The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum OldQuestion

Does the resurreted body of Christ contain blood?

Is it important whether it does or not?

I think this is one of "those" subjects where it is impossible to be 100% sure, either way. Personally, I am undecided but I do tend to lean to "no blood in the body". Why? Because hermeneutically, one must give precedence to the "most clear" passages in Scripture over the less clear passages. Also, the didactic always must interpret the symbolic. Okay, so what does all that mean? It means that we must first look in Scripture to see if there is one of more places where this subject is specifically addressed, which would be the ideal. Fortunately, there is one place where the resurrection and the body are dealt with in some detail, although not specifically addressing the matter of blood itself:

This section from 1Cor 15:35-54 is filled with comparisons between what we can presently see and know of the physical creation, including our bodies and the spiritual creation which we cannot currently see. And, because we cannot see what is promised to come, i.e., the resurrection of the body, Paul goes to some length to describe in various ways what it will be like. I took the liberty of emphasizing verse 50 which is very interesting because it mentions "flesh and blood". However, what appears on the surface as a direct answer to your question may not actually be so cut & dried. Is this phrase "flesh & blood" to be taken literally? Or, is it symbolic in the sense that it is simply referring to everything which is "natural", the physical creation? What the passage DOES reveal explicitly is that there is a vast difference between the natural (first) creation and the spiritual (last) creation, the New Heaven and New Earth. And, the natural body which was created for the physical earth is unfit to occupy the New Earth or spiritual realm. Thus, whatever the resurrected body is going to consist of, it will be much different that the body which we now live in.

We do have the record of Christ appearing to men after His resurrection from which we can deduce that His resurrected boy was recognizable, i.e., it was similar in outward appearance to His pre-resurrection body. But we are aren't given any details as to its actual makeup. Paul's own words I believe sums things up rather accurately when it comes to delving into those things which are yet to happen and of which we are given little information... God has determined that knowledge of this subject is given only on a "need to know" basis!

1 Corinthians 15:51-52 (ASV) "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

I thought this might be one of those --- Yeah its in chapter 5 section 13 A from the counsel of some European hamlet of the sixteenth century.

Fine stuff ,as usual, and petty close to what I had figured.

However, what appears on the surface as a direct answer to your question may not actually be so cut & dried. Is this phrase "flesh & blood" to be taken literally


Perf!

The argument was put forth that Christ , as risen , couldnt possibly has ascended for the reason given in ;

And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption


As yet Im undecided as to whether screwy people become full preterists or the other way round.