Last Sunday we had the Jerusalem Community Prayer event. Lilian guided us through the way of meditation and reflection of this community. This style of prayer is centered around the reading of the Scripture: we used the gospel passage in which Thomas asks to touch Jesus' wounds before believing in his resurrection.
At the end we had a short discussion on this very point: why did Jesus have wounds when he resurrected? Why didn't he cure himself? Rather than trying to summarise what the each of the people present said (I'm sure I would turn their finely chiseled thoughts into a shapeless pulp), I will limit myself to my personal opinion, which is a hard enough task.
I think that Jesus came back to life still carrying the wounds he was inflicted because the state of his body was not relevant for the good news he came to bring us. Certainly he could have appeared to his disciples perfectly healed; would have they believed his words more because of that? Hardly so, and I suspect that Thomas would have still asked for a tangible sign of Jesus' resurrection.
I guess that my take on this matter is inspired by the law of parsimony: "it is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer". In this sense, I find very appropriate that the gospel reading ends with this passage:
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
Only what was necessary was written down and transmitted to us. The rest, wondrous nonetheless, would have just distracted us from the real message.
What is your interpretation?