σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα / αἷμα καὶ σάρκα

[B Tucker]

I was looking at Luke 24:39 "flesh and bone" (σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα). IMHO "flesh and bone" ( σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα) and "flesh and blood" (αἷμα καὶ σάρκα) [ see 1 Cor. 15:50, Matthew 16:13-17,Galatians 1:16, Ephesians 6:12, Hebrews 2:14 ] are synecdoches for "a human body" and mean the same thing.


Although I do not agree with Dr. Rice's larger thesis , he is right on target to suggest that "flesh and bone" means "flesh and blood." Here's, John R. Rice., D.D., The Son of Man: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary on the Gospel According to Luke, Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1971, pp. 556-557 :

" He ate before them and assured their doubting hearts. This is Jesus risen from the dead, with His flesh-and-blood body. Because Jesus here mentioned that they could feel His flesh and bones but did not mention blood, some people have thought that our [Christians’] resurrection bodies will have no blood. True, I Corinthians 15:50 says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” But the verse continues, “Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. That does not mean that flesh cannot enter the kingdom in the resurrected bodies. Since Jesus ate literal, physical food, there is every reason to believe that the physical processes of digestion were carried on and that the body that had flesh and bones, also had blood to carry on these natural processes. After His resurrection the body of Jesus was a flesh-and-bone body, with normal processes. It was a body that could eat and digest food, a body one could feel."

Any thoughts?

[Sparko]

I have always thought that the idea that we would have flesh and bones but no blood to be silly in the extreme. Makes us sound like vampires or zombies. What's wrong with having blood?

I see the resurrection body as the body God intended us to have before Adam and Eve sinned. A perfect and immortal human body with blood, hair, flesh, bone, etc.

"Flesh and bone" is just a figure of speech that means human. Just like we use "flesh and blood" - do we mean that someone who is flesh and blood doesn't have any bones? Of course not.

[B Tucker]

I have always thought that the idea that we would have flesh and bones but no blood to be silly in the extreme. Makes us sound like vampires or zombies. .."Flesh and bone" is just a figure of speech that means human. Just like we use "flesh and blood" - do we mean that someone who is flesh and blood doesn't have any bones? Of course not.

I agree.