Home About Us Apostolic Free Library Questions & Answers Guestbook Order Online Search The Network

The heavenly flesh of Jesus.

 Submitted: 11/4/2010
Post a comment or
ask a follow-up question
 
Question: Interesting as they may be, the words by the previous respondent cannot make up for the fact that the Bible does not contain any verse hinting at any change in the flesh of Jesus. He is the same, yesterday, today and forever, scripture asserts. Jesus is the alfa and omega, and His flesh was directly from the Word instead of first using the intermediate stage of dust. Jesus is Word made flesh, not Word-made-dust made flesh. That is an essential difference, and it will prove to be essential in theology as well. Adam had corruptible dust-flesh, whereas Jesus had incorruptible Word-flesh. Jesus died on the cross when the Spirit left His body ('He gave up the Ghost'). But death could not hurt the flesh (incorruptible!), and He resurrected when the Spirit revived the body again. Even then, Jesus flesh was unchanged, containing the very wounds. The Bible says He is from above, not from this world (Joh 8:23). Anyone denying that fact by using some theological discourse is repeating the mistake of the early church fathers: exchanging revelation for man-made doctrine. The councils of Ephesus and later Chaldecon decided that Jesus flesh was from Mary and therefore corruptible. No apostle or Bible writer however made such a claim! If some theological proposition is not found in the Bible, its veracity must be questioned. The same argument is launched against the Trinity, and for a good reason. Nowhere the Bible makes any claim that God eternally exists as a oneness of three persons. To the contrary, the Bible makes it crystal clear that God is numerically One (echad, eis). Similarly, the Bible does not only fail to mention any dual nature of Jesus, but it refers to the flesh of Jesus consistently as 'holy', 'bread from heaven,' 'undefiled', 'glorious', 'incorruptible' and 'from above'. That description is simply incompatible with the nature of the flesh of Adam. To claim that only a dust-Jesus can constitute a real atonement, is a fallacy in itsself. God is the only saviour, and He can use any means by which to achieve salvation. It is a kind of human arrogance to think that God needs to share in our corrupt nature for Him to be able to save us. God can suffer for us outside of His flesh just as well. Even in Isaiah 63:16, God makes it clear that He suffers from our sins. That was written long before the Son was begotten. Jesus had real flesh and blood, but the fact that the Father took on flesh is not the reason He can suffer. God from the beginning is in sorrow for our failure to be holy (read Gen 6). In the end He had to take on heavenly flesh to give it to us. The method by which He gives us His flesh is through the new birth. We have to eat and drink the flesh and blood of Jesus. How do we eat it? By putting it on in baptism in Jesus Name. By repenting and obeying Christ. By being infilled with the Holy Ghost. This has nothing to do with the dubious catholic doctine of transsubstitution. Jesus is not in a cookie. He is Word-flesh and Spirit. His Word is life, and so is His flesh, because it releases us from the dust and from death. By putting on His body of resurrection, we will be able to enter heaven. No dust-flesh can stay in Gods presence. It would burn up and dissolve by being exposed to the holiness of God. That is what happened to the accusers of the friends of Daniel. Jesus says to all of us clearly: if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. From the beginning He said: I am. If you are baptized in the Name of Jesus you have put on the holy arm of the I AM (Is.53) Not the son of Mary, or Adam, or Abraham, or David, but the I AM. Jesus said: before Abraham was, I AM. He made it clear that Messiah can never be just Davids biological son, and the seed of David is a promise of Gods Word (Matt 22, fulfilled in Acts 2:38). Jesus is the only begotten and holy Son of the living God, the flesh of Yehovah, the One God manifested in glorious flesh. To claim anything else, is theologly derived by human wisdom.
Answer: Johannes writes: To claim that only a dust-Jesus can constitute a real atonement, is a fallacy in itsself. God is the only saviour, and He can use any means by which to achieve salvation. It is a kind of human arrogance to think that God needs to share in our corrupt nature for Him to be able to save us. God can suffer for us outside of His flesh just as well. Even in Isaiah 63:16, God makes it clear that He suffers from our sins. That was written long before the Son was begotten. Jesus had real flesh and blood, but the fact that the Father took on flesh is not the reason He can suffer. God from the beginning is in sorrow for our failure to be holy (read Gen 6).

I say, this, in my opinion, is where his theology breaks down. The rest is debatable. We believe he is incorrect, but we are all probably in error on one thing or another. Thankfully God forgives. However, this one point is, I fear, a grave heresy. He is trying to assert that God did not actually need to become human at all to atone for sin.

He uses the adjective 'corrupt' to describe humanity's 'nature' (rightly so), but then declares, 'God can suffer for us outside of His flesh just as well.' Do you see my point? Isaiah 63:16 says nothing about God suffering. Perhaps he wrote an incorrect Scripture passage, but I don't find his analogy of emotional sorrow of the Spirit to equate with the physical death of Jesus Christ in atoning for my sin. If God's sorrow was enough to atone for sin, then there was no need for Christ.

Johannes writes: “The previous respondent cannot make up for the fact that the Bible does not contain any verse hinting at any change in the flesh of Jesus.”

I say, the Bible also doesn't speak of spotted, pink elephants either. And while we know those don't exist, it also doesn't contain any verse addressing the known fact that the bombardier beetle can eject jets of boiling chemicals from its abdomen. We cannot make positive or negative statements on what the Bible does not say.

However, I did cover this point in the writing of Paul at 1 Corinthians 15. The Bible may not distinctly address this issue, but we can also assume that the writers did not feel this was even necessary. When John wrote, 'and the Word was made flesh' in opposition to Docetic Gnosticism, any rational person would have understood the natural meaning of that passage. It is when we attempt to over-spiritualize the text that we miss the obvious.


Copyright © 1999 - 2024 || Rosh-Pinnah Publications :: PO Box 337 :: Carlisle, PA 17013-0337