Why does Jesus's Glorified Body have the marks of the wounds?

[Abba]

Why does Jesus’s Glorified Body have the marks of the wounds? Why is it important to note that not a bone was broken? Is it to emphasize that it was forseen and prophesized (OT)? Why was Thomas convinced onces he saw the wounds? Why would Thomas expect Jesus to have the marks of the wounds after resurrection?

Will those that make it to heaven have the marks of wounds and broken bones in their glorified bodies that they got when on earth?

 

[feed_me]

There is no broken bones because he wasnt nailed in the hands, but in the wrists were the bones can support the weight of the body.

 

[iohannes13]

Why does Jesus’s Glorified Body have the marks of the wounds? Why is it important to note that not a bone was broken? Is it to emphasize that it was forseen and prophesized (OT)? Why was Thomas convinced onces he saw the wounds? Why would Thomas expect Jesus to have the marks of the wounds after resurrection?

Will those that make it to heaven have the marks of wounds and broken bones in their glorified bodies that they got when on earth?

The marks are there as proof that He was Crucified.

Your glorified body will have the same characteristics as Christ’s without the marks. So to put in mildly, you are going to be like a super hero.

 

[Abba]

There is no broken bones because he wasnt nailed in the hands, but in the wrists were the bones can support the weight of the body.

He showed Thomas His hands. I go with that He was nailed in the hands.

http://warm-mouse-heated-keyboard.com/user_upload/clip_image001.gif

The nail could have gone in between the middle finger and the ring finger with no problem or on the other side of the middle finger - right at the center of the hands as it is believed.

At any rate, I am not questioning on whether He had any broken bones. He did not. What I wonder is why is it important to note this, is it just to emphasized that it had been foretold and use it as proof He was the Messiah or what?

 

[feed_me]

Remember the jewish language didnt have a word for wrists at that time so hands were used instead unless i am mistaken. Even if Christ was nailed through the finger it would still pull and rip off cause of the weight of the body.

 

[JerryZ]

It was a very important part of the prophecy of who the Christ would be and how he would suffer.

And considering that it was made quite a few years before the Romans ever showed up in the land of Israel it is astonishingly accurate.
Most of the crucified victims were killed in the end of the torture (Crucifixion was a method of torture NOT killing) by breaking their legs.
Jesus died earlier than expected, possibly because of the extra torture imposed on HIM by Pontius Pilatus when he had HIM flogged (he hoped that the Sanhedrin would be appeased by this).
Then the Roman Centurion made SURE Jesus was dead by piercing HIS heart with his “Pilum” (Roman Spear).

As to the why Jesus “Kept” HIS “marks”, I believe that Jesus knows us better than ourselves. HE being GOD could erase completely the marks of his murder and yet HE chose to keep them because our incredulous nature.

St. Thomas so eloquently stated it didn’t he?
“Unless I see and put my finger in the holes left by the nails and touch HIS side and see the wound left by the Pilum I will not believe.”
And Jesus did just that. “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Another possibility on the issue of how the nailing was done is that there is a distinct possibility that the prisoners being crucified were not hanging from the nails per se rather they were tied by the arms to the horizontal beam with rope and the nailing was to impede or to make it painful to pull your weight up. Remember that the position the crucified victim is placed hinders proper breathing. And again it is primarily a torture method. The Romans had more expedient ways of killing than that.

…

 

[sticknstring73]

I believe the “not a bone was broken” actually refers to psalm 34. Just as “why have you forsaken me” refers to psalm 22.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Why does Jesus’s Glorified Body have the marks of the wounds?

Jesus’ marks show that he really did suffer and die on a Cross. He is always before the Father in heaven as the Lamb who was slain. His Sacrifice was once and for all, but is an eternal Sacrifice, being eternally presented before the Father. His marks also serve as a reminder of his sacrifice for us.

Why is it important to note that not a bone was broken? Is it to emphasize that it was forseen and prophesized (OT)?
.
Yes. In the OT it was believed that God would protect the Messiah from broken bones. But, also, in the OT when they used to do animal sacrifices, the lamb had to be free of all blemishes in order to be acceptable to God. Jesus not having any broken bones could be seen as a sign that he is without spot or blemish and is thus an acceptable sacrifice.

"These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” (John 19:36)

“Not a bone: A reference to Ex 12:46. ● This restriction was part of Israel’s Passover legislation that disqualified lambs with blemishes and broken bones from being slaughtered and eaten for the liturgical celebration (Ex 12:5; Num 9:11–12). Jesus, whose bones are left intact, is the unblemished Lamb (Jn 1:29) fit to be consumed in the eucharistic liturgy (6:53–58; CCC 608).” - ICSB commentary

Why was Thomas convinced onces he saw the wounds? Why would Thomas expect Jesus to have the marks of the wounds after resurrection?

Thomas said that unless he puts his finger in the holes he would not believe. And, that is exactly what happened. And, thus he believed. Jesus responds by saying blessed are those who have not seen yet believe. Thomas has no reason to think that Jesus would not have those wounds after being resurrected. In fact, Thomas has no concept of a resurrected body, only that Jesus was dead and is now alive. Seeing the holes would confirm to him that this really is him and act as identifying marks.

“Thomas’ doubting moves our Lord to give him special proof that his risen body is quite real. By so doing he bolsters the faith of those who would later on find faith in him. “Surely you do not think”, St Gregory the Great comments, “that it was a pure accident that that chosen disciple was missing; who on his return was told about the appearance and on hearing about it doubted; doubting, so that he might touch and believe by touching? It was not an accident; God arranged that it should happen. His clemency acted in this wonderful way so that through the doubting disciple touching the wounds in his Master’s body, our own wounds of incredulity might be healed. …] And so the disciple, doubting and touching, was changed into a witness of the truth and of the resurrection” (In Evangelia homiliae, 26, 7).” - Navarre Commentary

Will those that make it to heaven have the marks of wounds and broken bones in their glorified bodies that they got when on earth?

No. These marks on Jesus are unique. As I said before they signify his Sacrifice on the Cross for us.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I also wanted to add the following, but it won’t let me edit my post anymore.

It was important for Jesus to prove to his disciples that his body really did rise from the dead and he was not just a ghost. Jesus says elsewhere to his disciples, “Touch me and see for yourselves; a ghost has no flesh and bones as you can see I have.” - Luke 24:39

 

[Petaro]

In the popular patois it gives street cred. I am sure He appeared to His apostles in this manner to prove it was the same Man who died on the Cross and is now Risen. He used these scars to offer proof to Thomas and to us, those who need the reassurance of a failing faith.
His suffering is the very reality of His sacrifice and the continued signs of such sacrifice is a part of His Nature as a Man.
We should glory in His merciful offering of such a sign to Thomas and to all us doubters.

 

[Nigel7]

Thomas was simply stating the he’d believe that the Lord was alive again only when he saw it with his own eyes, saying he’d believe when he saw with his own eyes the wounds in Christ’s hands and in his side. And so Jesus showed him.

 

[GEddie]

The Hebrew and Greek words for hand included the wrist, and so there is no conflict.

We still use words the same way. If your “hands are tied,” the knots are around your wrists.

The “anatomical wrist,” where many scholars hold that crucifixion nails were fixed, is not the lower forearm but the bones at the heel of the hand, where the bending occurs.

We really don’t know what Thomas expected. None of us have any experience of bodily resurrection so we don’t know how we’d react to it. Perhaps he believed that such major wounds would definitely leave a trace even in resurrection.

Broken bones were an issue because our LORD was the human “lamb of God.” The sacrificial lamb was not to have bones broken, although broken legs were the usual fate of crucifixion victims.

Even if we die with broken bones, however, the Resurrectional Body (pneumatikon soma, “spiritual body”) is free from all disability. We will not join Life Everlasting with limbs or heads flopping around; we will be fully renewed.

ICXC NIKA

 

[patrick457]

Why does Jesus’s Glorified Body have the marks of the wounds? Why is it important to note that not a bone was broken? Is it to emphasize that it was forseen and prophesized (OT)?

Because in Exodus, the Passover lamb’s bones are not supposed to be broken, and Jesus is the lamb of God. Now granted, we don’t know for sure why God commanded that the Passover lamb’s bones not be broken (one idea is that it is because “no bone of the children of Israel will be broken;” God will save them whole and entire from the tenth plague).

Why was Thomas convinced onces he saw the wounds? Why would Thomas expect Jesus to have the marks of the wounds after resurrection?

To make sure that it is really Him. I mean, somebody could have pretended that he was Jesus redivivus, and you can’t be entirely sure that He’s really there in flesh and blood - as opposed to being an illusion or a ghost - unless you touch Him.

The thing is, it’s really very rare for a crucifixion victim to come down alive: crucifixion was this thing there where the only way you really come down is dead. (The Jewish historian Josephus had three friends who were crucified; he managed to get them reprieved and taken down from their crosses, but even after being treated by a doctor, only one managed to survive.) Especially - as in the case of Jesus - if you’re nailed. Because even if in the unlikely event you do manage to not die, there’s a possibility that you’ll become a paralytic and/or a paraplegic. It’s not like the Romans were using sterilized thin-headed pins to hang people up on crosses like those Filipino penitentes who have themselves crucified every Holy Week. Just look at these kind of nails, I mean.

 

[JakeG]

He showed Thomas His hands. I go with that He was nailed in the hands.

http://warm-mouse-heated-keyboard.com/user_upload/clip_image001.gif

The nail could have gone in between the middle finger and the ring finger with no problem or on the other side of the middle finger - right at the center of the hands as it is believed.
and use it as proof He was the Messiah or what?

I found this book infomative:

The Crucifixion of Jesus, Completely Revised and Expanded: A Forensic Inquiry by Frederick T. Zugibe

 

[GEddie]

He showed Thomas His hands. I go with that He was nailed in the hands.

http://warm-mouse-heated-keyboard.com/user_upload/clip_image001.gif

The nail could have gone in between the middle finger and the ring finger with no problem or on the other side of the middle finger - right at the center of the hands as it is believed.

At any rate, I am not questioning on whether He had any broken bones. He did not. What I wonder is why is it important to note this, is it just to emphasized that it had been foretold and use it as proof He was the Messiah or what?

The diagram does not show the difficulty: that between the metacarpals of the hand, only skin and connective tissue hold the limb together. A nail driven through there and subjected to a tension greater than the body weight (due to the angles involved) would tear right through the structure of both hands.

It is more likely that the nails went, not through the lower forearms (the “wrists”), but between the tightly fitted bones of the “heel of the hand,” also known as the anatomical wrist.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Abba]

The stigmatists have the mark in the center of the hands. Through history the images of Jesus have the mark on the center of the hands. The image of Divine Mercy has the mark on the center of the hands. Although, I am not sure if Saint Faustina saw that one and the earlier ones do not show the wound. It could be the case that when she saw Jesus she did not see any wounds because of the angle.

I have to go with the tradition of the Church and what is in Sacred Scripture. The fact that some researchers from the Mayo Clinic did a ‘study’ and everyone else has been quoting and then quoting each other, including Catholic organizations and sites; does not a fact make.

The New Testament was written in Greek and the Greeks have a word for hand. The OT was written in Hebrew and the Jews have a word for hand.

In light of the fact of the historical position and the fact that it is regarding a matter of Our Lord Jesus and so it was very important to people that thing be stated clearly I just don’t buy the claim about the wrist.

 

[kkollwitz]

As long as we sin, Jesus still intercedes in heaven as the slain lamb. Once the saved are living in the New Jerusalem and there is no more sin, I think it’s likely that that Jesus’ wounds will at last heal.

 

[GEddie]

As long as we sin, Jesus still intercedes in heaven as the slain lamb. Once the saved are living in the New Jerusalem and there is no more sin, I think it’s likely that that Jesus’ wounds will at last heal.

You may be right.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Telstar]

The stigmatists have the mark in the center of the hands. Through history the images of Jesus have the mark on the center of the hands. The image of Divine Mercy has the mark on the center of the hands. Although, I am not sure if Saint Faustina saw that one and the earlier ones do not show the wound. It could be the case that when she saw Jesus she did not see any wounds because of the angle.

I have to go with the tradition of the Church and what is in Sacred Scripture. The fact that some researchers from the Mayo Clinic did a ‘study’ and everyone else has been quoting and then quoting each other, including Catholic organizations and sites; does not a fact make.

The New Testament was written in Greek and the Greeks have a word for hand. The OT was written in Hebrew and the Jews have a word for hand.

In light of the fact of the historical position and the fact that it is regarding a matter of Our Lord Jesus and so it was very important to people that thing be stated clearly I just don’t buy the claim about the wrist.

I tend to agree. When we think of nails in modern times, we tend to picture the way nails are made for putting wood together, now. The heads of the nails are usually designed specifically for whatever task they’re used in. Finish nails used for trim work or furniture have almost no head at all, so they blend in and can be covered easily with wood filler after they’re set deep. Nails used for putting together rough lumber are much bigger and have broader heads to hold things together more rigidly, and add strength. Roofing nails have much wider heads to be able to hold the asphalt shingles in place, without tearing through them. Sometimes, roofers also use a type of washer to further ensure that the shingles don’t tear in areas where there’s a possibility of strong winds.

I have to believe that the Romans must have also had the forethought to fashion specific nails for crucifixion with much broader heads, to compensate for the possibility of the hands of their victims tearing out and slipping off of them. They were very proficient at whatever they did. I doubt they would not have taken that possibility into consideration when planning their crucifixions.

I wonder if any of those “scientific” testers ever considered those possibilities when they did their experiments or calculations. I doubt it.

JMHO

 

[patrick457]

The one person who we know was most likely crucified, a 1st-century Jewish guy named Jehohanan, was nailed through each of his ankles. One nail was found still sticking from his anklebone; it was really only still there because it probably struck a knot in the wood, thus bending the nail. Whoever removed him simply cut the wood away, leaving the nail attached to his foot. In Jehohanan’s case, those who crucified him drove the nail into a wooden plaque or board first before it was driven into his heel: the sliver of wood acted as a kind of washer that enlarged the head of the nail, thereby making it difficult to break free of it.