# Flesh and bone, not flesh and blood?



## timfost (Apr 1, 2018)

I was reading about the JWs on Carm.org and came across the following:

*"2. The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:44-50). Therefore, Jesus' physical body could not be raised lest it contradict this verse.*
What the Jehovah's Witnesses miss is that 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."

https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-resurrection-Jesus

This was discussed somewhat briefly back in 2005 here:

https://puritanboard.com/threads/christs-glorified-body.8851/

Is this a point made in any of the commentaries that you've read? It seems speculative to me.

Thoughts?


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 1, 2018)

I'm confused. Are they saying that Christ's resurrection body does not have blood?


----------



## timfost (Apr 1, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I'm confused. Are they saying that Christ's resurrection body does not have blood?



Yes, that's what the CARM article is saying.


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 1, 2018)

timfost said:


> Yes, that's what the CARM article is saying.



I am no great theologian, but my first reaction is to wonder how Christ can be said to be fully man if he does not have blood.

My second reaction is to ask why I've never seen this before, if it's as obvious as they seem to be claiming.

Have you e-mailed CARM to ask about it?


----------



## Jack K (Apr 1, 2018)

The central thrust of the Luke 24 passage is that Jesus is showing the disciples his resurrected body to prove to them that he has come alive bodily, having a real human body of the sort they recognize. So it is a poor reading of the passage to imagine Jesus used the phrase "flesh and bones" for a very different (nearly opposite) purpose: to indicate how his resurrected body had changed.

Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses also do bad biblical interpretation when they use 1 Corinthians 15:50 to say Jesus was not raised bodily. In that passage, Paul is merely saying resurrected bodies will be incorruptible. But it is never a good idea to refute one bit of bad proof texting by offering another.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Apr 1, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I am no great theologian, but my first reaction is to wonder how Christ can be said to be fully man if he does not have blood.



The incorruptible body is different from the corruptible.



Tom Hart said:


> My second reaction is to ask why I've never seen this before, if it's as obvious as they seem to be claiming.
> 
> Have you e-mailed CARM to ask about it?



Haven't emailed them. I was just wondering if this was a common thought or if it was unique to CARM.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Apr 1, 2018)

timfost said:


> just wondering if this was a common thought or if it was unique to CARM.



I don't remember where, exactly, but I have heard this teaching a number of times in the distant past (and I was never a JW!)


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 1, 2018)

timfost said:


> The incorruptible body is different from the corruptible.



Yes, and that's an area I'm not familiar with. But no blood?


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 1, 2018)

Jack K said:


> The central thrust of the Luke 24 passage is that Jesus is showing the disciples his resurrected body to prove to them that he has come alive bodily, having a real human body of the sort they recognize. So it is a poor reading of the passage to imagine Jesus used the phrase "flesh and bones" for a very different (nearly opposite) purpose: to indicate how his resurrected body had changed.



Right. I think that the point of "flesh and bones" is not to say "no blood".


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 1, 2018)

timfost said:


> 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.



Further, is it being suggested that Jesus _bled out entirely_ on the cross?


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 2, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Right. I think that the point of "flesh and bones" is not to say "no blood".


Flesh and bone is a common OT metaphor for the whole person. See Gen. 2:23; Judg. 9:2; Job 2:5; etc. In the OT, no one would say, "You are my flesh and blood", they would say "You are my flesh and bone". That idiom is preserved in the Majority Text of Eph 5: 30 (cf the KJV), but doesn't appear elsewhere in the NT. The idiom "flesh and blood" (= mortal) is used a number of times in the NT (eg Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14). But given the frequency of the idiom in the OT, and the context - "Touch me and see": he's not inviting them to see his blood but the physicality of his body - suggests that CARM is overexegeting the text here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 2, 2018)

iainduguid said:


> Flesh and bone is a common OT metaphor for the whole person. See Gen. 2:23; Judg. 9:2; Job 2:5; etc. In the OT, no one would say, "You are my flesh and blood", they would say "You are my flesh and bone". That idiom is preserved in the Majority Text of Eph 5: 30 (cf the KJV), but doesn't appear elsewhere in the NT. The idiom "flesh and blood" (= mortal) is used a number of times in the NT (eg Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14). But given the frequency of the idiom in the OT, and the context - "Touch me and see": he's not inviting them to see his blood but the physicality of his body - suggests that CARM is overexegeting the text here.



Thank you for this information!


----------



## bookslover (Apr 2, 2018)

"Flesh and bone" was used by the ancients (at least in Israel) in the same sense in which we use "flesh and blood." They're equivalent expressions. Nothing more to it than that.


----------

