It seems some Christians deny that the Lord Jesus Christ presently possesses blood in his incorruptible body, citing Luke 24:39 as a basis for such a belief. That being said, what is the biblical basis for the belief that he does presently possess blood in his incorruptible body?
3
-
3If your goal in asking these two questions is to get "both sides of the story," I suspect you've fallen into the trap of a false dichotomy. I suspect the opposite view to the one posed in your other question is more along the lines of "It's a non-issue" rather than a positive affirmation of blood being presently (is that even a thing--I suspect there's wide disagreement) in Christ's incorruptible body.– FlimzyCommented Sep 22, 2015 at 1:58
-
@Flimzy: I disagree that it's a non-issue, at least for those who believe in transubstantion.– user900Commented Sep 23, 2015 at 15:37
-
Doesn't that passage confirm that he would possess blood if he's making the point of telling them he is corporeal? I'm confused as to how that would support the proposition that he would be bloodless.– Matt ClarkCommented Sep 24, 2015 at 1:16
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
For the verse that you're referencing, it says that Jesus has flesh and bones. He was born as a human. In this portion of Luke, Jesus had just died and was dead for 3 days. On this day, Sunday, he was resurrected back to (human) life. The stone in front of his tomb was rolled away, and the body in the tomb was no longer there because he is alive and left the tomb.
Using the previous verses for context, the verse that you are quoting is related to the previous verses (Luke 24:37-38) when he appears to the disciples and the disciples, "were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost." (NIV).
Jesus is asking why are they frightened as if they saw a ghost? Because in fact, Jesus wasn't a ghost, he was a resurrected human with flesh and bones.
With regards to the dichotomy of the life in the flesh being in the blood vs. Jesus not having any blood post resurrection, after ressurrection the body is transformed. If you look at 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, it says there there are 2 bodies. The natural body (sown) and the spiritual body (raised).
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Therefore, after the body is resurrected, the body doesn't actually have "blood" anymore. The body is changed into a completely different body. And so the rule of "blood supporting life in the flesh" no longer applies because we are working with 2 different types of flesh, albeit flesh that can be touched.
-
2Welcome to Stack Exchange, we are glad you are here. Wehn you have a minute, be sure to check out the site tour and read up on how this site is a little different than other sites around the web. This is not a comment on the quality of your answer, but rather a standard welcome message. Commented Oct 27, 2015 at 14:54
-
2Welcome to Christianity.SE. It's unclear to me whether you are arguing based on the Bible that Jesus does have blood in his incorruptible body (which seems to be the point of the first half), which would answer the question, or whether you're arguing that Jesus doesn't have blood in his incorruptible body (which seems to be the point of the second half), which would not answer the question. Some clarification of how the second part relates to the first, and whether it is actually answering the question, would he helpful. Commented Oct 27, 2015 at 15:21