Last year I was surprised by the controversy generated by my post asking Does the risen Jesus have blood? Somehow it seemed obvious to me that he did, that his risen body was made up of flesh, bones, blood etc like normal human bodies.
So I was interested to read today John Richardson quoting from Article IV of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England:
CHRIST did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature, wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.
(Corrected to the capitalisation printed in the Book of Common Prayer, also “wherefore” corrected to “wherewith”.)
So (reading “wherewith”) it is the official doctrine of the Church of England that the risen and ascended Jesus has a body “with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s [sic] nature”. Now blood, especially the blood of Jesus, is certainly not a part of the evil sinful nature, and so is a thing “appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature”, and so is included in the risen and ascended body.
Of course I realise that not all my readers accept this Anglican formulation. I myself do not consider it binding in any sense, certainly not if it goes against Scripture. But this formulation shows that the 16th century divines who wrote these articles shared my opinion on this matter.
Also, it continues to be strange to me that Doug Chaplin, and Anglican priest, expounded this article and continued the discussion with denials that the risen Jesus had real material body parts. If Jesus was raised from the dead not as a body but only as some kind of immaterial ghost, what does that do for our faith?