought.”

John basis the possibility of the transformation of the elements on two things: the omnipotence of God and the movement of the Holy Spirit. But isn’t this what has fuelled modern Pentecost?

Further, bread and wine are employed: for God knoweth man’s infirmity: for in general man turns away discontentedly from what is not well-worn by custom: and so with His usual indulgence He performs His supernatural works through familiar objects: and just as, in the case of baptism, since it is man’s custom to wash himself with water and anoint himself with oil, He connected the grace of the Spirit with the oil and the water and made it the water of regeneration, in like manner since it is man’s custom to eat and to drink water and wine, He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural.

By way of explanation, the Orthodox anoint people with oil when they are baptised. I think there is a depiction of this in the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

But I will take a break while you go watch the movie.  Then we can continue.

In a recent posting on MissionalCOG on the contextualisation of Communion, the thread turned from how to contextualise it to what it meant, and specifically whether it was sacramental or simply an ordinance. Related to this question is the nature of the Eucharist.

It’s always bothered me that Evangelicals, who are generally solicitous about their idea as the Bible being authoritative and literally true, consistently regard the Lord’s Supper as purely symbolic, when the New Testament doesn’t support such an interpretation. Yet the usual competitor in this discussion—the Roman Catholic idea of transubstantiation—has difficulties of its own, as this thread is evidence of.

On the same MissionalCOG thread, Darrell Buttram made the following comment:

A Greek Orthodox minister once told me, “Somewhere between the Orthodox belief and the Church of God belief is where we will find what the Lord’s Supper is truly about”.

Since then I’ve wondered what the Church of God belief really is.

That got me to thinking: what is the Orthodox belief? The Orthodox will always tell you that their belief is defined by the Scriptures and the Councils. The former hasn’t stopped Evangelicals from their idea on this subject, and the latter can be hard to wade through.

But many Orthodox people will refer you to John of Damascus’ The Orthodox Faith as a reliable compendium on the subject. I’ve discussed him elsewhere on this blog. He discusses the Eucharist in that book (4, 13.) As with virtually all of the Fathers of the Church, John is deeply conversant with the Scriptures, and there are many allusions to or quotations from them, most of which are not annotated.

Rather than “re-inventing the wheel” what I plan to do is to reproduce his exposition on the subject with my own comments. To make it easier to digest (sorry!) I’ll break this up in to a series. So let’s begin:

God Who is good and altogether good and more than good, Who is goodness throughout, by reason of the exceeding riches of His goodness did not suffer Himself, that is His nature, only to be good, with no other to participate therein, but because of this He made first the spiritual and heavenly powers: next the visible and sensible universe: next man with his spiritual and sentient nature. All things, therefore, which he made, share in His goodness in respect of their existence. For He Himself is existence to all, since all things that are, are in Him, not only because it was He that brought them out of nothing into being, but because His energy preserves and maintains all that He made: and in especial the living creatures. For both in that they exist and in that they enjoy life they share in His goodness. But in truth those of them that have reason have a still greater share in that, both because of what has been already said and also because of the very reason which they possess. For they are somehow more dearly akin to Him, even though He is incomparably higher than they.

Man, however, being endowed with reason and free will, received the power of continuous union with God through his own choice, if indeed he should abide in goodness, that is in obedience to his Maker. Since, however, he transgressed the command of his Creator and became liable to death and corruption, the Creator and Maker of our race, because of His bowels of compassion, took on our likeness, becoming man in all things but without sin, and was united to our nature. For since He bestowed on us His own image and His own spirit and we did not keep them safe, He took Himself a share in our poor and weak nature, in order that He might cleanse us and make us incorruptible, and establish us once more as partakers of His divinity.

The business about “…being endowed with reason and free will, received the power of continuous union with God through his own choice” is one I’ll come back to. Augustinian theology, which the Reformers took to its logical conclusion, tells us that our free will is irrelevant. But John’s statement implies that our union with God is (at least to start with) volitional, which butts into some of his sacramentalism below.

For those of you who are preparing to call me Pelagian, I should refer you to this, from my presentation of the gospel.

But there’s more to come…