PDA

View Full Version : Does God necessarily have a body in space and in time?


Geoffrey
July 27th 2007, 06:25 PM
Historically, most Christian thinkers have believed that God transcends space and time. C. S. Lewis wrote a short chapter on this in Mere Christianity entitled "Time and beyond Time" in which he expounds the idea of God's timelessness. It is instructive to note that he ends the chapter with the following words: "But it [the idea of God's timelessness] is not in the Bible or any of the creeds. You can be a perfectly good Christian without accepting it, or indeed without thinking of the matter at all."

In short, the Bible depicts God as existing in time just like us: having a past, a present, and a future. Further, the Bible depicts God as having a man-like body (Genesis 3, Ezekiel 1, Daniel 7, Revelation 4, etc.) and therefore existing in space just like us. ("Look, there is God on Mount Sinai," or "There is God in the Tabernacle", etc.)

More and more I'm coming to prefer that simple and commonsensical view of God that I had as a child: a radiant man on a golden throne in an actual place in Heaven surrounded by countless angels. Not only does it seem more biblical, but it also seems more solid and real. When I start to imagine God as existing outside space and outside time, He starts to seem less real to me and as more of a philosophical abstraction.

Some might say that God being within time and space somehow "limits" Him, but I don't think that's the case. God (for example) has intelligence, but no one thinks that limits Him, so why would having a body limit Him? Perhaps being in space and time is necessary to even exist. Perhaps it is meaningless to speak of a person "outside" of space and/or of time.

Thoughts?

wonders4oyarsa
July 27th 2007, 07:08 PM
God does have a body in space and time. That's precisely what the Son is - the image of the invisible God and the exact representation of his being. Theologically, in so far as we can understand God as having a body, we are talking about incarnation, and thus the Son. So theologians have long assumed, the Eastern Christians especially, that the Old Testament images of God appearing, wrestling, showing himself in his angel, being visible to Moses, were "theophanies" - acts of the Son.

This is how trinitarian theology works. You can not see God more clearly than looking at the man Jesus.

Geoffrey
July 27th 2007, 07:13 PM
Oops, I should have specified that my opening post is talking about God the Father. Stephen saw the heavens opened and saw Jesus seated at the Father's right hand (Acts 7). This language, taken literally, implies that the Father does not transcend space.

LostSheep
July 27th 2007, 07:19 PM
God is spirit. That is how he transcends space and time. This is the biblical view actually. Being all-powerful, he can certainly manifest himself in ways that are visible to people when he wants to.

RanRan
July 27th 2007, 08:38 PM
God does have a body in space and time. That's precisely what the Son is - the image of the invisible God and the exact representation of his being. Theologically, in so far as we can understand God as having a body, we are talking about incarnation, and thus the Son. So theologians have long assumed, the Eastern Christians especially, that the Old Testament images of God appearing, wrestling, showing himself in his angel, being visible to Moses, were "theophanies" - acts of the Son.

This is how trinitarian theology works. You can not see God more clearly than looking at the man Jesus.

Great post! Right on the button!

The Remonstrant
July 30th 2007, 05:16 AM
When I start to imagine God as existing outside space and outside time, He starts to seem less real to me and as more of a philosophical abstraction.

Much of conventional theology will do that. The reason why I do not accept divine timelessness (though, admittedly, I have respect for many early church fathers and theologians of the past who held to this view) is because I do not see anything resembling adequate biblical support for the concept. Also, philosophically, it really does not make a whole lot of sense for a freewill theist (such as myself) to ascribe to it.

LilPunkishOfTerror
July 30th 2007, 06:01 AM
Oops, I should have specified that my opening post is talking about God the Father. Stephen saw the heavens opened and saw Jesus seated at the Father's right hand (Acts 7). This language, taken literally, implies that the Father does not transcend space.

The right hand of God is a metaphor for righteous authority. It doesn't mean a man's hand any more than Jesus is a door ("I am the door") or that God is a bird:


He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

Psalm 91:4

wonders4oyarsa
July 30th 2007, 09:25 AM
I think the trouble here, Geoffrey, at least from a trinitarian understanding, is that God is one substance. If God the father has a body, then the son and father have two separate bodies, and there really isn't much reason not to just think of them as two totally different beings. Against this, Trinitarian theology asserts that God is one substance, and that the Son is the embodiment of the one God. So if you see a body, in scripture, you are seeing the Son.

Crow
July 30th 2007, 11:37 AM
This thread has is being moved to Unorthodox Theology. Please start your threads in a forum approriate for the subject.