Just a curiosity that crossed my mind, why is it that Christ's resurrected body maintained it's wounds? I presume He could have made them disappear if He chose to, and we don't read of the whip marks being present. Some guesses I found online were along the lines of it being a badge of honor/glory, a reminder of what He did for us, a sign of the covenant, and so forth. Any other thoughts?
I wouldn't think that Christians whose bodies are maimed/destroyed at the time of death would have any of these issues stay with them in the resurrection. If so, the JW's will need to remake a lot of pamphlets.
Wounds in Christ's resurrected body?
Re: Wounds in Christ's resurrected body?
Just My Two Cents.
There are a few curiosities to consider when dealing with the resurrected body of Christ. The first, why does Jesus appear unrecognizable then become recognizable? Also, how does he appear in a room full of people without anyone noticing his entrance? Finally, why appear with any affliction or scars in the first place?
Point number one from unrecognizable to recognizable. In both Luke and John we read that Jesus appears (after he has risen) to several individuals and they do not recognize him. I'm not sure of his motive but I suspect it could be familiar to the encounter with Peter where Jesus asks "Who do you say that I am?" I'm not sure of his motive but it could have been a fact finding then educational encounter. Without a good explanation of my own I'll move on.
On at least two occasions the disciples are in a closed room (once with Thomas) and Jesus appears from nowhere. Some thought he was a spirit so he allowed them to feel and examine his wounds. Knowing that throughout his ministry he was capable of performing some supernatural feats, I would credit his appearance as a similar action.
Finally, why appear with scars or wounds? Thomas made it clear that his belief in the resurrected Lord would be based on seeing Jesus himself. To convince Thomas and others like him as well as to dispel any rumors that it was his spirit or ghost that had returned, Jesus made it clear that it was he who had risen, not a manifestation. Don't forget he also ate with the disciples something a spirit would likely not partake in.
I believe Jesus was dispelling any and all rumors that he had not conquered the grave. Even today there are individuals who need further proof, or proof beyond explanation to convince them of things in which they have not witnessed. For some, it takes more than faith to convince them. Thomas happened to be one of those individuals. Don't be too hard on Thomas (Didymus) though, he was the first to say he would travel back to where Lazarus was dying and would face death if necessary.
There are a few curiosities to consider when dealing with the resurrected body of Christ. The first, why does Jesus appear unrecognizable then become recognizable? Also, how does he appear in a room full of people without anyone noticing his entrance? Finally, why appear with any affliction or scars in the first place?
Point number one from unrecognizable to recognizable. In both Luke and John we read that Jesus appears (after he has risen) to several individuals and they do not recognize him. I'm not sure of his motive but I suspect it could be familiar to the encounter with Peter where Jesus asks "Who do you say that I am?" I'm not sure of his motive but it could have been a fact finding then educational encounter. Without a good explanation of my own I'll move on.
On at least two occasions the disciples are in a closed room (once with Thomas) and Jesus appears from nowhere. Some thought he was a spirit so he allowed them to feel and examine his wounds. Knowing that throughout his ministry he was capable of performing some supernatural feats, I would credit his appearance as a similar action.
Finally, why appear with scars or wounds? Thomas made it clear that his belief in the resurrected Lord would be based on seeing Jesus himself. To convince Thomas and others like him as well as to dispel any rumors that it was his spirit or ghost that had returned, Jesus made it clear that it was he who had risen, not a manifestation. Don't forget he also ate with the disciples something a spirit would likely not partake in.
I believe Jesus was dispelling any and all rumors that he had not conquered the grave. Even today there are individuals who need further proof, or proof beyond explanation to convince them of things in which they have not witnessed. For some, it takes more than faith to convince them. Thomas happened to be one of those individuals. Don't be too hard on Thomas (Didymus) though, he was the first to say he would travel back to where Lazarus was dying and would face death if necessary.
Re: Wounds in Christ's resurrected body?
I think the main reason Jesus maintained His wounds after being resurrected was to show that the resurrection body was the SAME body, albeit a changed body — changed from a mortal to an immortal body which could pass through doors. Jesus' intention was show that it was actually He, Himself, and to dispel any thought that He was a spirit or ghost.
See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” (Luke 24:39)
He also ate food with His disciples for the same reason.
See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” (Luke 24:39)
He also ate food with His disciples for the same reason.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Wounds in Christ's resurrected body?
As far as the recognition issue goes, why do we assume he was resurrected in the same condition/age as when he died? I remember seeing an old friend from my youth. I had been to his home many times, we played sports together and so forth. Then I moved away and didn't see him for twenty years or so. I was back for a visit and happened to sit at a table next to his in a fast food restaurant. It took me a while to recognize who he was. And recently I came across a man I had worked with 16 years ago and did not recognize him until someone told me who he was.
Jesus' disciples may have never seen him when He was younger; perhaps He came back in an 18 year old body.
Jesus' disciples may have never seen him when He was younger; perhaps He came back in an 18 year old body.
Re: Wounds in Christ's resurrected body?
So Paidion, you would see His maintenance of wounds as a choice to fulfill a particular purpose, and not an indication in general for what others might expect when they receive resurrection bodies?
Re: Wounds in Christ's resurrected body?
I think we will keep scars that dont bother us.
My wife has some pretty bad scars on her leg and arm from a car accident years ago. I dont think she will keep those. But i have a little scar by my eye that i have had since i was 4 or so- it is so a part of me that it doesnt bother me a bit.
Of course this is all surmising. What i really want to know is whether I will have my 16 year old head of hair. Now THAT would be weird.
My wife has some pretty bad scars on her leg and arm from a car accident years ago. I dont think she will keep those. But i have a little scar by my eye that i have had since i was 4 or so- it is so a part of me that it doesnt bother me a bit.
Of course this is all surmising. What i really want to know is whether I will have my 16 year old head of hair. Now THAT would be weird.
Re: Wounds in Christ's resurrected body?
In my thinking, the reason they didn't recognize Him was that they believed Him to be dead. My father was killed in a hunting accident when I was 17. I'm sure that if I had seen him alive a year later, I wouldn't have believed it was he. I would have thought it was someone who resembled him. I would have thought, "It couldn't be my father. He is dead!"
Jesus was the first to have a true resurrection. Oh, I know Jesus brought Lazarus back to life after he had died and his body had begun to decay. But that was not a true resurrection. That was a resuscitation. Doubtless, Lazarus died again.
Jesus was the first to have a true resurrection. Oh, I know Jesus brought Lazarus back to life after he had died and his body had begun to decay. But that was not a true resurrection. That was a resuscitation. Doubtless, Lazarus died again.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Wounds in Christ's resurrected body?
In the verses pertaining to the people walking along the path, it is worth noting, that it was the people's problem. It didn't say that Jesus was any different, it says that they didn't recognize him or they were kept from recognizing him. Also some points have been argued where some verses say, "...they supposed that they had seen a spirit". That was the person's fault that was doing the seeing. When Jesus walked on water, they "...supposed it was a spirit". That was the beholder's problem, not Jesus'.
Re: Wounds in Christ's resurrected body?
I don't see any problem with any individual who did not recognize Jesus after his resurrection. I do believe that the unrecognizable feature was to ultimately serve a purpose. In John, Jesus is mistaken as the "gardener", then he reveals himself to Mary. In Luke, one of the two witnesses is identified as Cleopas and we can speculate who the other may have been. Jesus spends a good portion of the day with them revealing scripture. His identity is revealed after breaking of bread which leads me to believe they might have been present at the Lord's supper. There is some controversy about Mark 16:9-19 but there is continuity in these verses to other scripture. Jesus revealed himself to two (Cleopas and another?), then revealed himself to the eleven. Finally in Matthew, Jesus reveals himself to at least the two Mary's (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James) on their way from the tomb.
Two things come to mind for me when I study these passages; 1) Jesus is unrecognizable by sight and then revealed, 2) The hearts of the unbelievers are opened up so that scripture becomes clear. In the ancient world in Hebrew culture the testimony of two witnesses could sentence a person to death. A few of the gospels mention multiple witnesses, but when their visions are shared, the outcome is unbelief. I find it ironic that a person could die from the testimony of two, but the reliability of witnessing our Lord resurrected was substantiated mostly when he appeared to the skeptics even after multiple witnesses were present. Perhaps this is why he tells Thomas blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed. Sounds like faith to me.
Is it fair to say that what we see and what we process as knowledge are far less important than what lies in our hearts? Sorry for wondering off the topic of Christ's Wounds, but I did not want those who did not recognize Jesus portrayed as insufficient.
Two things come to mind for me when I study these passages; 1) Jesus is unrecognizable by sight and then revealed, 2) The hearts of the unbelievers are opened up so that scripture becomes clear. In the ancient world in Hebrew culture the testimony of two witnesses could sentence a person to death. A few of the gospels mention multiple witnesses, but when their visions are shared, the outcome is unbelief. I find it ironic that a person could die from the testimony of two, but the reliability of witnessing our Lord resurrected was substantiated mostly when he appeared to the skeptics even after multiple witnesses were present. Perhaps this is why he tells Thomas blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed. Sounds like faith to me.
Is it fair to say that what we see and what we process as knowledge are far less important than what lies in our hearts? Sorry for wondering off the topic of Christ's Wounds, but I did not want those who did not recognize Jesus portrayed as insufficient.
Re: Wounds in Christ's resurrected body?
It is important to remember that the people who did not recognize him because it was said, "...they supposed that they had seen a spirit", does not indicate that he was in a spirit form. He was physically resurrected. The disciples in the boat, "...supposed he was a spirit" when he walked to them on the water, but this was before his death. What they "supposed" or that they did not recognize him doesn't mean he was not physically resurrected.