Essay 6, Footnote #02
Why it is thus
The difficulty in making the conception precise arises thus. St. Paul, expounding the distinction between the phuchikon and the pneumatikon soma, says that ``flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God''. But according to St. Luke the resurrection body of Jesus is seen to have ``flesh and bones'', and to eat fish and honeycomb; according to both St. Luke and St. John the risen Jesus offers His body to be handled; and it is clearly contrary to the meaning of the Evangelists to suppose these appearances and offers deceptive. On the other hand, the form of Jesus appears and vanishes mysteriously (Luke xxiv. 31, 36), and seems to have passed through closed doors. (John xx. 19, 26.)
I observe that Alford (on Luke xxiv. 39) suggests that the resurrection body had flesh and bones, but not blood. This strikingly illustrates what I have ventured to call the ``obscurity and ambiguity'' of the conception; but it is not easy to treat the suggestion with the respect due to a learned and thoughtful commentator. The declaration appended to the Anglican Communion Service, on the contrary, affirms that ``the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven''.
The scriptural data being what I have just stated, I think that a large freedom of interpretation of the term ``body'' may be legitimately claimed by any one who affirms a belief in the ``resurrection of the body''.