Aw... shucks...
Posted on 07/18/2018 1:52:36 AM PDT by Sontagged
One of the strangest beliefs that I’ve come across through this blog is the idea that the glorified Body of Jesus Christ contains Flesh and Bones, but no Blood.
I first came across it in a reader comment; since then, I’ve heard this view advanced by several Protestant apologetics websites, like the popular Calvinist apologetics blog CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), along with Let Us Reason Ministries, and Bible.ca.
Additionally, this appears to be the traditional Mormon view, one endorsed by their founder, Joseph Smith.
As you’ll soon see, this theory suffers from a number of problems: the Scriptural support is virtually non-existent, it’s never endorsed (or even alluded to) by any of the New Testament authors or the Church Fathers, it runs directly contrary to the Church’s consistent Eucharistic theology, and the evidence offered could just as easily justify rejecting the physical Resurrection and Ascension.
I. What the “Bloodless Body” Believers Believe
Guercino, Doubting Thomas (17th c.)
This “Bloodless Body” view appears to have first been put forward by a Lutheran by the name of J. A. Bengel (1687-1752). Bengel’s original theory was fairly complicated, as he had elaborate work-arounds for passages like Hebrews 9:11-14, 24-26, in which Christ is depicted as entering Heaven with His Blood.
In that case, Bengel claimed that “at the time of his entry or ascension Christ kept his blood apart from his body.” He even argued that Christ’s Head appears white in Revelation 1:14 because it is drained of Blood.
Not everyone in this camp goes as far as Bengel, but all of the Bloodless Body believers share a few common traits.
First, as I said above, they claim that Christ’s Resurrected Body does have Flesh and Bones, just no Blood. So they’re not technically denying the physical Resurrection, or at least not denying it entirely.
Second, their Scriptural case is built almost completely off of these two verses:
1. In 1 Corinthians 15:50, St. Paul says that “I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” Taken literally, this passage poses serious problems to any orthodox Christians. Which leads to…
2. In Luke 24:39, after the Resurrection, Jesus appears to the Apostles for the first time, and says, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
So the claim is, "flesh and blood" can’t enter Heaven, but "flesh and bone" can.
You’ll find these same two verses used repeatedly by those defending the Bloodless Body position.
For example, here’s CARM’s argument:
The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). If this is so, then how could physical body have been raised? The answer is simple. After His resurrection Jesus said, “Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say, “flesh and blood.” He said, “flesh and bones.” This is because Jesus’ blood was shed on the cross. The life is in the blood and it is the blood that cleanses from sin: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul,” (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54. Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body, but not a body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones.
Now, you might think that the fact that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11) would be a reason that Christ, being as He is alive, would have Blood. Not according to CARM.
Instead, they argue that Christ shedding His Blood on the Cross means that His entire Body was completely drained of Blood. This implausible theory is being put forward for an obvious reason: to get around 1 Cor. 15:50.
II. What Does St. Paul Mean in 1 Corinthians 15:50?
Jacob van Campen, The Last Judgment (16th c.)
So what does St. Paul mean when he says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable”? In 180 A.D., St. Irenaeus was already referring to it as “that passage of the apostle which the heretics pervert,” and it is easy to see how.
Taken literally, as CARM does, this passage would seem to deny the physical Resurrection. Paul doesn’t just say that “blood” won’t enter the Kingdom of God, but “flesh and blood.”
So a literal reading would seemingly deny the physical Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, as well as the general resurrection of the dead.
But, of course, that’s not how St. Paul uses “flesh and blood.”
St. Thomas Aquinas provides the best explanation of this passage that I’ve seen: We must not think that by flesh and blood, he means that the substance of the flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but rather flesh and blood, i.e., those devoting themselves to flesh and blood, namely, men given to vices and lusts, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. And thus is flesh understood, i.e., a man living by the flesh: “But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you” (Rom. 8:9)
The Scriptural support that Aquinas provides is perfect. If St. Paul commends his readers in Romans 8:9 for not being in the flesh, there are basically two possibilities:
Paul isn’t using “flesh” literally;
Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans to ghosts.
Aquinas adds another nail in the literal interpretation by showing that Paul affirms that creation will inherent the Kingdom:
Therefore and accordingly, he adds, nor does the corruptible inherit incorruption, i.e., nor can the corruption of mortality, which is expressed here by the term “flesh,” inherit incorruption, i.e., the incorruptible kingdom of God, because we will rise in glory: “Because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21).
This is what good exegesis looks like: Aquinas is interpreting St. Paul in view of the other times he’s used similar phrasing, like Romans 8, to show what’s meant. He doesn’t just assume that Paul needs to be taken literally. III. Why Does Jesus Say “Flesh and Bones” in Luke 24:39?
This still leaves us with one detail to resolve.
Does it matter that, in Luke 24:39, Jesus says that His Glorified Body has “Flesh and Bones,” instead of the “Flesh and Blood”? No.
In both cases, we’re dealing with a specific figure of speech called a pars pro toto, in which a part of a thing is used to describe the whole: for example, saying “glasses” to refer to eyeglasses (which are made up of more than just glass), or “wheels” to refer to a car. Or to use a pars pro toto that anti-Catholics often use, saying “Rome” when one means the entire Roman Catholic Church.
Bartolomeo Passarotti, Blood of the Redeemer (16th c.)
With that in mind, let’s turn to a challenge by a reader:
Christ says that He, in His resurrected body, has flesh and bones, not flesh and blood.
Can you show me another place in Scripture where the phrase “flesh and bones” is used to describe human corporeality?
Yes, there are actually several instances. Let’s start with Genesis 2:21-23: So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
The Hebrew word being translated there as “bone” means “bone, substance, self,” and in other contexts, is translated as “same.”
So if it wasn’t already obvious, Adam isn’t suggesting that Eve is bloodless, or that her blood comes from somewhere else. He means that they share a common substance. They have, if you will, a shared “human corporeality.” Here’s another example, from Genesis 29:12-14,
And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s kinsman, and that he was Rebekah’s son; and she ran and told her father. When Laban heard the tidings of Jacob his sister’s son, he ran to meet him, and embraced him and kissed him, and brought him to his house. Jacob told Laban all these things, and Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh!” And he stayed with him a month.
This phrase is used at various other points in the Old Testament for relation (Judges 9:2, 2 Samuel 5:1, 2 Samuel 19:12-13, and 1 Chronicles 11:1).
In each case, the speaker is reminding the listener that their material bodies come from a common ancestor. In English, we express this via the figure of speech, “blood relatives,” but both English and Hebrew listeners understand that it’s more than just bones or blood that are in common: it’s our entire matter, our corporeality.
In none of these instances is there any sort of insinuation that the speaker or listener has a bloodless body.
Besides this, the argument from silence would seem to go both ways: if Jesus saying that His Body has Flesh and Bones means that It doesn’t have Blood, do the various instances of referring to someone as having flesh and blood prove that they didn’t have bones? Could we, using this same logic, deny that His Body has hair or fingernails?
There’s also a very good reason to believe that Christ uses the “Flesh and Bone” imagery precisely to recall Adam and Eve.
In some (but not all) of the ancient versions of Ephesians 5:30, we find this line: “we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” This is an identification of the Church as the New Eve to Christ’s New Adam. With that in mind, listen to St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis of John 19:34, from 407 A.D.:
“There flowed from His side water and blood.” Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized Baptism and the holy Eucharist. From these two Mysteries (Sacraments) the Church is born: from Baptism, “the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit”, and from the Holy Eucharist. Since the symbols of Baptism and the Eucharist flowed from His side, it was from His side that Christ fashioned the Church, as He had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam. Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: “Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!”
As God then took a rib from Adam’s side to fashion a woman, so Christ has given us blood and water from His side to fashion the Church. God took the rib when Adam was in a deep sleep, and in the same way Christ gave us the blood and the water after His own death.
This fashioning of the Church as the New Eve occurs, as the two Saints John tell us, when Christ dies on the Cross, and Blood and water come forth from His side. The next time that Jesus sees them is Easter Sunday, where He shows them His Body using terms that would immediately call to mind Adam … and the Cross.
IV. Conclusion
To recap, this notion that Christ has no Blood in His Resurrection Body is based on
(1) an argument from silence, coupled with
(2) a verse that, taken literally, would disprove the physical Resurrection and Ascension.
Given how significant this would see to be, it’s remarkable that absolutely no one in Scripture or the early Church ever claimed this about Christ.
To base something so close to a denial of the physical Resurrection on such weak evidence is remarkable.
So why is it such a popular among Mormons and certain Protestant groups?
For Mormons, the answer is easy: Joseph Smith taught it.
But what about for Protestants? I have a few hunches (bad Eucharistic theology, a soteriology and sacramental theology that tends towards treating matter as evil, bad philosophy related to the substance and accidents of the Body of Christ, a tendency towards reading everything in a literal fashion, ignorance of the Church Fathers, etc.), but I can’t say for sure.
Any thoughts?
Try “decayed” or “biodegradable.”
And instead of admitting I've been right, and how I have defended the Word against demonically inspired teachings from Mormons and other extra-Biblical false teachers, as Jesus tells us to do...
You slam me with some personal abuse?
After saying you were not going to post to me anymore?
The agitprop isn't coming from me, someone who is doing as Christ says.. being an apologist, and pulling down strongholds of false teachings and false beliefs...
"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds...
We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ"
I destroyed this false argument that Christ was bloodless at the Resurrection, because the Spirit kept reminding me that there was something amiss with this false teaching.
Refrain from personal attacks against me, and for your own sake, not my own,
go to your prayer closet and humble yourself before the Lord, and remind Him that you DO tremble before His word...
Then, after you reconcile yourself to the Lord, the least you can do is refrain from personal attack against me simply for doing the Godly thing and pointing out your grave error regarding this strange and dangerous demonic Mormon-ish false teaching
I take the FR rules against personal abuse seriously, after so many decades of being here, because I understand that another name for Satan is “slanderer” if not “the accuser of the Brethren”...
I try to limit my online criticisms of internet strangers to their opinions and arguments and logic.
NOT personal attacks.
So can you show me where I called anyone personally an “idiot” as you wrote?
I don’t think that’s what I’ve written...
I’ve written that this is an idiotic false teaching, that Christ was bloodless at the Resurrection..
And I’ve used dramatic and humorous language that this is creating a “Frankenjesus” in order to point out the error in this false teaching... (LOL, it is funny...)
And now I’ve proved it by posting an article by a man who traced the historicity of this false teaching back to its roots.
I notice that no one who previously held or currently holds to this false teaching, has bothered to admit their error...
... but instead they are attacking me personally. And this is not a mole-hill Biblically.
Again, this false teaching about a bloodless risen Christ encroaches upon John’s admonition that believers ‘test the spirits”, because anti Christ is already in the world... and the spirit of anti Christ always denies that Jesus is come in the flesh.
I’ve tested the spirits about this false teaching and been proved accurate.
So limit your discussion to the Biblical prooftext, this isn’t about me, a person you do not know on the internet..
And LOL, all you did was repeat the Bibiclal truths of what I’ve previously written as if what I said was not true!
Just admit I was right, if not on these threads, at least to the Lord in your prayer closet, so you can affirm to Him that you do indeed “love the Truth”
Because as you know, the Lord says that He will send strong delusion upon those who no longer love the Truth...
That’s why I’ve used language like Frankenchrist, in describing this false teaching about a bloodless Resurrected Christ.
Yes, I think it is an "issue" because we know that the RC doctrine of Transubstantiation goes much deeper than just the idea of what the bread and wine of the observance of the Lord's Supper "become" or represent. They teach that ONLY their priests can "confect" the substances and reception of them is salvific and the only way to obey the command of Jesus:
There are other views concerning the "real presence" of Jesus in the observance (i.e.; Consubstantiation, metaphor, etc.) that don't take it to that level. In the case of the RC view, it becomes a critical disagreement over the gospel of salvation. My point was that where Scripture is not exact, dogmatic statements based upon conjecture, opinion or developed dogma shouldn't be argued to the point of angry and hateful un-Christian attitudes or accusations of heresy.
Like I originally wrote, it’s difficult for me to believe that you didn’t immediately catch this false Mormon teaching of a “bloodless Resurrected Christ”
...that He had “flesh and bones” but no blood. (So ridiculous, .)
You would have saved all of us a lot of back and forth.
I really am surprised that you didn’t catch this Mormon false teaching...
... and I believe I posted to you about it.
Instead I got back sarcasm, that this isn’t a serious issue but “counting angels on the head of a pin...”
It’s a very serious issue if believers do not really understand that Jesus is come in the Flesh.
Disappointed in your response, Elsie; as a woman there are men of God in my life and online whom I hold in high regard and you are one of them.
You are so desperate and needy.
Just hoping you find the Jesus of the Bible. (agitprop... LOL)
Very sly conflation you’re trying to float: “It’s a very serious issue if believers do not really understand that Jesus is come in the Flesh.” Not one person on any of the ‘threads’ you deigned to post has denies that Jesus has come in the flesh. He died in the flesh, too. But He arose the Lord Christ, alive forever more and seated at the Right Hand of the Father Almighty (remember, ‘scholar’, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom) ... He IS in no need of blood for His Life issues from The Spirit.
And, seriously, I have witnessed the problems of false teaching and the toll it takes on the lives of those who fall prey to these teachings.
I suppose that’s why I’m so adamant about it.
And why Jesus is so adamant about it.
You obviously didn’t read the article that constitutes this thread?
All of your assertions were dealt with, handily, including “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom”...
Context/syntax/definition/idiomatic error on your part.
Please read the article and then refute how the author dealt with your assertion.
To coin a phrase, "What do you want? A medal?" You may think you have obeyed the "letter" of the rules, but I think you have missed the "spirit". When words like, "how idiotic and strange your..." are used, it's not out of the realm of comprehension that you ARE being quite personal in your comments/attacks and ARE being divisive. I agree with IMARDMD1 that there isn't any point in trying to argue with someone who is so convinced of their point they refuse to hear someone else's even though I disagree that he blames this on a woman's inability to think rationally and only want to nag. I know many men that do the same.
You've only "proved" in this article that someone else agrees with you on what I, and others, see as a minor issue. The ones you have insulted - yes personally - I have no doubts will agree with you on what the gospel is. I think you may have missed this. You can certainly have the last word. As a woman, I don't need to.
1. It is not a “minor issue” because it deals with whether or not the Resurrection was in the flesh.
2. You haven’t read the article that constitutes this post?
3. If “scripture is not for any private interpretation” then there is only one meaning about whether or not Christ was bloodless in His body at the Resurrection... or not. It can’t be both. Or a melding of the two.
4. Read the article and refute the Biblical logic within.
5. Calling people out on their thinking is what we are supposed to do as apologists. Don’t try to slam me for going after deceit in false teachings... this is what Christ calls us to do.
6. But thanks for pointing out I’ve been too rough on people in the manner in which I go after their thinking. Frankenjesus is my summary of the bloodless Christ at the Resurrection; and I believe it is an accurate, if not humorous, way to go after this false teaching. If it ruffles feathers in order to shake people out of a false way of thinking about Christ, so be it.
7. False teaching and false prophecy are divisive by their nature. We are called to pull down strongholds of false arguments as we see them in order to unite the Body in core beliefs. Being a Berean is what we all should aspire to do.
And NO ONE has denied this - something I think you keep missing though I don't understand why.
2. You haven’t read the article that constitutes this post?
Well, you are wrong, I did read it. Unlike you, I think the author is being unnecessarily divisive. The gospel ISN'T about the exact state of every single detail of the resurrected Jesus' body, it's about what His sacrifice on the cross accomplished and His resurrection proved to all - He is the Messiah, God incarnate, the firstborn from the dead, death has no hold on Him, He did not see corruption and He has triumphed over death and made propitiation for all our sins. IT IS FINISHED.
3. If “scripture is not for any private interpretation” then there is only one meaning about whether or not Christ was bloodless in His body at the Resurrection... or not. It can’t be both. Or a melding of the two.
There are many things in Scripture that can be ambiguous - that are not specifically spelled out, that are not a matter in our salvation. Like the Apostle John said, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25). And, "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30,31)
4. Read the article and refute the Biblical logic within.
What Biblical "logic"? The author has based his opinion on his own understanding of material things and not on what Scripture has revealed. NOBODY really knows of what exact substance the risen Christ's body was made. We know that one day we will be like Him for we will see Him as He is. One day, we will be given glorified bodies like unto His glorified body. What we will be able to do, no one has been told precisely. We take a lot on faith and trust what God has told us in His sacred word even if we don't understand it.
5. Calling people out on their thinking is what we are supposed to do as apologists. Don’t try to slam me for going after deceit in false teachings... this is what Christ calls us to do.
Except that's not what you have been doing here. You have accused others of things they didn't/haven't profess. I think you are out of line. For someone who claims to have been here for "decades", you don't seem at all familiar with the beliefs of those you attack for "false teaching". You have an OPINION. Others may not agree with your opinion, but you cannot prove your assertions BY Scripture anymore than others can - who have openly admitted so.
6. But thanks for pointing out I’ve been too rough on people in the manner in which I go after their thinking. Frankenjesus is my summary of the bloodless Christ at the Resurrection; and I believe it is an accurate, if not humorous, way to go after this false teaching. If it ruffles feathers in order to shake people out of a false way of thinking about Christ, so be it.
Once again, you are basing your OPINION upon unproven conjecture. NOBODY here has denied Jesus has come in the flesh nor that He really and truly rose from the dead in a physical body, nor that He ascended into heaven and sits on the right hand of God the Father in glory, will come again to judge the living and the dead and rule and reign forevermore.
7. False teaching and false prophecy are divisive by their nature. We are called to pull down strongholds of false arguments as we see them in order to unite the Body in core beliefs. Being a Berean is what we all should aspire to do.
Yea, you! Those you accuse of being purveyors of false prophecy and argument are really allies here in supporting the gospel of the grace of God. It looks to me like what you are doing is causing division where there shouldn't be. Would you go to these extremes were the disagreement over what songs to sing as a congregation? How about whether women should wear skirts and dresses only and not slacks? How about whether or not men should have "long" hair? Did you get the part about Paul warning about arguing over disputable matters?
Let's face it, mandated 100% agreement over EVERYTHING smacks of cults and dictatorship. What matters is that we believe and defend the rule of faith - those tenets God has clearly spelled out in Scripture. Those things that have been believed everywhere, always and by all. You know, the MAIN things.
You are right BB. This issue about blood or no blood, is not too important. Spreading the gospel is more important. These minor issues will take care of themselves. I got saved many years ago, and this is the first time I have ever seen anyone make an issue about it. As you say, best not to be dogmatic about something that is not totally clear. I am opposed to Mormonism, but this subject just doesn’t interest me much. 😁😊
When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, his sisters said he had been dead so long he 'stinketh'. After being given back his human life, there is no doubt that he had human blood distributing life to his human body, because the life of the human being is in the blood. In what form we do not actually know! And therein is an interesting note!
Lazarus eventually died again (and that in itself is an amazing point to ponder). The HUMAN life in Lazarus ended. The LIFE in Jesus is no longer merely human life, for He is incorruptible, immortal now. Human blood is not sustaining that immortality, the power of the Spirit IS.
It mattereth not the QUESTION; but the response of "Is it in the Bible?" seems not one that a Catholic would worry much about.
Since Mormonism doesn't seem to talk about it much (if any) then it doesn't come up on my radar too often.
'Tis a slippery eel...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.