Blood Brothers of the Incarnation

My childhood in the 1950’s had the innocence of the time, fed by stories of our elders and the clumsy movies. We played soldiers (everyone’s father had been in the Second World War) and “Cowboys and Indians.” Despite the clear bias of the movies and the slanted propaganda that passed for history, almost everyone wanted to be an Indian. Cowboys never seemed terribly romantic, while the Indians clearly knew how to survive in every wild environment. They were tragic figures in our imaginations, with a sad mourning that acknowledged that their disappearance had been no accident.

Of the many fantasies that we understood, one has remained very vivid to me – the phenomenon of “blood brothers.” Two individuals, unrelated, but sharing a deep bond of the heart, would seal that bond in a simple ceremony. Both would cut across the palm of a hand with a knife, revealing a flow of blood. Every child in the neighborhood winced at the bravery of the act, and somehow, knew that the pain was as important as the blood itself. Bloody hand clasped bloody hand, blood mingling, and the two unrelated now became “blood brothers,” as solemnly bound as any two sons of the same mother.

The Scriptures are filled with images of blood, from that of righteous Abel to that of Jesus Himself. “The life is in the blood,” we read in Leviticus. In the Scriptures blood can “cry out.” It stains but also cleanses. It is the stuff of a solemn offering. It is an image and reality that stretches beyond the bounds of Scripture and holds a place of primacy in most of the religions of the world. The Native American practice of “blood brotherhood” seems instinctively true, immediately understood by anyone who hears of it.

Our contemporary culture has a strange relationship with physical things, including our bodies. Modernity has moved decade-by-decade towards an increasingly abstracted notion of what it means to be a human being. We are driven by a contractual, legal concept of relationships that downplays the role of biology. In a world in which freedom is valued above all else, the tyranny of biology (it simply is what it is) is almost intolerable.

This contractual/legal understanding has found its way into Christian thought as well. In many modern accounts of the Incarnation, Christ becomes a man only in order to have legal standing for His payment for our sins. This is not the thought of the early fathers.

When you read St. Athanasius’ seminal On the Incarnation, the emphasis on the complete solidarity involved in the physical reality of Christ and all humanity is so strong that it would be easy to wonder whether the Incarnation itself alone would have been sufficient to bring about our salvation. Of course, St. Athanasius does not draw that conclusion, but the very union of God with our humanity, the Divine joined to the created, is explored in its depths.

It is difficult for modern people, nurtured in the abstractions of the contractual/legal world, to come to their senses and grasp the simple realities of their own biological existence. God did not create us as legal entities. He formed us from the dirt and breathed into us. The modern creation myth ignores biology and proclaims: “All men are created equal [a legal concept] and endowed with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Increasingly, these legal abstractions are seen as superior to and preferable to human biological existence. Despite the undeniable biological reality of human life, an unborn child is conveniently excused from contractual/legal standing, making its destruction a matter of no consequence. Abortion is the sacrament of contract, celebrating the triumph of legal freedom over biological reality.

This same contractual/legal model also underlies the modern language of “personal relationship with Christ.” This language has no standing or origin within the Tradition. Rather, it is wholly the construct of the false consciousness of the modern world. Modern Christians say, “I have a personal relationship with Christ,” and exalt this above all else. It often means nothing more than a psychological construction, itself understood in contractual/legal terms. But the life of the Church as given us by Christ Himself has a very different understanding.

Christ says, “Whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me and I in him.” This is rooted and grounded in flesh and blood. We are spiritually and organically related and united to Christ. “Spiritual,” “Spiritually,” and their cognates are words that I refuse to give up, but they should be relieved of their psychological/contractual/legal meanings and restored to the more concrete world of biology/substance/concrete. St. Paul, in describing our relationship with Christ, draws on the imagery of sexual union:

Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one flesh.” But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. (1Co 6:16-17)

This statement makes no sense within the contractual/legal world. It presumes biology as the primary reality of our existence and sees spiritual relationships as governed by the same imagery. The modern imagination is repulsed and confused by the suggestion that we eat God. It has no problem, however, imagining contracts and legal arrangements with Him. We have forgotten the true nature of our existence.

Take this verse in St. John’s First Epistle. I have rendered the translation myself:

If we say that we have communion (koinonia) with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have communion (koinonia) with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. (1Jo 1:6-7)

Contemporary treatments of this verse reconfigure everything into contractual language (it is almost the sole language of our imagination). Koinonia is rendered as “fellowship” rather than “communion,” changing a very physical/organic meaning into a vague psychologized one. “Walking in the light” is taken to refer to the moral life, with a resulting abstraction invoking the atonement.

The passage has a very different meaning when seen in the more primitive concrete/biological understanding. Communion refers to a true coinherence, a co-participation in the life of another. “To lie” is to “walk in darkness,” to break life-giving communion with Christ and others. Repentance and true communion with Christ restore this co-participation which is concretely manifested in the Holy Eucharist (“the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin”). The modern imagination is deaf to the most obvious meanings within Scripture.

Biology is easily the most fundamental aspect of our human existence. We do not “have” bodies – we “are” bodies. The fictional reality of contractual/legal thinking alienates people from the very ground of their humanity. Life becomes an ersatz conglomeration of ideas and abstractions, while the body abides with its ceaseless demands (reality is like that). We live as though the truth of our existence transcends our bodies – even seeking to deny the body’s demands in death. A local mega-Church in my area has now forbidden the presence of the body at funerals in the Church. The service, a “Celebration of Life,” can maintain the happy fiction of our abstracted reality much more easily if the embarrassment of a dead body can be avoided.

A true and faithful practice of the Christian faith should be grounded in the body and in the givenness of life. Biology is not our enemy nor is it something to be overcome. It is the vehicle of our existence. Our hope of the resurrection is not something lived apart from the body, but sees the biological raised and transformed to the dignity of eternity.

In the Incarnation, God has made us “blood brothers.” We are bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh. Our humanity, in the most concrete and literal form, has been united irrevocably with Him. The classical tradition of the Christian faith has maintained its loyalty to this reality (though the modern world certainly strains it). The doctrines of the Great Councils can only be understood within this framework.

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth…” (Act 17:26)

In His great love, that one blood is now His as well.

 

 

About Fr. Stephen Freeman

Fr. Stephen is a retired Archpriest of the Orthodox Church in America. He is also author of Everywhere Present: Christianity in a One-Storey Universe, and Face to Face: Knowing God Beyond Our Shame, as well as the Glory to God podcast series on Ancient Faith Radio.



by

Comments

30 responses to “Blood Brothers of the Incarnation”

  1. Ivona Avatar
    Ivona

    Words to nourish soul! Thanks God and thank you!

  2. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    I´m wondering …

    Many Protestants say … “I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ” and Fr. Stephen wrote about this saying:

    “It often means nothing more than a psychological construction, itself understood in contractual/legal terms.”

    I agree. As I reflect on my evangelical past, while I said this phrase often I don´t think I ever understood it in living, biological terms. I think it was simply all just rational assent to a set of propositions that I thought gave me this “relationship” and once this “relationship” was established I simply needed to go on with my life as a good, moral person (Protestant sanctification). Biology was not on my radar for one second!

    That said, would it be equally problematic to say that union with God in a real ontological and biological sense is also “relationship with Christ” correctly understood? I ask this because when discussing union with God with Protestants, I want to use “relationship with Christ” as a springboard into a deeper understanding of salvation.

  3. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    It’s certainly a starting place. There is an Anglican prayer (also used in Western Rite Orthodoxy) before taking communion:

    We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, And that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

    I still use it in my communion devotions. I bear in mind that its profound Eucharistic sense and concreteness was once a part of an Anglican consciousness, however attenuated it might have become through the years.

    The word “relationship” does not need to be merely legal/forensic, etc. It’s the inherent gnosticism of our age that we forget how to truly live in a body.

  4. Matthew Robb Brown Avatar

    Beautiful and very much needed in our present situation!

  5. David E. Rockett Avatar
    David E. Rockett

    Thank you Father. It is wonderful that you often remind us of the physical flesh & blood…concrete realities of our human lives on our marvelous terra firma!
    Nor do i believe is mere coincidence that the Southern Agrarian writers and then Wendell Berry made Me an Agrarian Human…several years before confronting me with Orthodoxy.

  6. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks Fr. Stephen.

  7. George Coman Avatar
    George Coman

    Job 19:25-27

  8. DougK Avatar
    DougK

    “Celebration of Life” — I can think of no event commemorated by Christians which cedes more ground to the world’s thought patterns/beliefs than this one. It is wholly this-worldly. The funeral is hopeful, grounded in the body and its future hope. A celebration of life is wistful, looking back to what was, and is no more.

  9. Esmée Noelle Covey Avatar
    Esmée Noelle Covey

    My mother, who is not a Christian but follows an East Indian path that considers the body as wholly irrelevant and unimportant and even an impediment to the soul’s enlightenment, made the decision to donate her body to “science” so I would not be “burden” by it after her death. And she did this without even having a single conversation with me about it or asking my opinion before signing all the paperwork. Even though burying her would be a challenge financially for me to be sure, it is far more disturbing and distressing that I will not have a physical place where I can go to visit her, talk to her, and pray for her after she has reposed.

  10. Ook Avatar
    Ook

    Father,
    You wrote that “Our hope of the resurrection is not something lived apart from the body, but sees the biological raised and transformed to the dignity of eternity.”

    Is the body the locus of divine grace, or is it a tool for salvation?
    Sorry if this sounds like I’m not quite understanding the conversation, but it’s bothered me since I was very young, and Esmée Noelle Covey’s comment above brought the point to mind again. Because I am aware of Orthodox burial rules being flexible in jurisdictions where there are legal issues that make it difficult not to get cremated.

  11. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Ook,
    There is a traditional opposition to cremation in Orthodoxy, but there is, to my mind, not a strict theological reason for its prohibition. In lands, such as Japan, I understand that cremation if pretty much all that the law allows, and Orthodoxy complies. The preference is to respect the dignity of the body and to bury the faithful intact. However, plenty of martyrs were burnt at the stake, or even devoured by lions! I remember reading an early work on the resurrection that addressed this. (God Himself solves the problem)

    But, the model is that of the Risen Lord. The body is raised, transfigured, changed. He is no longer “in the tomb.” It was empty. So, too, our bodies are the locus of divine grace – I’ve never had any experience that wasn’t “in the body.” But, in eschatological terms, I leave the physics up to God.

  12. Olga from St. Herman’s Avatar
    Olga from St. Herman’s

    Thank you for this Fr. Stephen. Your words about the 50’s brought back such lovely memories of a simpler time and an innocence that cannot be recaptured, even though the innocence itself was skewed. It is a profound description of our Western legalistic world view. The way you have described abortion is very powerful. Thank you for shedding light on the westernised interpretation of the significance of the body as well as our ‘relationship with Christ.’ The all encompassing nature of true communion with Christ and each other is a wonder to behold!

    Corinthians12:26
    26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

    There is true unity of faith, the body of Christ. How stunningly beautiful.

  13. Justin Avatar
    Justin

    “A local mega-Church in my area has now forbidden the presence of the body at funerals in the Church.”

    Seriously?!?

    Much to her chagrin, I have insisted that my wife (if I am to die before her) bury me per the Burial Society at my parish. *That* is my last request. If she insists on a “CoL” after the fact, I guess I can’t stop her. Indeed this contractual/ transactional/ amaterial outlook on life and death is hard to break.

    She [tongue-in-cheek] threatens to do whatever with me after I’m gone… since I can’t do anything about it… I threaten to not pray her out of Purgatory, then… Our relationship would be boring without a little dark humor.

  14. Esmée Noelle Covey Avatar
    Esmée Noelle Covey

    Father Stephen, my priest has told me that there can be no funeral service without a body in the Orthodox Church. So members of our parish who are cremated (usually, in these cases, the decision is made by family members who are not Orthodox Christians because the parishioner did not have proper legally-binding documentation in place requesting a traditional burial – sadly) do not receive a full funeral service. How does this work in places like Japan, do you know? I would think that the funeral could be done with the body in the church before it is cremated, but then I wonder why would we not also do that at my parish? I have witnessed some very unfortunate scenarios due to the failure of parishioners to make their wishes known in writing before their repose, and it is always very distressing to our priest and the parish as a whole.

  15. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Why is a body so very important for an Orthodox funeral? What do we learn from this? Cremation is not clearly (I don’t think) forbidden in Holy Scripture, but it does seem clear that burial was indeed the norm in ancient Israel.

  16. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Esmée,
    What I have done, in place of the full funeral in the Church, is simply to remember them in the Liturgy, and offer a pannikhida (memorial prayers) in the Church. Pastorially, you do the best you can within canonical limits…

  17. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    We treat the body as holy (it’s not just an “empty shell”). In the early Church, cremation was seen as a pagan practice, though Romans most often practiced burial. Crematation was seen as disrespectful to the body and, after a fashion, to be a denial of the resurrection. It is a pastoral matter – and the Church (as in Japan) has made other pastoral accomodations. I’m not familiar enough with the details to say more.

    It’s only a very recent thing that the Catholic Church has allowed for cremation…so, it was once a rather universal Christian practice to discourage cremation, and the Orthodox continue to adhere to that understanding.

  18. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Justin,
    I think they must do a grave side (surely).

  19. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    Thank you for the article!

    How does this reconcile with the words and actions used regarding the saints (that they “despised the flesh”) or the many instances in the Pauline epistles that speak about the flesh (“flesh and blood cannot inherit…”)? These ideas seem in conflict, especially in view of the feminine being likened to the body and the flesh (and “no man has ever despised his own body”). It’s a question that has cropped up time and time again for me.

    I’ve heard my parish priest say before “it’s the spirit that saves us, not the body”. I must be missing something!

  20. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Margaret,
    Yes, our language sometimes gets a bit confusing. “Flesh” can mean a materialist notion – as in “human life lived apart from God.” It’s a metaphor in the NT, but does not refer to the body-as-flesh. Sometimes, teachers can get a bit confusing (because they may be a bit confused themselves) and speak of the body in a disdainful manner. But the Scripture is only speaking of a “principle” when it uses it in a negative sense. The body fasts. The body kneels. The body eats and drinks the Body and Blood of Christ, etc. It is of use and is as much who we are as is the soul/spirit. We should not disparage it.

    It’s a bit of a tricky point, I suppose. But, there is a heresy (actually several) that treated the material world, including our bodies, as evil. There’s nothing evil about the body. Christ had a body. Christ hungered. Christ thirsted. Christ grew tired. Christ sweated, etc. None of that was in any way sinful.

    I think I know what your priest means when he says, “It’s the spirit that saves us, not the body.” But, there’s nothing that the spirit does that is not carried out by the body. The spirit doesn’t go to Church without the body. The spirit cannot take communion without the body, etc. We certainly learn to curb the appetites of the body – but the body’s appetites are not in themselves sinful. What is generally sinful is that we are disordered – we are not working quite like we should. But the truly great sins – envy, jealousy, greed, etc. – are not sins of the body.

    So, I, like you, would probably have a few questions.

  21. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    “Celebration of Life” — A celebration of life is wistful, looking back to what was, and is no more.

    I must admit that I despise these gatherings. We do what we can, courteously, I suppose. But I find “Celebration of Life” ceremonies to be horrible and ugly. I think they are clearly meant for those remaining and have nothing really to do with the one fallen asleep.

  22. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Everyone,
    Though I know the article touched on the question of bodies and funerals…I’m much more interested in the question of the physical nature of our devotion, and, even, the physical nature of our experience and knowledge of God.

    My childhood was very non-physical in terms of Christian teaching (other than not drinking or smoking – typical Baptist prohibitions). But Church was boring, off-key (bad singing), without beauty or joy.

    My first experience of a liturgical service was at age 15 in the Episcopal Church in which I was overwhelmed with beauty. To this day, I have a deep, very physical memory of communion in that context (I had to go to classes for 6 months and be confirmed before I could receive).

    Our memories, by and large, have strong physical components to them. Christ’s gift of the Eucharist comes to us with words of physical memory (“Do this…for the remembrance of me”). And, we believe, that memory itself is a truly physical reality: “this is my Body.”

  23. Alan Avatar
    Alan

    “It’s only a very recent thing that the Catholic Church has allowed for cremation…so, it was once a rather universal Christian practice to discourage cremation, and the Orthodox continue to adhere to that understanding.”

    I’ll go one step further. I grew up in the loosey-goosey, Protestant, non-denominational world of the western US. Until very recently, even they had actual funerals, with the body in a casket. For everyone.

    Especially because I now have aging parents (devout Christians) who insist on being cremated, it’s been very disturbing to me to witness how rapidly this 180 degree turn took place.

  24. Ook Avatar
    Ook

    Thank you for the response, Father.
    If you’ll forgive one further comment, Esmée Noelle Covey, I attended one in Japan. Body in the church during the funeral, cremation immediately after with family and priest in attendance (final prayers before going into the pyre).

  25. Esmée Noelle Covey Avatar
    Esmée Noelle Covey

    Ook – thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience on this topic.

  26. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Ook,
    My thanks as well – that’s quite interesting, and makes sense.

  27. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    “But, there is a heresy (actually several) that treated the material world, including our bodies, as evil. There’s nothing evil about the body. Christ had a body. Christ hungered. Christ thirsted. Christ grew tired. Christ sweated, etc. None of that was in any way sinful.”

    This is an interesting point. With the belief that spirit is good, and should lead, there is an east corollary to make that therefore flesh is bad. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but it seems to me that there is an approach in Orthodox theology that doesn’t view the all things attributed to the Fall as being “evil”. It can be easy to misunderstand the Fathers who speak about sexual reproduction, hunger, even material bodies (as we know them), etc. as being subsequent to the Fall. But these same Fathers do not assert these things as being evil. The fact that Christ assumed a corruptible body, but not sin, is thought-provoking.

    I believe it was St Maximus who even called death a “gift” given by God. This seems in tension with the assertion that death is the last enemy, but it also rhymes with the final claim of Christ “trampling down death by death”.

  28. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    *easy corollary

  29. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Margaret Sarah,
    I would take the notion of our corporeality being “after the fall” to be a sort of fringe view (somewhat Origenist). It’s a thought that’s out there – but not one that comes up in the Liturgical texts so much. St. Basil speaks of Adam and Eve falling “into this world” which is a way of reading the expulsion from the Garden. The gaining of the “garments of skin” is sometimes seen as acquiring our present flesh. But it’s a somewhat “dangerous” idea – the risk being to despise materiality. Our monastic spirituality can drift a little in that direction unless its careful. I guess I’m cautious about all that. Whenever we drift too far from the body, we quickly become delusional. Living in the body is, at the very least, a good source of humility.

  30. Drewster2000 Avatar
    Drewster2000

    Fr. Stephen,

    I would add that God made us body, mind and spirit – 3 parts but 1 person. Interesting to note how this mirrors the Trinity.

    One of the West’s strength (and therefore also weakness) is rationality and deduction. Taking our medical profession as an example, they have degraded into only treating the body – and even at that, only treating symptoms. It’s one thing to break down the whole to study the parts, but it’s very important to always zoom back out and treat the whole person.

    God is about unity. He made the body as well as the rest of it and called it good. Thus we should do the same, even if we have to refer to it as Brother Ass sometimes. In the end I believe we should view it as God does, makes friends with it and take care of it. Not all our sins are caused by the body after all. We’re all (body, mind and spirit) in this together.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Subscribe to blog via email

Support the work

Your generous support for Glory to God for All Things will help maintain and expand the work of Fr. Stephen. This ministry continues to grow and your help is important. Thank you for your prayers and encouragement!


Latest Comments

  1. Fr. Stephen, I would add that God made us body, mind and spirit – 3 parts but 1 person. Interesting…

  2. “But, there is a heresy (actually several) that treated the material world, including our bodies, as evil. There’s nothing evil…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives