Does The Glorified Body of Christ Have Blood?

Shameless Popery ^ | December 5, 2012 | by Joe Heschmeyer

[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?

[Sontagged]

A question:

Does “one... Apostolic... church” mean what the Catholics and Episcopalians say it means, or something else?

[nonsporting]

JW's don't teach this. They reject the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Disembodied spirits do not have "flesh and bone." I showed this to a JW at my door:

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)

[Sontagged]

Exactly my point.

[Elsie]

You’re one up on me. I’d NEVER thought about it except sort of when a Mormon boy tried to foist a similar idea upon me — He said Jesus is spirit at the Resurrection —

Then you SHOULD have paid attention; you GENTILE!!

---

And HERE (bottom line) is WHY...

---

 

 

 

Professor Robert Millet        teaching at the Mission Prep Club in 2004  http://newsnet.byu.edu/video/18773/  <-- Complete and uneditted

 

---

If the above link does NOT function; try THIS one.   Click on the second image.

 

http://mormontruthnews.blogspot.com/2006/10/robert-millet-former-dean-of-religious_01.html

---

 

 

Timeline...    Subject...

 

0:59           "Anti-Mormons..."

1:16           "ATTACK the faith you have..."

2:02           "We really aren't obligated to answer everyone's questions..."

3:57           "You already know MORE about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than any who would ATTACK you."

 

 

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Why would anyone want to belong to a false religion?

Simple.

They do not think it is false.

They think YOURS is!

(Unless they are of the 'all roads lead to GOD' persuasion.

[Elsie]

Does “one... Apostolic... church” mean what the Catholics and Episcopalians say it means, or something else?

I have no idea what they 'say'.

There are a LOT of Denominations that say "Our way is the RIGHT way"

[Elsie]

Exactly my point.

Ok; we seem to agree that the BIBLE is the reference point; so...

...just what WAS Jesus doing when He referred to THIS?

[Sontagged]

And I have been spouting that verse for many long FReeper days here, to no avail, with some of my protestant FRiends who seem to believe that Jesus had no blood in His body after the Crucifixion and after the Resurrection...

JW’s seem to teach the same thing; no blood in a resurrected spirit body of Jesus!

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2012/08/1-corinthians-1544-50-jehovahs-witness.html

“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

[Elsie]

 

As I was walking across a bridge one day; I saw a man standing outside the railing, about to jump off.

 

So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

 

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

 

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

 

I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of GOD or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist Church of GOD!"

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of GOD, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD?"

He said,"Reformed Baptist Church of GOD!"

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915!"

 

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

 

-- Emo Phillips

[Mark17]

Unless they are of the 'all roads lead to GOD' persuasion.

Isn’t that more commonly called universalism? I believe that is another false religion. 🤣

[Mrs. Don-o]

Strange Bump

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“But avoid *foolish controversies* and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. “

“Reject a *factious man* after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.”

Titus 3:9-11

[Mark17]

I know, I know, but when the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witness come to my door, I usually confront them with the truth. Usually, they are not interested in the truth, but I simply say, well, you came to my door, peddling your false religion, so here is the truth. Most of the time, they beat feet, since they are not interested in the truth. 👎

[Mark17]

Strange Bump

Not so strange. We are trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Elsie did some super scientific calculations on another thread, and came up with a figure. I just can’t remember what it was. 😁🤣😊👍

[Campion]

A greater question is does Christ now occupy a glorified/resurrected body? Bible says yes .... Nicene Creed would philosophically say no (unless it is lumped in as another non-biblical mystery).

How do you possibly get that out of the Nicene Creed?

[Campion]

You mean Catholics should have a problem with Christ not having literal blood in His resurrected body when Catholic Eucharistic theology teaches that while the Lord is then “physically present,” this presence is not as that of the Biblical Christ in His incarnation, whose manifest physically is so much stressed in Scripture (see below), but the Catholic Eucharistic Christ is akin to a docetist or gnostic-type Christ in that he appears to be something he is not, that of bread and wine.

It would be nice if you could write one post without a run-on sentence.

There is nothing "docetist" or "gnostic" about Catholic Eucharistic theology. The Docetists thought Christ didn't really die on the Cross. The gnostics thought all kinds of crazy things having to do with salvation by the eating of cucumbers and other such nonsense. Neither group would recognize transubstantiation as their own.

[daniel1212]

... Catholic Eucharistic theology teaches that while the Lord is then “physically present,” ... Please provide a cite for the quote "physically present". Much obliged.

Tell me first what the difference is btwn Christ being present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place, and being "physically present," yet "this presence is not as that of the Biblical Christ in His incarnation"?

[Iscool]

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.<.i>

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own (shed) blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: Heb 9:14 How much more shall the (shed) blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

There is nothing in these passages that suggest Jesus brought any blood to heaven with him...In fact, it is just the opposite...Jesus had to lose his blood to get there...

Jesus' physical, terrestrial body had to be changed into a celestial body unlike anything any human can comprehend...Jesus' physical body can walk thru doors and walls and anything else he wants to walk thru...

What would be the need for blood in heaven??? 'Human life is in the blood but so is human death...Most every disease known to man is the result of bad blood...Why would God want blood in heaven???

[daniel1212]

You mean Catholics should have a problem with Christ not having literal blood in His resurrected body when Catholic Eucharistic theology teaches that while the Lord is then “physically present,” this presence is not as that of the Biblical Christ in His incarnation, whose manifest physically is so much stressed in Scripture (see below), but the Catholic Eucharistic Christ is akin to a docetist or gnostic-type Christ in that he appears to be something he is not, that of bread and wine

It would be nice if you could write one post without a run-on sentence.

So you find fault with a easily comprehensible 23 word sentence? Perhaps you find fault in encyclicals? Why one encyclical (QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, POPE PIUS Xl ,MAY 15, 1931) of over 20,000 words, has more than one paragraph of over 400 words, and at least one sentence of over 90 words, and which also abounds in punctuation.

There is nothing "docetist" or "gnostic" about Catholic Eucharistic theology. The Docetists thought Christ didn't really die on the Cross. The gnostics thought all kinds of crazy things having to do with salvation by the eating of cucumbers and other such nonsense. Neither group would recognize transubstantiation as their own.

And there are differences btwn a earthly king and the King of the kingdom of God, yet the Lord said "the kingdom of heaven likened unto a king, which would take account of his servants," (Matthew 18:23) for the use of analogy does not require comprehensive correspondence.

And my analogy of the Catholic Eucharistic Christ to a docetist or gnostic-type Christ had nothing to do "with salvation by the eating of cucumbers and other such nonsense," but was that in both cases he appears to be something he is not.

Hold that the manifestly physical body of Christ was an illusion a mere semblance without any true reality as in , docetism , that it was not what it appeared to be, is indeed "akin" (as said) to holding that the manifestly material bread and wine do not exist, and that what Christ appears to be is not the reality.

That is simply not how Scripture describes the body of Christ, and a truly literal reading of the words "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you" (1 Corinthians 11:24) would mean the disciples were consuming the only manifestly physical body of Christ body of Christ they knew, that would be manifestly crucified, versus a metaphysical wafer-god.

Might as well imagine David transubstantiated water into the blood of men, since he call it and treated it as so:

And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Beth–lehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)

[eastsider]

I’m asking a a very straightforward question: What is the source of your quote? Either you have a source or you don’t.