Skip to main content

The Marks on the Resurrected Body of Christ

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"After he said this, he showed them his hands and side.... Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."  A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." (John 20:19-27)

Obviously, Jesus' body had the marks; for, if they were not there, then the other disciples would have told Thomas that the body they saw had no marks of the wounds. But, why did Jesus rise up in a body with marks?

I understand that some of the beloved saints have maintained that the martyrs will still carry the marks of their persecution in their resurrected bodies. With utmost respect and love for these beloved ones, however, I find this not very plausible. For instance, what about those whose bodies were mutilated and who were torn apart by lions? Obviously, the resurrection of saints will be in a body that is healed of all wounds. Also, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; therefore, the glorious transformation of the living saints and the glorious resurrection of those who slept in Christ is necessary. This body has to be saved. But, that was not the case certainly with Jesus. His body was holy.

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. (Lk.1:35)
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me" (Heb.10:5)

It is impossible to say of Jesus that mortality reigned over Him, for He was sinless and free of the effects of sin. One could not say of Him, "just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." (Rom.5:12). Jesus never sinned. Jesus died for sins of the world not because of His sin, for He is sinless. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin; thus, He could be tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

On the other hand, Adam was only a type of Christ, the Second Man, from heaven.
"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." (Rom.5:14, NKJ)

So, while sin came by Adam, through Christ came righteousness.
"Therefore, as through one man's offense [judgment] came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act [the free gift came] to all men, resulting in justification of life." (Rom.5:18, NKJ)
This couldn't be if Christ was an effect in the chain of sin.

Jesus could never have cried like Paul:
"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells" (Rom.7:18) And,
"O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom.7:24)

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He came to give life, and life more abundantly. He couldn't say all that if He was in the line of effects of Adam's sin. For, even before Abraham or before Adam, Christ IS. Therefore, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is so significant.

Also, there is certainly a reason for the prophetic pronouncement that not one of His bones would be broken (Ps.34:20) and the fulfillment thereof (Jn.19:33-36).

His transfiguration on the Mount gave a glimpse of who He was, the Glory of God tabernacled in flesh and blood. It is wrong to think that Christ became something greater in His resurrection. His greatness is always in the infinite superlative, without any comparison whatsoever. However, in the Incarnation, we are told that He emptied Himself and took the form of a servant (Phil.2:7). He was made a little lower than the angels.

The physical wound marks on His body, apparently, only signify His distinction as the One from Above, the Last Adam, the Second Man.

Certainly, it is not impossible for God the Creator to rise up with a body without wound marks. Also, after His resurrection He appears to His disciples no longer in the same way as before the resurrection. In addition, it was not always easy for them to recognize Him always. In His High Priestly prayer, He prayed the Father to grant Him the glory which He had with Him before the foundation of the world. John testified that in Christ they beheld the glory of the only begotten of God.

-------------------------------
Last updated on June 7, 2016

Comments

  1. In my view, the marks of wounds on the body of Lord Jesus Christ is unique. The marks are proof of His crucifixion and Resurrection. He is Living and will go on living. He is supposed to show the marks in each generation as a proof of His crucifixion because there are and will be many a doubting Thomas. If Christ would not have risen without marks, it would have been a tough time for Him to prove that He was resurrected and is living now.
    All the others who were martyred from the time of Stephen till now need no marks on their bodies because they are not going to testify or prove that they were killed for the sake of Christ and his Gospel. So I feel that the decision to keep the marks of His wounds is predestined.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Poll Results: Are all Mission Fields Harvest Fields?

On Monday, April 30, I started a poll on the following question: Jesus said: "The fields are ripe for harvest... I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor." (Jn 4:35,38) DOES IT APPLY 2 NON-JUDEO LANDS AS WELL? They don't need preparation and sowing? Rather, they are as equally ripe for harvest as Judea-Samaria was because of previous labor by somebody (local indigenous religions and prophets!)? A total of 18 votes were cast with the following main results: YES = 9 I believe it wherever the gospel is preached and people respond. = 5 NO = 1 I'M NOT SURE = 0 One Scholar responded saying: "I think God's Spirit is at work with all people all the time through various way, and sundry ways as Hebrews says. hence they are ready for harvest... but the church is too slow to go." A Pastor responded saying: "I do believe that even in the remotest areas, the fields are alread...

Rocketing Prices Make Vegetables and Fruits a Luxury in India

Prices of agro-products soar higher in India, making fruits and vegetables almost a luxury. The Times of India reports: "The price of almost every vegetables except onion and potato has gone up to 25 to 30 per cent in the wholesale market and retail price staggering up to 45 to 50 per cent. A random market survey revealed an increase in the price of spinach to Rs 40-45 from Rs 10-15 kg a few days back. "The price of tomato has gone up to Rs 55-60 from Rs 40 a kg and capsicum to Rs 60-80 from Rs 40 per kg at the start of this month. The price of onion has gone up to Rs 20 from Rs 15-18 per kg but still remained steady in the market. "Variation between the wholesale prices and retail prices is staggering between 25%-30%." (Lucknow: July 17, 2009). Lauki (bottle gourd) went from being Rs. 7-10 per kg to Rs. 40 per kg. The price of lentils has shot up to Rs. 85 per kg from Rs. 40-45 per kg. The saying "dal bhat ab ameeron ka khana hei" (lentils and rice are n...

Three Divisions of Philosophical Theology

Also discussed as "God of the Rationalist or God of the Empiricists " at Philpapers.org Philosophical theology can be basically divided into three classes: Rationalist theology, Empirical theology, and Intermediate Theology. Rationalist Theology  includes isms such as monism (e.g. Parmenides and Zeno) and non-dualism (Advaitins of India) whose assertions are usually supported by arguments that rationally dismiss experience as false and irrational. This they do with reference to ultimate concepts such as unity, necessity, infinity, immutability, and transcendence (none of which can be predicated of the things of experience). Thus, God becomes the "wholly other" transcendent reality that can only be talked about  via negativa. Empirical Theology,  on the other hand, is quite the opposite of the previous. It actually brings religion down to the earth. The gods and goddesses are more human like, and earthly; and, of course, positively understandable in empirical categor...