Dear Friends,
This week has been a slightly odd week for research. I’ve been writing more than I’ve written without writer’s block. I hope this stream of words coming from my pen (yes, I still use pen and paper, what of it, tough guy?) doesn’t stop. I put it down to a new item of food I have been having for lunch. There’s a lovely lovely place outside of Euston station that sells something called ’shraps’ and they’re like larger portions of sushi but more filling. I’ve been feeling fantastic in the two days since I’ve had them! Anyway…
Here is the second instalment of some of my thinking on food and the dead body to follow up the last post on the living body. To remind you, the question I aimed to address was: Have Ideas on Food and Eating Influenced Understanding of the Corporeal Resurrection Body, Particularly in Relation to 1 Corinthians 15:42-44? and, also to remind you, the passage in question is:
‘It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body’ (1 Corinthians 15: 42-44, King James Version)
And now…
Food and the Dead Body:
Christ as Food:
I have not indulged in the debates about the Last Supper, as might be expected here. The debate on the meaning of the unleavened bread, for example, and even the disputes that the bread is unleavened in the first place I have found ultimately irrelevant, if very interesting. Indeed, there are also well-trodden sets of arguments, I have come to discover, that surround the various meanings of Christ’s blood. These intricacies are all very fascinating but it is the notion of Christ’s body being food that interests me.
Food and the dead body in both the Last Supper and the resurrection perverts the usual relationship between food and the body. Whereas it is usually the body that takes the food, the body now is the food. A consumed body demonstrates an interesting relationship and complicated passage between the living and the dead, and the corruptible and the incorruptible. The ownership of the body is placed into question, for example, when one eats another’s body. Also, it would seem that two bodies cannot occupy the same space and this must have implications for the resurrection, if material continuity and a concept of identity are to be integral.
Apart from accounts of the Last Supper and the symbols of bread and wine as Christ’s body and blood, the idea of Christ’s body as food seems to have been prevalent in medieval theory and particularly in painting. One such painting, from the studio of Freidrich Herlin, painted Christ with Ears of Wheat and Grape Vine.
Bynum, in Fragmentation and Redemption writes on this in a chapter about conceptions of the body of Christ in the middle ages. She points out that the female was seen to be the provider of the food and many medieval assumptions linked woman and flesh to the body of God (Bynum 1991, 100, 101). Bynum concludes by saying that ‘Holy women imitated Christ in their bodies [most stigmatics were women]; and Christ’s similar bleeding and feeding body was understood as analogous to theirs (ibid 104). Robin Campin’s Madonna and Child before a Firescreen (below) depicts Mary offering both her breast and son to the viewer (ibid). Here, both the woman and Christ are offered as food, linking both birth (through implicating Mary) and death to food and the process of eating.
An interesting passage to bring to bear upon this is 1 Corinthians 12:27: ‘Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular’. Not only is the bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, it is the Christian body and blood by extension. Further, Vine insists that the passage in the pre-translation bible lacks a definite article thereby placing different emphasis upon the relationship between Christ and His followers: ‘[t]he proper rendering is “ye are body of Christ” (not ye are Christ’s body, which puts emphasis on “Christ”), that is to say “body of Christ” is the quality or condition of the assembly as a whole of which each individual forms a member.’ (Vine 1951, 175-176) This is also reflected in Paul: ‘we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.’ (1 Corinthians 10: 17) In her From Feasting to Fasting, Grimm renders this relationship from Paul’s view as ‘participation in “the body of Christ”’ (Grimm 1996, 67) Further, Hodgeson notes that, with this gesture, the body of every believer is a member of Christ and it must therefore follow that ‘”flesh and blood” have entered the kingdom, and are now in the present life.’ (Hodgeson 1853, 24) Furthermore, Tertullian asserts that ‘the flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ so that the soul also may be replete with God’ (reproduced with commentary in Evans 1960, 25).
Cannibalism:
Hodgson worried, in his text about the resurrection, that ‘more than thrice seven years ago an European was eaten up by a company of cannibals in a distant island, and when we reflect that the substance of his body became, by assimilation, incorporated with theirs; and supposing that those cannibals died before they had thrown off the particles of matter acquired from his body, would not one man be entirely lost from the universe for ever?’ (Hodgeson 1853, 54) This concern has long stood and Aquinas also voiced (and dealt with) it:
There are to be found men who eat human flesh and nothing else; and men thus nourished have children. Consequently the same flesh will be in several men. But it cannot possibly rise again in several men: and yet the resurrection would surely not be universal and entire, if each one did not regain what he had before. Therefore it would seem impossible that men will rise again.’ (Aquinas 1927, 273)
The above quotation is from Summa contra Gentiles. This work is referred to in John Candlish’s article, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Dynamic State of Body Constituents. Candlish points out that Summa contra Gentiles was Aquinas’ ‘reference work for missionaries [who were] obliged to deal with the concept of the resurrection and the theoretical difficulties which might be raised by it.’ (Candlish 1968, 272) This refers to an objection that Aquinas later deals with by explaining that the assumption that ‘identity [...] depends on continuity’ is ‘based on a false premise’ – that of being is ‘not merely adherent to matter and the soul’s being [...] remains after the dissolution of the body’ (Aquinas 1927, 277). The identity of the risen body has therefore been a key concern in the resurrection of the body, as it has been thought that bodily continuity is integral to the resurrection; Christians want not only a body back after death, they want their own body. Aquinas addresses some fears of the missionaries: ‘the flesh consumed will rise again in the man in whom it was first perfected by a rational soul’ (Aquinas 1927, 278). He continues to be concerned for those potential savage converts and their families who may have not eaten anything but other people!
‘the second man – if he partook of other food besides human flesh – will rise again with only such matter as he acquired from this other food, and in such quantity as is required from this other food [...]. But if he partake of no other food, he will rise again with what he received from his parents, and the deficiency will be supplied by the omnipotence of his Creator. And if his parents also partook of none but human meat, so that this seed would also be engendered therefrom, their children will rise again with that seed, and he whose flesh was consumed will be supplied from another source.’ (ibid, 278-279)
This rather elaborate explanation will allow for those who have had their own flesh eaten to regain that flesh and for the cannibal to be resurrected too, in theory. Graham, in contrast, worries that if you have ‘eaten swine’, part of you ‘has once wallowed like a hog in the mire’ (Graham 1783, 7) and that part of you is forever a part of you – relating to the earlier segment of the discussion about food and the living body. Identity is central here, too. Indeed, the corporeal fate of those eaten by savages seems to be that one becomes part of the savage, quite literally becoming what you eat (possible title here that you will like, Sharon: ‘You are what you eat!’) Aquinas, however, obviates such fears and advises that ’there is no need that whatever was in man materially should rise again in him; and that if anything be lacking, it can be supplied by God’s power.’ (Aquinas 1927, 278)
The above interpretations rely on the idea of individual identity persisting through the passage from corruptible to incorruptible and place physical continuity at the heart of that. Theophilus of Antioch (unknown – c183) associates this material continuity with bones, which did not appear to decay. Cannibalism is a crucial issue for him. (Bynum 1995, 31) The bone, then, would seem to act as the seed from which one could sprout a heavenly, incorruptible body on the day of judgement.
As an aside concerning identity, there have arisen questions of what might be called the liminal body parts – hair, teeth, nails et cetera and whether, having no use after the resurrection, would they be resurrected? This question has been asked of all body parts but seem particularly pertinent for these liminal parts, as they continuously grow and it would be unseemly for all of the matter ever grown to be re-united with the body. Aquinas, as always, has an answer in the supplement to his Summa Theologica when discussing ‘The integrity of the bodies in the resurrection’. He identifies two ‘perfections’: the first being those parts that are ‘directed to the accomplishment of the souls’ operations, for instance the heart, liver, hand, foot’ and the second being those ‘directed to the safe keeping of other parts as leaves to cover fruit; thus hair and nails are in man for the protection of other parts’ and, he says, all parts will rise again for the purpose of identity (Aquinas 1947, Part 3, supplement, qu80:2). So, for Aquinas, identity is re-established after death.
Bynum states that the question of individual identity had not been raised in philosophy of the period of Paul (Bynum 1995, 25) and so identifying oneself as an individual seems not to have been an issue to him but something read into his text by later theologians like Aquinas and Graham. To contrast with this concern of identity that Aquinas and others worry about, I would like to draw upon Clement of Rome’s (unknown – c100) version of the story of the Phoenix, bringing to bear the body as food. To later Authors, as Bynum points out, it is important that the same bird rises. To Clement, however, bodily continuity does not seem particularly important:
‘the bird dies; its flesh decays; a worm or larva is born from this putrefying flesh and feeds on it. Eventually the worm grows wings and flies to the altar of its triumph carrying the bones of the old bird, now stripped clean.’ (in Bynum 1995, 25)
The condition of the dead body is actually complicated further by Graham, who likens the corruptible body to ‘grass’. Graham refers to the Hebrew word used in the original scripture: ‘whatever is newly sprung up and sprouteth out of the ground’ (Graham 1783, 5) – for other uses, see Genesis 1:11, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass’; Matthew 6:30, ‘God so clothe the grass of the field’. It is interesting how under this interpretation, the body is treated as being fundamentally similar to things that are edible; prepared for the journey inside – at least for the purposes of resurrection. By this logic, one can be eaten and be still of a stuff that can be raised; the pre-resurrection body and food are essentially of the same ilk.
‘What man who believes in a resurrection would offer himself as a tomb for bodies destined to arise?’ (Athenagoras 1972, 86)
Identity seems central to Athenagoras too, who argues that a human being cannot be said to exist when scattered and dissolved, even if the soul survives. The restoration of a soul to its original body is what defines resurrection (Athenagoras 1972, 146). In contrast to this and as a note on continuity, Aquinas points out the metaphor of a fire: the fire that burns when the logs have disappeared and new ones put on is still the same fire (Aquinas 1927, 278).
Tertullian also sees resurrection as re-assemblage of bits: ‘So then the flesh will rise again, all of it indeed, itself, entire. Wherever it is, it is on deposit with God through the faithful trustee of God and men, Jesus Christ, who will pay back both God to man and man to God, spirit to flesh and flesh to spirit.’ (reproduced with commentary in Evans 1960, 184-185) Thus we rise “whole” [...] like a damaged and repaired ship whose parts are restored though some of the planks are new. (Bynum 1995, 37)
Thinking about the stomach as a tomb and being resurrected from it, Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Romans (around year 100), proclaims himself ‘the wheat of God; and I shall be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.’ (in Bickersteth 1838, 75-76). He is to be executed and thrown to the lions. He taunts his executioners: ‘Let breaking of bones and tearing of members; let the shattering in pieces of the whole body, and all the wicked torments of the devil come upon me; and only let me enjoy Jesus Christ’ (ibid, 76). No matter what the lions do to him, even if they grind him into dust, he will be raised because God will piece him together again. For Ignatius, not even material continuity of bones is needed. So, it appears that under some interpretations, complete digestion is still not an obstacle to resurrection; digestion is interpreted as a transition, not as annihilation, as particles can be placed together by the power of God.
Afterthought:
There seems to be sibling understandings of purity in eating and purity in the raised body. Through controlling beastly passions, one can prepare for resurrection. The dead body being food is something that allows the resurrection to be understood through bodily margins and conceptions of purity. But it also complicates it. By considering cannibalism, and even Christ as food is a form of cannibalism, one is forced into increasingly inventive and elaborate explanations.
It appears as though food is indeed essential to understanding the body in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. If one understands that the corporeal body is usually, but not always, defined by a concept of identity and continuity, it appears that the act of eating and the image of the body as food is analogous to that of resurrection or a transition between bodies. Following the passage between corruptible and incorruptible is as if following a passage of outside to inside; impurity to purity.
List of Works Cited:
Athenagoras of Athens (1972) Legatio and De Resurrectione, trans. Schoedel, William R., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Aquinas, Thomas (1923), Summa contra Gentiles, Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, London: Burns Oates & Washbourne ltd.
Aquinas, Thomas (1947), Summa Theologica, Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, New York: Benziger Bros. Online at <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.toc.html>
Bickersteth, E (1838), The Christian Fathers of the First and Second Centuries, London: R.B. Seeley and W. Burnside
Bynum, Caroline Walker (1991), Fragmentation and Redemption: Essays on Gender and the Human Body in Medieval Religion, New York: Zone Books.
Bynum, Caroline Walker (1995), The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200-1336, New York: Columbia University Press.
Campin, Robert (1430), The Virgin and Child Before a Firescreen, London: National Gallery. Online at <http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=9366>.
Candlish, John (1968), ‘St Thomas Aquinas and the Dynamic State of Body Constituents’ in Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, vol.23, July 1968, pp272-275.
Evans, Ernst (1960), Tertullian’s Treatise on the Resurrection, London: SPCK.
Graham, James (1783), A Discourse Delivered on Sunday, August 17th 1783 at Edinburgh, wherein the nature, and manner of the Resurrection of the human Body, and the immortality, or future modes of existence, and progress of the Soul! Are Philosophically, Medically, and Religiously explained, by Doctor James Graham of the Temple of Health, In Pall-Mall, near the King’s Palace, London, Hull: T. Briggs.
Grimm, Veronika E. (1996), From Feasting to Fasting, the Evolution of a Sin, London: Routledge.
Hodgeson, George (1853), The Human Body at the Resurrection of the Dead, London: R.Boyd.
Vine, W.E. (1951), 1 Corinthians, London: Oliphants Limited.
Paul William Craddock