God the Father's Spatial Presence in Heaven

At the Left Hand of the Son:
God the Father’s Spatial Manifestation in Heaven
A Paper Submitted to
the Faculty of the Seminary & Graduate School of Religion
Bob Jones University
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Master of Arts in Biblical Languages and Literature
By
Judson D. Greene
Greenville, South Carolina

April 2020
Approved:
April 30, 202
ii
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations vii
Introduction 1
The Thesis 1
Need for the Study 4
Literature Survey 7
Methodology 14
CHAPTER 1: As It Is in Heaven 20
Angels Spatially Dwell in Heaven 21
Angels are Spatial 21
Angels Dwell in Heaven 27
Objections to Angelic Spatiality in Heaven 30
Conclusion: Angelic Spatiality Necessitates

Heavenly Spatiality 31
Christ’s Resurrected Body is Spatially in Heaven 32
Christ’s Resurrected Body is Spatial 32
Objections to Christ’s Resurrected Body’s

Spatiality 37
Christ’s Resurrected Body is in Heaven 39
Christ’s Resurrected Body is Absent from

Earth 39
Objections to Christ’s Absence from Earth 43
Christ’s Resurrected Body Ascended into

Heaven 46
Objections to the Ascension of Christ’s

Resurrected Body into Heaven 55
iii
Christ’s Resurrected Body is Presently in
Heaven 56
Heaven is Christ’s Stated Location 59
Heaven is Christ’s Location in Visions 63
Heaven is the Location Wherefrom Christ

Will Return to Earth 64
Objections to Christ’s Bodily Presence in

Heaven 67
Humans Spatially Dwell in Heaven 68
Human Bodily Ascent into Heaven is a

Conceptual Possibility 69
Disembodied Humans are Spatially in Heaven 71
Redeemed Humanity Will Bodily Dwell in Heaven 72
Objections to Human Spatially Dwelling in

Heaven 74
Conclusion: Human Spatiality Implies Heavenly

Spatiality 75
Conclusion 76
CHAPTER 2: Our Father, Who Art in Heaven 77
God the Father’s Manifestation is Spatially Proximate

to Angels 77
Angels Assemble in the Divine Council 78
The Biblical Authors Considered God the Father

to be the Divine Council 90
Objections to the Father’s Manifestation’s

Spatial Proximity to Angels 95
Conclusion: Angelic Spatiality Necessitates the

Spatiality of the Father’s Manifestation 101

to Christ’s Body 102
iv
Pre-Ascension, God the Father’s Manifestation is
Spatially Absent from Christ’s Body 102
Objections to Christ’s Pre-Ascension

Spatial Absence from the Father’s
Manifestation 107
Post-Ascension, God the Father’s Manifestation

is Spatially Present with Christ’s Body 108
Christ’s Human Offering Implies a Spatial

Relationship with the Father’s
Manifestation 110
Heaven Contains a Spatial Sanctuary 111
Christ Offered Himself in the Heavenly

Sanctuary 114
Christ’s Offering was Spatial Proximate to

the Father’s Manifestation 115
Christ’s Human Enthronement Implies a

Spatial Relationship with the Father’s
Manifestation 116
The Heavenly Sanctuary Contains a

Throne which can Accommodate a
Human Body 116
In His Humanity, Jesus Sits on the

Heavenly Throne 119
Christ’s “Single Sacrificial Script” Implies

a Spatial Relationship with the Father’s
Manifestation 126
Visions of Christ’s Session Imply He is

Spatially Related to the Father’s
Manifestation 138
Jesus’ Human Enthronement is Spatially

Related to the Father 141
Objections to the Son’s Post-Ascension

Spatial Relationship with the Father’s
Manifestation 143
v
Conclusion: Christ’s Bodily Spatiality
Necessitates the Father’s Heavenly
Manifestation’s Spatiality 146

to Humans 146
The Prophetic Presence in the Divine Council

Implies the Spatiality of the Father’s
Manifestation 146
Disembodied Humans' Spatiality Implies the

Spatiality of the Father’s Manifestation 147
Resurrected Embodied Human Spatiality

Necessitates the Spatiality of the Father’s
Manifestation 148
Objections to the Spatial Relationship of the

Father’s Heavenly Manifestation to Humans 149
Conclusion: Human Spatiality Necessitates

Father’s Heavenly Manifestation’s Spatiality 150
Conclusion 151
Selected Bibliography 154
vi
List of Abbreviations
AB The Anchor Bible

ANE Ancient Near Eastern
BDAG Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,
3rd ed., revised and ed. Frederick W. Danker.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
BDF F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W.
Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1961.
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BZAW Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Fur die Alttestamentliche
Wissensch
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
CGTC Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary
HALOT Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew
and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardon,
(Leiden: Brill, 2000).
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism
NAC New American Commentary
NIB The New Interpreter's Bible
NICNT The New International Commentary on the New
Testament
NICOT The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIVAC NIV Application Commentary
PNTC The Pillar New Testament Commentary
vii
SHC Second Helvetic Confession
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
VT Vetus Testamentum
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WCF Westminster Confession of Faith
WLC Westminster Larger Catechism
WSC Westminster Shorter Catechism
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZECNT Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament
viii
At the Left Hand of the Son:
God the Father’s Spatial Heavenly Manifestation
This morning, Christians from many different theological traditions

will pray, as their Lord taught them, “Our Father, who art in heaven.”
This address resonates with profound meaning for the humblest saint,
yet its precise implications escape the most erudite scholar. The aim of
the present work is simple: to probe deeper into what it means to say
that the God who cannot be contained by the universe (2 Chr 2:6) is also
“our Father in heaven” (Matt 6:8).
The Thesis
This work’s thesis is that, for the biblical authors, part of what it
means to say “our Father in heaven” is to affirm that God the Father
manifests himself spatially in heaven. This study presupposes the
Trinitarian Christian God, as affirmed by the Apostles’ and Nicene
creeds. The Trinitarian God manifests himself in a variety of ways—in
words (2 Sam 22:31), architecture (Ezra 42–48), people (Gen 1:26),
nature (Rom 1:18–20), and, preeminently, the Incarnation (Heb 1:2–3).
This work will argue that God the Father manifests himself in heaven.
This heavenly manifestation falls under the category of theophany.
Theophany can be defined as “an ‘appearance of God’ to man.”1 For the
purposes of this work the definition needs slight broadening to an
“appearance of God” to any creature. As Chrysostom argued, not even
1 Tremper Longman III et al., eds., New Dictionary of Theology (Downers

Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), 680.
1
2
angels in heaven or “any created power know God in his essence.”2 The
angels “turn away their eyes because they cannot endure God’s presence
as he comes down to adapt himself to them in condescension.”3 Thus,
Poythress’ definition is preferable: “A theophany is a manifestation of
divine presence accompanied by an extraordinary display mediating that
presence.”4
The glory of God’s divine essence is not accessible to creatures in
tota. All creatures in their intrinsic finitude are granted glimpses of God
through his various manifestations. In the following discussion, it must
be clear that a heavenly manifestation of God the Father is not a facet of
the divine essence or part of God qua God, but rather a manifestation of
God’s essence to his creatures.5 The term “manifestation” denotes “the
demonstration, revelation, or display of the existence, presence, qualities,
2 John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, trans. Paul

W. Harkins, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University
of America Press, 1984), 66.
3 Ibid.
4Vern S. Poythress, Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s Appearing
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 30.
5 Certain theologians argue that the divine essence is spatial, temporal,
or corporeal, even containing heavenly flesh. On divine spatiality, see Chan Ho
Park, “Transcendence and Spatiality of the Triune Creator” (Ph.D. diss., Fuller
Theological Seminary, 2003). On divine temporality, see Ryan T. Mullins, The
End of the Timeless God (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016). On divine
corporality, see Donald Bloesch, God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness,
Love, (Chicago: InterVarsity, 1995), 89–90. On flesh as a divine perfection, see
Stephen Webb, Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics
of Matter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
3
or nature of some person or thing.”6 While all manifestations of God
reveal him to his creatures, not all manifestations of God have an equal
relationship with God. Creation reveals God but is not identified with
God (Rom 1:19–20). Conversely, Jesus Christ the incarnate Son is rightly
called “God.” The Incarnation bears an identity with God not shared with
creation. Similarly, theophanic appearances bear a closer identity with
God than other modes of his self-revelation.
These ideas are not new; they would be affirmed by any theologian
who believes Jesus’ disciples can say that they saw God (John 20:28).
Furthermore, this claim does not exclusively apply to the Incarnation, as
the Old Testament records individuals who saw (Judg 6:22; 13:22), fed
(Gen 18:8), and wrestled with (Gen 32:30) a manifestation of God. These
manifestations were so closely associated with God that the narrator
could record that it was Yahweh speaking (e.g. Gen 18:10) and the
characters could declare that they have seen God (e.g. Gen 32:30; Judg
6:22; 13:22) with no hint of correction from the narrator.
But which person of the Trinity is manifesting himself in these
encounters? To assume de facto that the only member of the Trinity that
can manifest himself spatially is the Son belies a tacit essential
subordinationism, as though the Father or Spirit were endued with a
greater measure of the divine essence than the Son, or a latent Arianism
that assumes that becoming incarnate is incompatible with full deity (Col
6 Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “Manifestation,” accessed April 6, 2020,

https://www-oed-com.ezproxy.bju.net/view/Entry/113488?redirectedFrom=
manifestation#eid
4
1:19).7 Thus, it is a thoroughly orthodox proposition that a member of
the Trinity other than the Son would manifest himself. Furthermore,
theologians recognize some of the manifestations of God in Scripture to
be that of the Spirit without question.8 Thus, this thesis will argue from
an orthodox position that God the Father manifests himself in heaven,
and this manifestation is spatial.
Need for the Study

Previous scholarship has not given the Father’s heavenly
manifestation much, if any, attention. This is likely due to a combination
of factors. First, throughout church history, more attention has been
given to God’s essence within himself than to his manifestations of
himself. Discussions of God’s relationship to time and space are
primarily concerned with the relationship of God’s essence to these
7 No argument will be made that the texts cited in this particular

paragraph are speaking of the Father. They merely illustrate the point that
manifestations of God are closely identified with him.
8 E.g. the Spirit at Christ’s baptism, which Luke records as “in bodily
form,” intensifying “the reality of the Spirit’s coming upon Jesus.” Robert H.
Stein, Luke, NAC, vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 140. Cf. Joseph A.
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX), AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1981), 484; Cf. Charles Anderson, “Lukan Cosmology and the Ascension,” in
Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts: New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge,
eds. David K. Bryan and David W. Pao (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 203;
Darrell L. Bock, Luke, 2 vols., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994),
1:338–41; I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek
Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 152; John Nolland, Luke 1–9:20,
WBC, vol. 35a (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 161. While being a long way from
consensus, Meredith G. Kline’s view of the “endoxation,” an eternal epiphanic
embodiment of the Spirit’s glory, would be another example of an orthodox view
of the Spirit’s theophanic manifestation. God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A
Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 13–14.
5
qualities, not his specific acts in history. That God does act in history is
not controversial. The nature of this transcendent God who can act in
history has garnered greater attention. Thus, studies that examine the
ontology of a theophany of God are rare.9 Second, the Incarnation of
Christ, what Poythress calls “the permanent ‘theophany’ of God,”10 has
been the subject of precise theological dialogue since the dawn of the
church, and rightly so (1 John 4:2). But this dialogue has overshadowed
discussion on the nature and diversity of God’s theophanic appearances.
That Jesus eats post-resurrection is significant (Luke 24:41–43), but so
is the fact that Yahweh eats pre-incarnation (Gen 18:8). What could be
more physical than Thomas placing his finger in Jesus’ side (John
20:27–28)? Perhaps a wrestling match (Gen 32:22–32)? Even when
theophanic ontology is discussed by theologians, it is easy to hide behind
words such as “anthropomorphism” and “accommodation,” which are
accurate but vague. Third, theologians discussing theophanies,
particularly within Reformed circles, are eager to see Jesus in Old
Testament theophanies. Some scholars view manifestations of the Spirit
and the Father as “unique and unprecedented redemptive events” that

“are rare exceptions to the rule.”11 Such a view, while not necessarily
wrong, can be overstated. For example, Calvin writes, “The only way,
9 Esther J. Hamori’s work being an exception, discussed infra.

10Vern S. Poythress, Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s Appearing
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 23.
11 David Murray, Jesus on Every Page (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2013),
75.
6
therefore, by which in ancient times holy men knew God, was by
beholding him in the Son as in a mirror. When I say this, I mean that
God never manifested himself to men by any other means than by his
Son.”12 Such a view, while robustly Christological, is simply not accurate.
Fourth, historical scholars discussing theophanies are generally doing so
through comparative studies with other ANE theologies. In the absence of
a Trinitarian framework, the manifestations will be labeled no more
precisely than as Yahweh, angel of Yahweh, or perhaps a member of the
divine council, although some studies do present that a binitarian God is
in view in some early rabbinic works.13 Fifth, the nature of heaven has
often been misunderstood. Heaven’s status as a place, unquestioned for
1900 years of church history, is no longer in vogue.14 Sixth, while
Christendom has historically affirmed Christ’s continuing Incarnation,
the implications of this doctrine on cosmology have been under-
appreciated. The present study aims to start a conversation about the
nature of God’s manifestations, trusting that it will lead to greater clarity
and theological precision as well as a closer reading of Scripture.
12 Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry

Beveridge. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 4.8.5. Italics mine.
13 Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about
Christianity and Gnosticism, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25 (Leiden:
Brill, 1977), 75.
14 “There seems to have been no serious attempt to get beyond the idea
of [heavenly] locality until the nineteenth century.” Arthur J. Tait, The Heavenly
Session of Our Lord (London: Robert Scott Roxburghe House, 1912), 216.
7
Literature Survey
While no scholarly work has been written on the specific subject of
the Father’s heavenly manifestation, this study lives at the intersection of
several significant areas of study: (1) theophany as the category in which
the Father’s spatial manifestation falls, (2) Christ’s continuing
Incarnation and session as the foundation for the New Testament
authors’ view of the Father’s manifestation, (3) cosmology as the
framework within which a heavenly manifestation exists, (4) angelology
as also having implications for God’s spatial relations, and (5) spatiality
as indispensable prerequisite to such a study.
Theophany: Much of the work surrounding Old Testament
manifestations of God has been in an attempt to understand them in
light of their ANE neighbors. Many of these works focus on the nature of
Yahweh’s body. For example, Benjamin D. Sommer argues in The Bodies
of God and the World of Ancient Israel that Yahweh was a corporeal deity,
but that he did not have a single body, instead manifesting himself in
many different bodies in different places.15 In “Forms of God, Forming
15 Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient

Israel (New York: Cambridge University, 2009). Cf. Stephen D. Moore, “Gigantic
God: Yahweh’s Body,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 21, no. 70
(June 1996): 87–115. Moore argues that the God of the Hebrew Bible is
corporeal and brobdingnagian in size, though much of his thesis is based on
the Jewish mystical writing, Shi’ur Qomah, in addition to being a study that is
“illuminated by the literature of modern bodybuilding” (115). Also on the
subject is the collection of essays edited by S. Tamar Kamionkowski and Wonil
Kim, Bodies, Embodiment, and Theology of the Hebrew Bible, (New York: T. & T.
Clark, 2010). Of particular interest in this volume is Howard Eilberg-Schwartz’
contribution, “Does God Have a Body? The Problem of Metaphor and Literal
Language in Biblical Interpretation” (201–37). Eilberg-Schwartz argues that
whether one takes references to the divine body as metaphorical or literal will
largely depend on the presuppositions of the reader. He concludes that
theologians tend towards a metaphorical interpretation while historians tend
8
God: A Typology of Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch,” Anne
Katherine Knafl argues that the theophanies of the Pentateuch do not
demonstrate the kind of development that would allow scholars to date
them by the level of anthropomorphism.16 Her thesis, though a critical
study, calls into questions certain presuppositions of the Graf-
Wellhausen model of the JEDP hypothesis. A book that intersects with
the fields of theophany and spatiality is that of Mark S. Smith, Where the
Gods Are: Spatial Dimensions of Anthropomorphism in the Biblical World.
Smith’s book is primarily focused on how the manifestations of God
interact with the spaces they occur in. God appears in different bodies in
different spaces: a human-like body on earth, a glowing super-human
body in the temple-palace, a divine body in the heavenly realm, a
theriomorphic (animal form) body in Dan and Bethel, etc.17
From a more theological angle, Esther J. Hamori’s, “When Gods
Were Men”: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature,
toward a literal interpretation. Eilberg-Schwarz is also the author of God’s

Phallus: and other Problems for Men and Monotheism (Boston: Beacon, 1994).
The burden of this book is to argue the rather provocative thesis that the
reason many interpreters show such hesitancy surrounding the divine body is
because it would also imply divine genitalia. Eilberg-Schwarz’ thesis, while
largely a work of psychology, has implications for theologians who have shown
a similar hesitancy surrounding the scandal of Christ’s continuing Incarnation.
On how theophanies were understood in the rabbinic literature, see David
Stern, “Imitatio Hominis: Anthropomorphism and the Character(s) of God in
Rabbinic Literature,” Prooftexts 12, no. 2 (May 1992), 151–74.
16 Anne Katherine Knafl, “Forms of God, Forming God: A Typology of
Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch,” (Ph.D. diss., University of
Chicago, 2011).
17Mark S. Smith, Where the Gods Are: Spatial Dimensions of
Anthropomorphism in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale University Press,
2016).
9
explores the “concrete anthropomorphic form” that God takes in Genesis
18:1–15 and 32:23–33, a more physical representation of deity than any
found among Israel’s ANE neighbors, and demonstrates that the God of
Israel is uniquely communicative.18 Hamori also harmonizes the concept
of an embodied God with the classical doctrine of divine simplicity.
Because a simple God is objectively identical with all of his perfections,
Hamori concludes that being communicative is part of God’s essence.
Under this formulation, “theophany is a language” that should “be
understood analogically.”19 Thus, Hamori demonstrates that
theophanies, far from belying a primitive view of God, are “a physical
expression of God’s very limitlessness.”20 Theophany: A Biblical Theology
of God’s Appearing by Vern S. Poythress is one of the most helpful books
on theophany from a Christian perspective because it surveys the
entirety of the Bible in detail (evidenced by the thirteen-page Scripture
index).21 Poythress takes a broad view of the term “theophany” and
listens to Scripture on its own terms, mining each theophany for
theological, particularly Trinitarian, implications.22
18 Esther J. Hamori, “When Gods Were Men”: The Embodied God in

Biblical and Near Eastern Literature, BZAW 384 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
2008).
19 Hamori, 54.
20 Ibid., 155.
21Vern S. Poythress, Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s Appearing,
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018).
22 On the theophanic type scene, though limited to the Old Testament

narratives, see George W. Savran, Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical
Narrative. (London: T. & T. Clark International, 2005). Cf. Mark G. Boyer, Divine
10
Christ’s continuing Incarnation: An excellent book on Christ’s
continuing Incarnation is Peter Orr’s Exalted Above the Heavens: The
Risen and Ascended Christ.23 In three sections labeled “identity,”
“location,” and “activity,” Orr argues that currently the Lord Jesus is an
embodied human who has ascended into heaven and from there is
actively working in the affairs of earth and heaven. Orr’s work is a
biblical theology that is attuned to systematic concerns, bringing
together the best of both disciplines. Gerrit Scott Dawson’s book, Jesus
Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation, is a scholarly
work written out of pastoral concern.24 Dawson’s theology of the
continuing Incarnation is brief but helpful. The book is also intentionally
a compilation of quotes, particularly from the patristics, about Christ’s
continuing Incarnation and Ascension.
Christ’s Session: Christ’s heavenly location also raises the subject
of his session. In The Heavenly Session of Our Lord, Arthur J. Tait
discusses Christ’s session as it appears in Scripture, creed, and the
history of interpretation.25 Tait’s work is a helpful and in-depth survey of
the theological implications of Christ’s session. A text that frequently
Presence: Elements of Biblical Theophanies (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2017). While
Boyer’s book surveys twenty-one elements that accompany theophanies, it is
more devotional in nature.
23Peter Orr, Exalted Above the Heavens: The Risen and Ascended Christ,
New Studies in Biblical Theology (London: IVP Academic, 2018).
24Gerrit Scott Dawson, Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s
Continuing Incarnation (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004).
25Arthur J. Tait, The Heavenly Session of Our Lord (London: Robert Scott
Roxburghe House, 1912).
11
appears in discussions of Christ’s heavenly session is the text that is
quoted most in the New Testament: Psalm 110. Glory at the Right Hand:
Psalm 110 in Early Christianity by David M. Hay is an oft-cited work on
the history of this Psalm’s interpretation.26 Hay concludes that early
Jewish interpretations took it messianically and that early Christians
used it to prove that Jesus was exalted at the right hand of God.
Another work that is important to this study is Robert B.
Jamieson, Jesus’ Death and Heavenly Offering in Hebrews.27 Jamieson’s
work sets out to answer two questions in Hebrews: Where and when did
Jesus offer himself? Jamieson answers that Jesus offered himself in the
heavenly tabernacle after his Ascension. Though Jamieson does not
explore them at length, his conclusion has profound implications for
Jesus’ Incarnation, session, and cosmology in general.
Cosmology: For an excellent survey of the cosmologies that the New
Testament authors present, see Cosmology and New Testament Theology
edited by Sean M. McDonough and Jonathan T. Pennington.28 The
strength of this work lies in that the authors are sensitive to narratival,
cosmological, and theological concerns. Placing cosmology in the context

of New Testament theology makes the work profitable to theologians and
26 David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early

Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973).
27
Robert B. Jamieson, Jesus’ Death and Heavenly Offering in Hebrews,
SNTSMS (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019).
28 Sean M. McDonough and Jonathan T. Pennington, eds. Cosmology
and New Testament Theology, T. & T. Clark Library of Biblical Studies (London:
T. & T. Clark, 2008).
12
historians alike. While primarily a biblical theology of divine mountains,
Meredith G. Kline’s God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of
Cosmos and Telos posits the compelling theory that the Bible presents a
“two-register” cosmology wherein the heavens and earth are conceived of
as inter-permeating dimension.29 For Kline, heaven and earth are
spatially integrated realities. Angels may be close by to humans in the
other “register,” but are generally unseen (with exceptions, e.g. 2 Kgs
6:17). For a survey of cosmology across many ancient cultures, see The
Early History of Heaven by J. Edward Wright.30
Angels: For a helpful survey on angels focused collecting the texts
of Scripture on the subject, see C. Fred. Dickason, Angels: Elect & Evil.31
Alexander Whyte’s The Nature of Angels is not a systematic treatment of
angels, but rather a look at various angels ranging from Gabriel to
Socrates’s Dæmon, with two chapters on the nature of angels drawn
primarily from Hebrews.32 Angelology of the Old Testament: A Study in
Biblical Theology by William G. Heidt is more narrowly focused and gives
29
Meredith G. Kline, God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale
of Cosmos and Telos (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006).
30 J. Edward Wright, The Early History of Heaven (New York: Oxford,
2000).
31
C. Fred. Dickason, Angels: Elect & Evil (Chicago: Moody, 1975). Arno
C. Gaebelein’s The Angels of God (Greenville, SC: “Our Hope”, 1924) is similar,
though not as helpful.
32
Alexander Whyte, The Nature of Angels (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1976; reprint, Ann Arbor: Cushing Malloy, 1976).
13
a detailed account of all Old Testament angelic creatures, though Heidt’s
Thomistic presuppositions tend to drive his exegesis at points.33
Theological spatiality: Samuel Alexander’s 1920 work, Space, Time,
and Deity uses the concept of space-time to argue a form of
panentheism: “God’s body is at any stage the whole Space-Time, of which
the finites that enter into God’s body are but specialized complexes.”34 In
1969, Thomas F. Torrance wrote Space, Time and Incarnation, a little
book composed of three essays (originally lectures) which lay out the
ancient concept of space as it interfaces with Nicene theology and
discuss how two conflicting concepts of space, receptacle and relational,
have shaped theology.35 Torrance argues that the relational view, which
was accepted by the patristics and reformed theologians, is superior and
should be adopted. Seven years later, Torrance’s Space, Time and
Resurrection was published.36 The essential thesis of this book seeks to
33 William G. Heidt, Angelology of the Old Testament: A Study in Biblical

Theology, The Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred Theology
Second Series (Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press,
1949). For a collection of various essays that concern angels, though with no
discussion of their nature, see Anthony N. S. Lane, ed., The Unseen World:
Christian Reflections on Angels, Demons, and the Heavenly Realm (Grand
Rapids: Tyndale House, 1996).
34 Samuel Alexander, Space, Time, and Deity, 2 vols. (London: MacMillan
& Co., 1920), 2:366. For a similar view of theology proper, see Charles
Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1948); Ninian Smart, “God’s Body,” Union Seminary Quarterly
Review 37, no. 1–2 (Fall 1981): 51–59; Grace M. Jantzen, God’s World, God’s
Body (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1984).
35 Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1969).
36
Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1976).
14
demonstrate that Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension are objective,
historical events and explore how they fit with scientific views of space
and time.37 Chan Ho Park’s dissertation, “Transcendence and Spatiality
of the Triune Creator,” argues that God can be both transcendent and
spatial.38 Park, following Torrance, argues for the relational view of
space, and posits that since God interacts in space and was incarnated
in space, he must be spatial in some sense. Park provides a helpful
history of spatial concepts and theological views of space.
Methodology
To argue that that the Father manifests himself spatially in
heaven, one must define what it means to be “spatial.” As Mullins states,
“The reason is quite simple. It makes no sense to ask what God’s
relationship to x is if one does not have a clue what x in fact is.”39
Something is “spatial” when it possesses “extension in space; occupying
or taking up space; consisting of or characterized by space.”40 There are
two main views on the nature of space: the “receptacle” view and the
37 For a primer on Torrance and a guide to reading him, see Elmer M.

Colyer, How to Read T. F. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian & Scientific
Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001).
38 Chan Ho Park, “Transcendence and Spatiality of the Triune Creator”
(Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2003).
39 Ryan T. Mullins, The End of the Timeless God (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2016), 13.
40Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “Spatial,” accessed March 30, 2020,
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/185831?redirectedFrom=spatiality#eid2161
4092.
15
“relational” view.41 The receptacle view of space understands space to be
a container of all material objects whereas the relational view
understands space to be a “positional quality” of material objects.42 The
receptacle view differs from relational in that the spatial container, or
“box space,” can be spatial in the absence of any real spatial objects.43
Conversely, the relational view requires spatial entities to be related to
one another for space to exist. Newton advocated the receptacle view as
he grounded his thought in absolute views of space and time, but
physicists today follow Einstein in holding to the relational view which
allows for the theory of relativity. This thesis will not assume a particular
view of space; rather, the aim will be to argue that the Father’s
manifestation is spatial according to the biblical authors with either of
the models of space in view.
Under the receptacle view of space, one can predicate spatiality of
an entity if one can prove that the entity either (1) is contained within a
receptacle of space or (2) is itself is a receptacle of space which contains
spatial entities. If a given domain contains spatially related bodies, then
that domain is rightly called spatial. If it were not spatial, the entities
41 The “receptacle” view is also called the “absolute” view. For a succinct
history of these contrasting theories, see Albert Einstein, foreword to Concepts
of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics by Max Jammer, 3rd ed.
(Mineola, NY: Dover, 2012), xiii–xvii. Cf. Chan Ho Park, “Concepts of Space,” in
“Transcendence and Spatiality of the Triune Creator” (Ph.D. diss., Fuller
Theological Seminary, 2003), 22–51. For a history of spatial views from a
theological aspect, see Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Incarnation
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 56–59.
42 Park, 24.
43 Einstein, xv.
16
within it would not be spatial by definition. Thus, for the receptacle view,
the idea of spatial entities residing in an aspatial realm is a contradiction
in terms; the existence of such entities is metaphysically impossible.
Under the relational view of space, one can predicate spatiality of
an entity if one can prove that the entity is spatially related to other
entities.44 A single point that is not spatially related to anything else is
not spatial. Spatiality cannot be one of the point’s properties. If the point
is related spatially to another point, then the property of spatiality is
predicated of them both. Of course, all known physical objects in the
universe contain more than one point of space. Thus, if one imagines a
universe with only one physical object in it, say a person’s body, that
object would be spatially related to itself, as the person’s head would be
spatially related to her feet.
The Father would possess a spatial manifestation in heaven, from
both the relational and the receptacle views of space, if the following
syllogisms could be demonstrated.
From the relational view:
Premise 1: An entity is spatial iff it is spatially related to other spatial

entities or it has spatially related parts.
Premise 2: God the Father’s manifestation is spatially related to other
entities.
Conclusion: God the Father’s manifestation is spatial.
44 If containing spatial entities does not mean that a given domain is

spatial, then no domain can rightly be called spatial (including our physical
universe).
17
From the receptacle view:
Premise 1: An entity is spatial iff it resides in a spatial receptacle.
Premise 2: God the Father’s manifestation resides in a spatial
receptacle.
The groundwork for proving these syllogisms will be laid in chapter
1. Chapter 1 will demonstrate that angels, Christ’s resurrected body, and
humans are spatial entities. This will be demonstrated by exegeting the
relevant biblical texts using grammatico-historical hermeneutics. The
passages will be handled in the order of the simplest to interpret to the
most challenging to interpret, from clear to foggy. Propositional
statements from discursive and narrative passages will be analyzed first,
followed by prophetic and poetic passages. That angels, Christ’s
resurrected body, and humans are spatial (a necessary step from the
relational view of space) will be demonstrated in tandem with proving
that these entities reside in heaven (a necessary step from the receptacle
view of space). The logical underpinnings of Chapter 1 may be
summarized by the following polysyllogism:

Premise 1: Only spatial realms can house spatial entities.
Premise 2: Angels, Christ’s body, and humans are spatial entities.
Premise 3: Heaven houses angels, Christ’s body, and humans.
Conclusion: Heaven is a spatial realm.
With this foundation laid, Chapter 2 will turn to the Father’s
heavenly manifestation specifically, arguing for the following syllogisms.
18
From the relational view:
Premise 1: An entity would be spatial if it is spatially related to angels,
Christ’s body, and humans.
Premise 2: God the Father’s manifestation is spatially related to angels,
Christ’s body, and humans.
From the receptacle view:
Premise 2: God the Father’s manifestation resides in heaven.
Chapter 2 will demonstrate that these valid syllogisms are true
simultaneously. Practically speaking, demonstrating that heaven is a
spatial realm and then pointing to the fact that biblical authors say that
the Father is “in heaven,” as they often do, will not prove that the Father
is spatially in heaven.45 People sometimes say that they “are right at
home” if shown hospitality. While a person’s home is a spatial domain,
the idiom does not indicate genuine spatiality. Similarly, people might
say they are “in heaven” when they attend the symphony or eat a fine
piece of chocolate cake. Therefore, simply demonstrating that the biblical
authors state that the Father is “in heaven” will not demonstrate that the
Father’s manifestation is in heaven in a genuinely spatial sense. To prove
45 E.g. Deut 26:15; 2 Sam 22:10; 1 Kgs 8:34, 36, 39, 43, 49; 2 Chr 6:21,
23, 25, 27, 30, 33, 35, 39; 7:14; 30:27; Pss 2:4; 11:4; 14:2; 33:13–14; 53:2;
73:25; 76:8; 80:14; 102:19; 103:19; 115:3, 16; 123:1; 144:5; Eccl 5:2; Isa
63:15; 66:1; Lam 3:41, 50, 66; Dan 2:28; 4:37; 5:23; Neh 9:27–28; Matt 5:16,
45, 48; 6:1, 9, 14, 26, 32; 7:11, 21; 10:32, 33; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 14,
19, 35; 23:9; Mark 1:11; 11:25; Luke 2:14; 3:21–22; 11:13; John 12:28.
19
that “in heaven” indicates genuine spatiality, it will be demonstrated that
the Father’s manifestation is in the heavenly receptacle space as
necessitated by his spatial relationship with other spatial entities. Thus,
if these spatial relationships exist, the Father’s manifestation is spatial
from the receptacle view of space as well, as demonstrated by the
following polysyllogism:
Premise 2: Spatial relationships do not exist outside of a spatial
receptacle.
Premise 3: God the Father’s manifestation is in spatial relationship with
angels, Christ’s body, and humans.
Conclusion: God the Father’s manifestation must be within a spatial
receptacle.
That these statements are true will be demonstrated by exegeting
the relevant biblical texts using grammatico-historical hermeneutics,
following the clear-to-foggy order from Chapter 1. Each chapter has three
sections discussing angels, Christ’s body, and humans and their spatial
relationship to heaven (Chapter 1) and the Father’s manifestation

(Chapter 2). At the close of each section, objections will be raised and
answered. The work will end with a conclusion that will further clarify
the thesis and its implications for theology along with suggestions for
further research.
CHAPTER 1: As It Is in Heaven
This chapter will present the setting of the Father’s heavenly

manifestation, namely, heaven itself, and the entities that dwell there.
Scholars often adhere to views of heaven that differ vastly from those of
the biblical authors. Arthur Tait, for example, argues that heaven is a
state. When “the cramping influence of this idea of locality” in heaven
“has been cast off,” he writes, one can understand that “Heaven is no
longer a distant kingdom whose boundaries are determined by space, . . .
but it is a spiritual kingdom the entrance into which lies open before
men in this life.”1 J. Armitage Robinson writes that “[t]he heavenly
sphere . . . is the sphere of spiritual activities . . . which lies behind the
world of sense.”2 For Wolfhart Pannenberg, “[t]o speak of heaven as the
place of God is to use a spatial image but it is to express in this way the
differentiation between God and the space of earthly creation.”3 Thus, he
concludes, heaven is “a figure of speech for the eternal presence of God
in which he is present to all temporal things.”4 God dwells in heaven,
1 Arthur J. Tait, The Heavenly Session of Our Lord (London: Robert Scott
Roxburghe House, 1912), 221. Similarly, Donald Guthrie states that “Paul does
not think of heaven as a place, but thinks of it in terms of the presence of God.”
New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1981), 880. Guthrie’s
use of the adversative “but” implies a false bifurcation.
2J. Armitage Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 2nd ed.
(London: MacMillan & Co., 1907), 19.
3 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol 1., trans. Geoffrey W.
Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 412. Cf. John McClean, “A Search
for the Body: Is There Space for Christ’s Body in Pannenberg’s Eschatology?”
International Journal of Systematic Theology 14, no. 1 (2012): 91–108.
4 Pannenberg, 413.
20
21
which means he is “in the sphere of his eternal presence that is
inaccessible to us,” a sphere that can hold no bodily forms.5 Historic
theologians such as Origen, Augustine, Maximus, Aquinas, and Calvin
also demonstrate confusion about heaven, arguing simultaneously that
heaven is the place of Christ’s ascended body but also not a “place” at
all.6 This chapter will argue that the biblical authors present a different
view: they portray of heaven as a spatial realm inhabited by embodied
creatures.
Angels Spatially Dwell in Heaven

This section will argue that angels are spatial beings. These spatial
beings reside in heaven, necessitating heavenly spatiality.
Angels are Spatial

Orthodox theologians agree that the scriptural evidence
demonstrates conclusively that angels are not omnipresent.7 Angels go
5 Pannenberg, 412. From a more moderate theologian, Millard Erickson

thinks that “[w]hile heaven is both a place and a state, it is primarily a state.”
Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 1232. What
Erickson means exactly by “primarily” is not very clear.
6 Ralph V. Norman, “Beyond the Ultimate Sphere: The Ascension and
Eschatology,” Modern Believing 42, no. 2 (2001): 7–10. Calvin and Augustine
interpreted references to the Father as in heaven metaphorically. John H.
Mazaheri, “Calvin and Augustine’s Interpretations of ‘The father in Heaven,’”
Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 106, no. 3–4 (2011): 440–51
7 “There is only one God. All other spirit beings are creatures (Col 1:16).
Only God is omnipotent (Rev 20:10). It is natural to infer that only God is
omnipresent (Jer 23:24). Hence angels and demons alike operate in some
spatially limited way.” Vern S. Poythress, “Territorial Spirits: Some Biblical
Perspectives,” Urban Mission 13 (December 1995): 37–49. There is simply no
biblical evidence on which to base a doctrine of angelic omnipresence. Cf.
Hodge, 638. For the purposes of the present work, the following biblical entities
(when contextually appropriate) will be referred to as “angels”: ‫“( אָבִיר‬mighty,
22
from one place to another. Daniel 9:21 speaks of the angel Gabriel
coming to Daniel “in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice.”8
valiant,” Pss 78:25, 103:20), ‫“( אֱֹלהִים‬gods,” “divine beings,” Pss 8:6; 82:1; 138:1
[here the LXX translates ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬as αγγελοι]), ‫“( ְבּנֵי ָהאֱֹלהִים‬sons of God,” Job 1:6;
2:1; Dan 3:25; Pss 29:1; 89:7), ‫“( כְּרוּב‬cherub,” Exod 25:18–20; 1 Kgs 6:23–35, 1
Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; Isa 37:16; Pss 80:2; 99:1; cf. 2 Sam 22:11; Ps 18:11; Ezra
1, 10), ‫“( ַגּב ְִריאֵל‬Gabriel,” Dan 8:16; 9:21; cf. Luke 1:19, 26), ‫“( מִי ָכאֵל‬Michael,” Dan
10:13, 21; 12:1; cf. Rev 12:7), ‫“( ַמלְאְָך‬messenger, angel,” Gen 19:1; 32:1; Ps
91:11), ָ‫“( משׁ ְָרת‬ministers,” Ps 103:21), ‫“( ֲעבָדָ י‬servants,” Job 4:18), ‫“( עִיר‬watcher,”
Dan 4:10, 14, 20), ‫“( ָצבָא‬host,” 1 Kgs 22:19; Neh 9:6; Ps 148:2), ‫“( קָדוֹשׁ‬holy,
sacred,” Ps 89:6, 8; Job 5:1; 15:15; Zech 14:5; Dan 8:2, 13), ‫“( שׂ ָָרף‬seraph,” Isa
6:2–3; 6:6), ‫“( ָקהָל‬the assembly” Ps 89:5), ‫“( סוֹד‬council,” Ps 89:7), ἄγγελος
(“angel,” Matt 1:20; Luke 2:15; Rev 5:2), στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου (“heavenly host,”
Luke 2:13), πνεύµατα (“spirits,” Heb 1:7, 14), ἀρχάγγελος (“archangel,” 1 Thess
4:16; Jude 9). This list draws from the following: Millard J. Erickson, Christian
Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 408; William G. Heidt,
“Angelic Nomenclature,” in Angelology of the Old Testament: A Study in Biblical
Theology, The Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred Theology
(Second Series) (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press,
1949), 1–17. For a discussion of the possibility of angelic identity for Paul’s
terms translated as “principalities,” “powers,” “thrones,” “dominions,” and
“authorities” (Col 1:16; Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 6:12; Col 2:15), see Ronn A.
Johnson, “The Old Testament Background for Paul’s Use of ‘Principalities and
Powers’” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2004). Using “angel” as a
categorical term does not imply that there are no distinctions between these
creatures or angelic hierarchy, although they all possess spatiality. For an
angelic hierarchy based on the roles within the Divine Council see Marylyn
Ellen White, “The Council of Yahweh: Its Structure and Membership” (Ph.D.
diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2012). Cf. Chafer, Systematic Theology,
vol. 2 (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), 16–21. Terminological distinctions
will be noted where necessary. The specific character denominated ‫ַמלְאְַך י ְהוָה‬
(“the Angel of YHWH,” Gen 21:17; 22:11; Judg 13:20; 1 Chr 21:16) will be
omitted from this discussion, as some scholars would define this angel’s
appearance as a theophany rather than an angelic appearance. See Alexander
Whyte, The Nature of Angels (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976; reprint,
Ann Arbor: Cushing Malloy, 1976), 95–96; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology,
vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1940), 484–85; Meredith G. Kline, Images of
the Spirit (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999), 70–75.
8 Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible:
English Standard Version, text ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016),
BibleGateway.com. “Gabriel is shown flying not because angels have wings but
so that you may know that he comes down to human beings from places which
are lofty.” John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, trans. Paul
W. Harkins, Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of
America Press, 1984), 107–08. The participle ‫“( נגע‬to touch”) may carry the idea
23
This portrayal of angelic change in location in conjunction with a specific
time occurs in a text where, as Smith-Christopher notes, it “is not clear
that Daniel is having a vision. Daniel has seen Gabriel before in a vision,
and that is why Daniel now recognizes him.”9 Similarly, Daniel 10 depicts
a man of angelic description (Dan 10:5–6; cf. Ezra 9:2; Matt 28:3; Luke
24:4) who touches Daniel (Dan 10:10) and was prevented from coming to
the Tigris river by the “prince of Persia” (Dan 10:13).10 The genre at this
point is not apocalypse, but narratival, referencing earthly time (Dan
10:1, 2, 4), place (4b), and Daniel’s physical character (Dan 10:3, 4b, 5a,
“that Gabriel literally ‘touched’ Daniel (KJV); but since the arrival time
immediately follows . . . the meaning is that Gabriel reached him, that is, ‘came’
to Daniel.” Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, NAC, vol. 18 (Nashville: Broadman and
Holman, 1994), 250. Miller argues that “in swift flight” should be translated “in
extreme weariness,” noting that angels did not have wings and “weariness” fits
the context (250–51). However, Daniel’s emphasis seems to be on describing
Gabriel and his coming, not the circumstances of his previous vision, making
“swift flight” the better option.
9Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “Daniel,” in NIB, vol. 7 (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1995), 126.
10 “[M]ost commentators” take the man of Daniel 10:5 as “an angel, for
he was sent as a messenger (verse 11).” Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel, TOTC 23
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1978), 200. Miller argues that the character is
God himself because of the overwhelming effect on Daniel and the close
connection to Ezekiel 1:26–28. Daniel, 281–82. While Daniel does have an
extreme reaction, “it is not so different from 8:15–18.” Smith-Christopher, 136.
Also, one would have to hold to an unnatural character swap between Daniel
10:9 and 10, since the character says he is “sent” (Dan 10:11) and needed to be
delivered by Michael (Dan 10:13). Cf. John E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC, vol. 30
(Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 291; Tremper Longman III, Daniel, NIVAC (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 249–50. Vern S. Poythress argues that the “prince of
Persia,” “prince of Greece,” and “Michael, your prince” are all references to
territorial spirits of “a particular geographical and political area.” “Territorial
Spirits,” 39. Cf. Baldwin, 201. “Territorial Spirits” as a label is another
indication of angelic spatiality.
24
10) and surroundings (4b, 7).11 The parallel between Daniel’s three weeks
of mourning (Dan 10:2) and the angel’s three weeks of delay (Dan 10:13)
as well as the effect of the vision on Daniel’s companions (Dan 10:7)12
imply that the author intends this section to be taken as historical, not
symbolic. In keeping with a more straightforward narrative, Daniel’s
editorial note that he understood this vision (10:1) stands in contrast to
his lack of understanding concerning his previous vision (8:27).13 These
changes in location combined with no scriptural reference to angels
being omnipresent evinces angelic spatiality.
Other texts corroborate angelic spatiality. Unlike the angels that
appear in dreams earlier in Matthew’s gospel, Matthew 28:23 presents a
“robustly physical” angel who is “rolling a huge stone, sitting on it, and
visible not just to the women but also to the guards.”14 Additionally, the
angel “went and rolled away the stone from the tomb. It appears that he
made contact with the earth at some place other than the tomb and that
11“Daniel was beside the Tigris . . . in bodily presence, not in vision,

when a heavenly being appeared to him.” Miller, Daniel, 279.
12This parallels the effect of Paul’s Damascus road experience on his
companions. Longman, Daniel, 248; Smith-Christopher, 137.
13 “[T]he vision in this chapter (verses 5, 6) hardly needs understanding
in the same sense as previous ones.” Baldwin, 199.
14 R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007), 1100. “The visual description in v. 3 recalls that of other
supernatural beings as seen by humans, for example, in Dan 10:5–6 (and cf.
the description of God in Dan 7:9); Rev 1:13–16; 1 En. 62:15–16; 71:1; 87:2”
(1100). On a possible resolution for the question of the number of angels in the
gospel accounts see Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels,
2nd ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 140. Cf. N. T. Wright, The
Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 613.
25
from there he went to the place where Jesus had been buried.”15 This
angel not only changes locations, but also interacts with physical objects.
Similarly, in Luke 1, an angel appears to Zechariah in the temple,
spatially located as “standing on the right side of the altar of incense”
(Luke 1:11).16 He tells Zechariah, “I stand in the presence of God, and I
was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news” (Luke 1:19).17
The words “presence” and “sent to” imply a change in location. Similarly,
Luke 1:26 says that “the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of
Galilee named Nazareth.” The words “sent,” “from,” and “to” in
15
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1992), 735; italics in original.
16 The passive of ὤφθη “is used frequently with the sense of ‘to appear’,
usually but not exclusively (Acts 7:26) of the advent of heavenly visitors and the
risen Lord. It denotes a real appearance rather than a dream.” I. Howard
Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 55.
Green argues that the angel’s spatial description emphasizes “Zechariah’s
presence in the sanctuary.” Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 71. This would seem to put Zechariah and the angel
in spatial relationship. Bock argues that this is not “Zechariah’s spiritual,
psychological perception” but a depiction of reality. Darrell L. Bock, Luke, 2
vols., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 1.80–81. John Nolland
concurs. Luke 1–9:20, WBC, vol. 35a (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 29.
17 This text does not imply that Gabriel is simultaneously present in the
temple and present before God. The phrase ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ is
describing Gabriel (“the one who is standing before [the] God;” NET, NASB, and
KJV capture this sense). The articular perfect participle informs Zechariah of
Gabriel’s honorable position, as “παρισταµαι is used of standing in someone’s
presence (19:24), and hence of waiting on him (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; Dn. 7:10, 13; 2
Ch. 18:18 v.l.; Zc. 6:5; Tob. 12:15 v.l.; of heavenly beings).” Marshall, Luke, 60.
Gabriel cannot here be speaking of God’s ubiquitous presence, as that would
not be a distinctive trait to bring up since everyone could claim that trait. It
seems most consistent to take this language as a reference to Gabriel’s status
in the divine court, since “stands in the presence of God” is “in the image of the
heavenly throne room.” Green, 78. Bock points to Daniel 7:16 and Job 1:6 “for
the idea of direct access to God or his angels.” Bock, Luke, 1:92.
26
conjunction with the location Nazareth imply a change in location.18
Luke 2:8–9 depicts shepherds who are in a specific region (ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τῇ
αὐτῇ) when an angel stands (ἐπέστη) before them. Citing this text, BDAG
applies to ἐφίστηµι the sense “to stand at or near a specific place,”
emphasizing the spatial aspect of the angel.19
Even if one were to take all references to angelic movement as
metaphorical, the question remains: In the minds of the biblical authors,
to what reality do these metaphors point, particularly in connection with
the otherwise historical accounts of Daniel, Zechariah, the women at the
tomb, and the shepherds? Poythress believes that while some texts can
“provide metaphorical pictures for spiritual realities” beyond our
complete understanding, “we must still take seriously the language of
spatial location and motion. It does not seem merely to provide color, but
suggests that a literal element of spatial location attaches to spirits.”20
18 The presence of God is either the stated other location or possible this
is an ἀπό of agency (“sent by God”), since ἀπό sometimes replaces ὑπό. Joseph
A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX), AB (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1981), 343. I agree with Bock’s spatial conclusion: “The
preposition’s natural meaning makes good sense and ought to be preferred.
Thus, Gabriel is sent from God’s heavenly realm to Mary.” Bock, Luke, 1:106. Of
course, the angel could be sent from anywhere and it would still prove angelic
spatiality.
19 BDAG, 418.
20 “Territorial Spirits,” 41. Although this discussion focuses on angelic
creatures, demons also have a spatial quality. In Luke 8:31–32 the demons
request one location (that of the pigs) over another (being sent into the pit).
Poythress notes, “Jesus describes [evil spirits] movement pointedly in Luke
11:24–26: ‘When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places
seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, “I will return to the house I left.”
When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. Then it goes
and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and
live there’” (40; italics added).
27
These references along with other passages that use the “language of
movement and spatial location in connection with spirits . . . impl[y] that
spirits are spatially localized.”21
Angels Dwell in Heaven

The biblical authors conceive of angels as dwelling in the heavenly
realm. Jesus refers to “angels in heaven” (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25).22
Christ reveals that the Father has not revealed certain information to the
“angels of the heavens” (Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32).23 This fact is
surprising because the angels’ heavenly location would put them in a
place of privileged access to the Father, making them likely candidates to
know this information. Luke describes the “heavenly host” (στρατιᾶς
οὐρανίου) coming suddenly to the shepherds and then “went from them
[the shepherds’ location] into heaven” (ἀπῆλθον ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν
οὐρανὸν).24 Angels descend “from heaven (ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ)” (Matt 28:2; Luke
21 “Territorial Spirits,” 40.

22 While Matthew has the “ὡς ἄγγελοι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ” (Matt 22:30), Mark
writes that they are “ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς” (Mark 12:25). It is unusual for Matthew to
use singular οὐρανός to refer to the abode of angels. For an explanation of why
Matthew departs from his usual idiolectic, see Jonathan T. Pennington, Heaven
and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007),
145–46.
23 “By the use of the phrase, ‘the angels which are in heaven’ (Mark
13:32), Christ definitely asserts that angels inhabit heavenly spheres.” Chafer,
14.
24 Author’s translation. The spatial relation to the shepherds, who are
clearly spatial entities, is significant. Luke uses plural and singular οὐρανός
“indifferently for the sky and heaven.” I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A
Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 112.
“The Gospel thus portrays angels as coming to earth to interact with humans.”
David K. Bryan, “A Revised Cosmic Hierarchy Revealed,” in Ascent into Heaven
in Luke-Acts: New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge, eds. David K. Bryan
28
22:43). Perhaps the background for this concept is in Genesis 28:12
where Jacob sees a “ladder” that reaches from earth to heaven with
“angels of God were ascending and descending on it.”25 This vision
comports with the idea that angels typically dwell in heaven, though they
can descend to the earth. Jesus also says that if a sinner repents there is
“joy in Heaven” (Luke 15:7), a statement he later parallels with “joy
before the angels of God” (Luke 15:10), indicating that angels dwell in
heaven.26
Paul too speaks of “an angel from heaven” (Gal 1:8) and prophesies
of a day “when the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the
angels of his power [will occur]” (2 Thess 1:7).27 This “revelation”
and David W. Pao (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 75. Bock points out that it is
very unusual for the heavenly host to be out of heaven (Dan 7:10; 1 Kgs 22:19;
2 Chr 18:18; 4 Mc 4:11). Bock, Luke, 1:219. Bock takes στρατιᾶς as a “partitive
genitive, which means that the multitude is a select group that comes from the
entire heavenly array of angels” (219).
25 “Jacob’s ladder” is a misnomer on two fronts. First, the “ladder” (‫ ֻסלָּם‬, a
hapax legomenon) is better translated “stairway” and it likely implies the idea of
an ancient ziggurat. Understanding ‫ ֻסלָּם‬as a ziggurat also strengthens the
literary parallels with Babel, a self-proclaimed “gate of heaven,” yet one that is
man-centered and man-made. Second, the ziggurat is clearly God’s, not
Jacob’s, as Jacob’s response makes clear (Gen 28:16–17). Cornelis Houtman,
“What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel: Some Remarks on Genesis 28:10–
22,” VT 27, no. 3 (1977): 337–51. Cf. Roger B. Stein, “Searching for Jacob’s
Ladder,” Colby Quarterly 39, no.1 (2003), 34–54.
26 Note the spatial ἐνώπιον (“in the presence of,” BDAG, 342). In the
parable, the shepherd seems to correspond to God, the angels to the neighbors.
The rejoicing is “before God’s angels. I.e. by God himself in the presence of
angels, or perhaps with them.” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to
Luke (X–XXIV), AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 1077, 1081; italics in
original. “The courts of heaven are full of celebration at the coming of a sinner
to God.” Bock, Luke, 2:1304. Cf. Marshall, Luke, 602, 604.
27 Author’s translation. It is better to translate ἀγγέλων δυνάµεως αὐτοῦ
as “the angels of his power” instead of “his powerful angels” since “the emphasis
is not on the power of the angels but on that of the Lord.” Leon Morris, 1 and 2
29
(ἀποκάλυψις) is a disclosure of a reality, implying that the angels and
Jesus are truly present in heaven, but they will be revealed to man at a
specific point in time.28 This text implies that angels (and Christ) reside
in heaven.
Revelation depicts angels as “coming down out of heaven”
(καταβαίνοντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, same phrase in Rev 10:1; 18:1; 20:1),
warring in heaven (Rev 12:7), and moving to and from different locations
within heaven (“another angel came out of the temple in heaven,” Rev
14:17). Angelic creatures worship around the heavenly throne (4:18).
There is little consensus concerning the interpretation of Revelation, so
little of the argument’s weight will be rested on it. All the same, it seems
very unlikely that such texts would not have informed how the early
readers conceived of the angelic abode in narrative passages.29
Perhaps these texts merely indicate that the people who interacted
with the angels saw them descend from or ascend into the physical sky.
But why are angels consistently portrayed as ascending into the physical
sky? What does this information imply? Are the angels attempting to
Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC, vol. 13 (Downers Grove:

InterVarsity, 1984), 119.
28 The temporal dative ἐν underscores a specific point in time. BDF §200.
29 Some argue that angels dwell in the “second heaven,” that is, the
stellar heaven. While angels are certainly associated with stars (Job 38:7), this
language is in symbolic contexts (the stars are not angels). For the purposes of
this work, it is enough to note that if the (unlikely) point is granted that angels
dwell invisibly in the stellar heaven they certainly descend to the terrestrial
realm and ascend to the throne in the third heaven (Rev 7:11), necessitating
heavenly spatiality. See C. Fred Dickason, Angels: Elect & Evil. (Chicago: Moody,
1975) 77.
30
communicate that they are from a different realm than mankind, thus
symbolizing it by flying upward before they disappear? Angels do not
cease to be spatial beings when they are no longer visible to humans. It
would make much more sense of the biblical texts if heaven is a spatial
realm that lies above the troposphere (though not physically accessible to
mankind). This would mean that angels, like Jesus, after completing an
earthly mission ascend upwards to an ulterior dimension, heaven.
Objections to Angelic Spatiality in Heaven

It may be objected that because angels are “spirits” (Heb 1:14) they
cannot be spatial. This objection begs the question, assuming a
definition of spirit that the biblical writers do not. There are no texts that
would indicate that spirits are not localized. Even the wind is localized
(John 3:8). It may be objected that angels are not spatial as they possess
a higher form of being. Granting this point would not, however,
necessitate that angels are aspatial. Again, this argument begs the
question, assuming spatiality to be a quality that a higher being would
not possess. Humans are higher forms of being than bacteria, but no less
spatial.30 It is hard to imagine of a theologian who ascribed a higher

quiddity to angels than Aquinas, yet he held that angels are spatial.31 It
is also impossible to argue that heaven is a “non-spatial location” for
30 My advisor, Dr. Brian Hand, suggested this illustration.

31 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: First Complete American Edition
in Three Volumes, vol. 1, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New
York: Benziger Brothers, 1947), I, q. 52.
31
spatial objects.32 It may be objected that references to angels in heaven
are symbolic (John 1:51; Heb 12:22) or hypothetical (Gal 1:8), and this is
certainly the case in some texts. But the descriptions of angels in heaven
within historical narratives provide an interpretive foundation for the
more obviously symbolic references. It would not make sense to attempt
the inverse.
Conclusion: Angelic Spatiality Necessitates Heavenly Spatiality

Angels are created spiritual beings who are spatial. These spatial
beings are consistently depicted as dwelling in heaven. Therefore, heaven
must have sufficient spatial properties to house its spatial residents. This
conclusion would be false if one of the following could be demonstrated:
(1) Angels are not spatial. To argue that angels are aspatial, one must
argue that they are either omnipresent or not present anywhere. Angels
are clearly present in places and they are clearly not omnipresent.
Therefore, angels are spatial. (2) Angels do not dwell in Heaven. The
biblical evidence is too preponderant for this argument to be maintained.
Even granting the point that every reference to heaven in Scripture is
symbolic, the question would remain: As spatial beings, where do angels

generally reside? It seems that Moses, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, and
Jesus would reply “in heaven” with no hesitation. (3) Spatial creatures
can dwell in a non-spatial realm. This is metaphysically impossible.
Under the receptacle concept of space, a being outside of the spatial
32 James Porter Moreland, Universals, Qualities, and Quality-Instances: A

Defense of Realism (Lanham: University Press of America, 1985), 66.
32
receptacle would cease to be spatial and would not be anywhere. Thus,
an angel outside of the receptacle would cease to be anywhere, and since
angels are spatial, it would cease to exist as an angel. Under the
relational concept of space, an angel within heavenly space would
necessitate its spatiality in the same way that spatial entities in our
universe necessitate the universe’s spatiality. The location of spatial
angels in the heavenly realm necessitates the conclusion that the biblical
authors conceived of heaven as a spatial entity.
Christ’s Resurrected Body is Spatially in Heaven

This section will argue that Christ’s resurrected body was a
human, spatial body. This same body ascended into heaven where it now
resides, necessitating heavenly spatiality.
Christ’s Resurrected Body is Spatial

Since his Incarnation, Jesus Christ “is at work within space and
time in a way that He never was before.”33 The resurrection did not end
this reality. The New Testament authors believed that the Jesus who was
resurrected was the same Jesus “who lived and died.”34 Christ’s
33 Torrance, Incarnation, 53.

34 Peter Orr, Exalted Above the Heavens: The Risen and Ascended Christ,
New Studies in Biblical Theology (London: IVP Academic, 2018), 9. Orr develops
many scriptural texts to prove this point (Matt 28:9–10; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:36;
John 20:14; 21:12; Acts 2:32; 9:5; 22:8; 26:15; Rom 4:24; Gal 1:1). It is
noteworthy that for the writers of the New Testament there is no bifurcation
between “the Jesus of history” and “the Christ of faith.” In the case of Paul, for
example, “Jesus Christ is a single person whose identity is disclosed in a
seamless narrative running from creation to the cross to the resurrection to the
eschaton. The historical details of his earthly life, such as his death by
crucifixion, are no more and no less part of his identity than his role in creation
and his present lordship in the community of those who call on his name.” R.
33
resurrection was a bodily resurrection (Matt 28:9; Luke 24:39–40; John
20:20, 24–29).35 A body is a physical object, having mass and extension
through space. After the resurrection, Jesus’ body changed locations36
and assumed various postures (Luke 24:30, 50; John 20:20; 21:12–13).
The women who first met the resurrected Christ grabbed his feet (Matt
28:9).37 Jesus took pains to ensure that the disciples would also
recognize that he was genuinely physical and material: “See my hands
and my feet, that it is I myself (µου ὅτι ἐγώ εἰµι αὐτός). Touch me, and
see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have”
B. Hays, “The Story of God’s Son: The Identity of Jesus in the Letters of Paul,”
in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, eds. B. R. Gaventa and R. B. Hays
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 182. On Bultmann and Käsemann’s debate
surrounding the continuity or discontinuity between Jesus’ historical and
kerygmatic identity, see Orr, Exalted, 5–36. Orr concludes, “There is continuity
in that the Jesus who died is the same person who rose and who ascended to
God’s right hand,” but discontinuity in that Jesus’ identity develops by further
revelation, being granted new names, and assuming new roles (36). “[T]he
resurrection actually does change Jesus in bringing him into the full expression
of his identity as Son, Lord and Christ” (36).
35 For the distinctions between the fleshly, bodily resurrection of Jesus in
Luke and the translations found among the “Roman emperors or those
identified with the Jewish ascent tradition” which were “transformed into an
ethereal substance, or to have been dissolved of its mortal trappings” see Shelly
Matthews, “Elijah, Ezekiel and Romulus: Luke’s Flesh and Bones (Luke 24:39)
in Light of Ancient Narratives of Ascent, Resurrection, and Apotheosis,” in On
Prophets, Warriors and Kings: Former Prophets through the Eyes of their
Interpreters, eds. Ariel Feldman and George Brook, BZAW 470 (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2016), 161–82.
36 Matt 28:16; Luke 24:15, 28–29, 36; John 20:19, 26.
37 In taking hold of Christ’s feet “Matthew makes it clear that Jesus’
risen body was a real body—the Evangelist is not describing a vision.” Morris,
Gospel According to Matthew, 739. Cf. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28,
WBC, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 874.
34
(Luke 24:39).38 John Nolland writes, “I cannot avoid the impression that
the extensive scholarly difficulty with this particular resurrection
account betrays an underlying tendency to be scandalized by materiality.
Ancient Hellenistic dualism lives on!”39 Thomas is invited to place his
finger in Christ’s flesh (John 20:27).40 Jesus even ate and drank with the
disciples (Luke 24:42–43; Acts 10:41; cf. John 21:9–14).41 Though Jesus’
body seems to have had some unique properties, it did not cease from
being a real human body.42 The author of Hebrews argues that because
38 Jesus uses no less than seven words to refer to himself, including the
emphatic αὐτός, emphasize that it is truly he (µου …µου …ἐγώ εἰµι αὐτός …µε …
ἐµὲ). “In this context, there is an incidental (but not unintended) affirmation of
the inalienable materiality of the human body (resurrected or not).” John
Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, WBC, vol. 35c (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 1213.
Possibly the hands and feet are meant to hold Christ’s wounds, as in John
20:25, 27. But in the absence of an explicit reference to his wounds, “the
corporeal nature of Jesus” was “foremost in Luke’s mind.” Robert H. Stein,
Luke, NAC, vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 617. Cf. Green, 854–55.
39 Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, 1214.
40 Interestingly, the physicality of Jesus’ resurrected body did not
provoke Thomas to doubt that Jesus could be true divinity. The contrary is true
(John 20:28). The disciples did not consider Jesus’ material body a defect or
sign of imperfection. Rather, the God who can raise such material back from
the dead is the God that they worship.
41 “The fact that Jesus ate in the presence of the disciples is treated as a
proof that he is no ghost.” Marshall, Luke, 903.
42 Jesus’ resurrected “body is flesh and bone transformed into a form
that is able to move through material matter. . . . There is no way to distinguish
the person of Jesus from the risen Christ except that his existence now takes
place at an additional dimension of reality. They are basically one and the
same. A spirit has not taken his place, nor is he just a spirit.” Bock, Luke,
2:1933–34. However, Wayne Grudem argues that these unique abilities some
theologians have pointed out—such as the ability to appear/disappear (Luke
24:31) and pass through walls (Luke 24:36; John 20:19, 26)—may not be as
radical when these texts are studied closely. Systematic Theology: An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 608–14. “Paul
stresses the transformed nature of the body of the exalted Christ, but
35
Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect,” Christ was enabled
to “become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to
make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb 2:17). To represent
humans, the high priest must be human. But unlike “the former priests”
who “were prevented by death from continuing in office,” Jesus “holds
his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever” (Heb 7:23–
25).43 Thus, Jesus’ priesthood is associated with having a human body
and with possessing that body eternally. Peter Orr argues that 1
Corinthians 15:23–28 requires Christ’s possession of a human body.
First Corinthians 15:27 alludes to Psalm 8, a psalm focused on the role
of humanity. Christ’s body “fulfils the commission that was given to
human beings.” The remainder of 1 Corinthians 15 places Christ in
contrast with Adam and foretells that the saints will bear the “image
(εἰκών) of the man of heaven” (1 Cor 15:49). While “image” may bring to
mind a two-dimensional representation for modern readers, For Paul,
“εἰκών is a fundamentally somatic concept,” which means that his
“Adam-Christ parallel would break down if Christ were to lose his
distinct, human bodily form.”44
nevertheless maintains its physical nature.” Orr, Exalted, 114. I would argue
that Christ’s resurrected body could not pass between walls, but could pass
between dimensions, giving that appearance.
43See Brian C. Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of
Hebrews, Biblical Interpretation Series (Boston: Brill, 2014), 174–75.
44 Peter Orr, “The Bodily Absence of Christ in Paul,” Journal for the Study
of Paul and His Letters 3, no. 1 (2013): 114–16. On εἰκών as a somatic concept,
Orr cites Stefanie Lorenzen, Das paulinische Eikon-Konzept: Semantische
Analysen zur Sapientia Salomonis, zu Philo und den Paulusbriefen, WUNT 2.250
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
36
There is no scriptural evidence that would support the conclusion
that Jesus lost his human body at some point after his resurrection.
Thus, Christendom—with the exception of Lutheranism—has historically
affirmed that the God-man Jesus Christ having been incarnated shall
never become discarnate.45 As the Belgic Confession states,
“We believe that by this conception, the person of the Son is inseparably
united and connected with the human nature . . . two natures united in
one single person: yet, that each nature retains its own distinct
properties. . . . [T]he human nature [has] not lost its properties, but
remained a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and
retaining all the properties of a real body. And though he has by his
resurrection given immortality to the same, nevertheless he has not
changed the reality of his human nature; forasmuch as our salvation and
resurrection also depend on the reality of his body. But these two
natures are so closely united in one person, that they were not separated
even by his death.”46
45 “Lutheran theologians, following Martin Luther, have sometimes

claimed that Jesus’ human nature, even his human body, is also everywhere
present or ‘ubiquitous.’ But this position has not been adopted by any other
segment of the Christian church.” Grudem, 558.
46 Belgic Confession, article 19. “We acknowledge, therefore, that there
be in one and the same Jesus Christ our Lord two natures—the divine and the
human nature . . . united and joined together in one person (the properties of
each nature being safe and remaining still). . . . [W]e neither think nor teach
that the body of Christ ceased to be a true body after His glorifying, or that it
was deified and so deified that it put off its properties, as touching body and
soul, and became altogether a divine nature and began to be one substance
alone.” SHC 6–8. “The Son of God . . . did . . . take upon Him man’s nature,
with all the essential properties, . . . [s]o that two whole, perfect, and distinct
natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in
one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.” WCF 8.2. “The only
Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of
God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two
distinct natures, and one person, for ever.” WSC Q. 21. Cf. WLC Q. 36.
Quotations from Joel R. Beeke and Sinclair B. Ferguson, eds., Reformed
Confessions Harmonized (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 66–67. Barth also
thought that Jesus does not lose his humanity: “It is a clothing which He does
not put off. It is His temple which He does not leave. It is the form which He
does not lose.” Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 4, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T.
F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark 1958), 100–01.
37
Because human bodies are spatial, spatiality is a necessary property of
Christ’s human body.47
Objections to Christ’s Resurrected Body’s Spatiality

John A. T. Robinson argues that Christ no longer possess a human
body, but that the church is “in literal fact the risen organism of Christ’s
person in all its concrete reality.”48 While Paul speaks of the church as
the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:12–27), he also affirms the reality of Christ’s
perpetual human body. For example, in Paul’s idiom, the wife is the
husband’s body as he is her head (Eph 5:23). Following Robinson’s logic
reductio ad absurdum, theologians would have to conclude that
husbands no longer have circumscribed bodies. Clearly, Paul uses a
metaphor to portray the special “one flesh” union that a husband and
wife share (Eph 5:31). Paul uses the same metaphor to describe Christ as
the head of the church which is “his body” (cite). As Orr summarizes,
“Luke, John and Paul all conceive the exalted Christ possessing a
47 “Fleshly bodies, because they’re bodies, are also matter extended in

spacetime” which possess “temporal and spatial . . . boundaries.” Paul J.
Griffiths, Christian Flesh (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2018), 2.
Peter Orr argues Christ “remains localizable” in his “on-going humanity and
possession of a discrete, localizable body that cannot be collapsed into
believers.” Orr, Exalted, 78.
48 John A. T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology, Studies
in Biblical Theology 5 (London: SCM, 1952), 51. Ward expresses a similar view:
“the body of Jesus Christ is not lost, nor does it reside now in heaven as a
discrete object . . . because the Church is now the body of Christ.” Graham
Ward, “Bodies: The Displaced Body of Jesus Christ,” in Radical Orthodoxy: A
New Theology, eds. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward
(London: Routledge, 1999), 176–77.
38
discrete, distinguishable body that cannot be collapsed into the Spirit or
the church.”49
In John 20:17, Christ tells Mary not to touch (ἅπτω) him. Does this
mean that Christ’s resurrected body was not spatial and physical? And
does this present an inconsistent portrayal of Christ’s haptic body? A
better conclusion is that Mary thinks that Jesus has accomplished his
mission and is there to stay, so Jesus commands her not to “cling” 50 to
him, implying that he must soon leave in his ascension.51 It is after
Christ’s ascension and exaltation that Christ’s disciples will join him
49 Orr, Exalted, 114. “Paul stresses the transformed nature of the body of
the exalted Christ, but nevertheless maintains its physical nature. Romans 8:29
complements what we see in 1 Corinthians 15, suggesting as it does that Paul
understood Christ’s body to be both discrete and localized. Philippians 3
stresses the ongoing humanity of the exalted Christ and his role in bringing
humanity into glory. Christ’s possessing an individual body is not merely
accidental to Paul’s theology; it is essential” (114). For a fuller rebuttal to
Robinson see Orr, “Bodily Absence,” 111–21.
50 Citing John 20:17: “Cling to,” BDAG; “do not hold on to me,” Johannes
P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament:
Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989),
221. In other instances, ἅπτω can carry the sense of sexual touch (1 Cor 7:1).
While not the sense here, this indicates that “cling” seems appropriate.
51 “Mary seems to misunderstand the present occasion as the fulfilment
of Jesus’ promise of his abiding presence and does not realise that Jesus would
be present through the Spirit.” Arie W. Zwiep, “The Ascension of the Messiah:
An Inquiry into the Ascension and Exaltation of Jesus in Lukan Christology.”
(Ph.D. diss. Durham University, 1996), 168. Similarly, Orr argues that “the key
seems to be in the motive behind the touching.” Exalted, 94. While Thomas
should touch to relieve his doubts, Mary should not because she needs to
understand “that though Jesus has risen from the dead, his ongoing presence
with them will be mediated by the Spirit. It will not be a bodily presence.” (94).
Jonathan Draper’s reading that Jesus could not touch his disciples until after
he had been enthroned is less convincing as it relies too heavily on loose
parallels with a targumic reading of Isaiah 6. “What Did Isaiah See?: Angelic
Theophany in the Tomb in John 20:11–18,” Neotestamentica 36, no. 1–2 (2002):
63–76.
39
forever, and then they may cling to him.52 This text poses no difficulty for
the doctrine of Christ’s physical, spatial resurrected body.
Christ’s Resurrected Body is in Heaven

Christ’s continual possession of a spatial human body leads to a
natural question: where is it? This section will establish that the biblical
authors do not conceive of the location of Christ’s body as a mystery: it
resides in heaven. This fact will be established in three steps: Jesus’
resurrected body (1) is absent from earth, (2) has ascended into heaven,
and (3) is currently in heaven.
Christ’s Resurrected Body is Absent from Earth

The gospels foreshadow Christ’s bodily absence. Matthew does not
contain any ascension narrative, seemingly keeping Jesus on earth and
emphasizing his presence. Harris argues that Matthew 1:23 and 28:20
form an “interpretive bracket” for Matthew.53 But Jesus describes “his
future coming as Son of Man (24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44; 26:64) and Lord
(24:42),” implying his imminent absence from earth.54 Harris argues that
the “coming” language in Matthew is a continuous coming (indicated by
52 “The event depicted . . . indicates a post-resurrection event, such as

the ascension or exaltation. This usage of the verb probably indicates what is
traditionally thought of as the ascension.” Stanley E. Porter, “The Unity of Luke-
Acts and the Ascension Narratives,” in Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts: New
Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge, eds. David K. Bryan and David W. Pao
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 122.
53 Mark Harris, “The Comings and Goings of the Son of Man: Is
Matthew’s Risen Jesus ‘Present’ or ‘Absent’? A Narrative-Critical Response,”
Biblical Interpretation 22, no. 1 (2014): 52.
54 Orr, Exalted, 79.
40
the present tense).55 Orr argues that Matthew 16:27 (“the Son of Man is
going to come [µέλλει . . . ἔρχεσθαι] with his angels in the glory of his
Father”) is obviously a future coming.56 Therefore, Matthew’s Gospel
“stresses the ongoing presence of Christ,” but “does not negate his
absence.”57
The same point concerning “coming” language could be said for
Mark. In Mark 8:38 Jesus predicts a time “when he shall come in the
glory of his Father with the holy angels.”58 Jesus presents himself in this
scene as being absent from earth. France argues that this scene’s
Danielic background indicates that it is “set in heaven where God is on
his throne surrounded by the angelic court, and its focus is on the
enthronement of the υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου to rule over the earth.”59 Jesus’
“coming” is not the coming to earth, but “the entry of the υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου
into his kingship, exercised over the earth indeed, but located in the
heavenly throne room. . . . His rejection on earth will lead to vindication
55 Harris, “Comings and Goings,” 64–65. Harris’s view of “coming” is not

without competitions. See Morris, Gospel According to Matthew, 257–58.
57 Ibid., 82. Orr notes that Matthew 16:27 is conspicuously absent from
Harris’s article, calling its thesis into question (80).
58 The 2nd aorist subjunctive following ὅταν is a simple future. Francis
Smith Sampson, A Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed.
Robert L. Dabney (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1856), 64.
59 R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2002), 342.
41
and glory in heaven.”60 Whether one thinks this “coming” is a coming
from or coming to, the language indicates Christ’s absence from earth.
John even more poignantly foreshadows Christ’s absence from
earth. Jesus tells his disciples that he will soon leave them. He will “go
and prepare a place for” them, and will one day “come again and will
take” them to himself, “that where [he is they] may be also” (John 14:2–
3). He speaks to them “while . . . still with” them (John 14:25). He
encourages them that it is to their “advantage” that he “go away” so he
can send “the Helper” (ὁ παράκλητος) to them (John 16:7). Jesus must
“go to the Father, and [his disciples] will see [him] no longer” (John
16:10).61 Despite having “come into the world,” Christ leaves the world to
go to his Father (John 16:28). This cannot be speaking of Trinitarian
essence as Jesus was already in and with the Father in the Trinitarian
essence (John 1:1–2). Jesus anticipates his departure when he prays, “I
am no longer in the world” (John 17:11).62 Language of “come,” “go,”
leave,” “no longer see,”63 “place,” and “come again” connote spatial
absence. When Jesus tells his disciples that he must go, but will later
come to take them where he is so they can be together, what conceptual
60 France, The Gospel of Mark, 343.

61 Orr takes this as an ascension reference. Orr, Exalted, 93.
62“There is . . . an inherent unavailability of Jesus to believers. John,
like Luke, maintains the physical, discrete nature of the body of the risen
Christ.” Orr, Exalted, 77.
63 Not every instance of Jesus saying He will no longer be seen should be
taken as depicting his absence from earth. Most scholars agree that the phrase
“a little while” often refers to Jesus’ time in the grave (John 7:33; 12:35; 13:33;
14:18–19; 16:16–18). See Orr, Exalted, 92–93.
42
framework will the disciples have to interpret these words except that of
spatiality?
Luke-Acts demonstrates Christ’s bodily absence. Luke emphasizes
Christ’s body, particularly in its post-resurrection reality (e.g. Luke
24:39–43; Acts 10:41). Luke’s emphasis on Christ’s bodily presence in
his Gospel and the lack of Christ’s bodily presence in Acts has led C. F.
D. Moule to posit that Acts manifests an “absentee theology.”64 While
Moule is right in noting the physical absence of Christ throughout Acts,
it should also be recognized that Jesus is an active character within the
narrative as he works through his Spirit.65 Nevertheless, the point
remains that Christ’s body is absent from earth in the church after the
ascension of Acts 1.
Paul articulates Christ’s bodily absence from earth. Paul desires
“to depart and be with Christ” (Phil 1:23). This desire implies Christ’s
spatial bodily absence.66 For Paul to be apart from Christ is to be “in the
64C. F. D. Moule, “The Christology of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts:

Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert, eds. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis
Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 159–85.
65 “Moule rightly observes that Luke designs Acts to show that the Spirit
represents the ascended Jesus to his church. Furthermore, in contrast to
Jesus’ visible involvement with his followers during his earthly career, one may
speak of the exalted Christ as absent in the strictly physical sense. But
[Moule’s] view does not fully describe Luke’s christological perspective.” H.
Douglas Buckwalter, The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology, SNTSMS
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 175. While absent, Jesus “is
not a passive character in the narrative.” Orr, Exalted, 82–83.
66 Chris Tilling maintains that “the metaphor of exile/being at home
involved, in the verbs Paul employs in 5:6 and 8 (ἐνδηµέω and ἐκδηµέω),
emphasis on a specifically spatial aspect of this absence from the Lord” (158).
Chris Tilling, Paul’s Divine Christology, WUNT 2. Reihe 323, (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2012), 158–62. “[N]o good reason has been found to neglect an
43
flesh” (Phil 1:24). While Paul lives on earth in his physical body, he is
“away from the Lord” (2 Cor 5:6–7). Paul encourages the Thessalonians
as they await their Lord who, though away from them currently, will
descend from heaven so they can “always be with the Lord” (1 Thess
4:17). Paul does not describe the condition of being “with the Lord” as a
realized reality, but an eschatological hope. These texts must be referring
to Christ’s bodily presence as Paul was not separated from Christ’s divine
omnipresence or Christ’s mediated presence. Christ’s body still exists,
but it is absent from earth.67 Jesus’ physical absence depicted in the
gospels, Acts, and epistles implies his bodily location elsewhere.
Objections to Christ’s Absence from Earth

If Christ is absent, how can he promise his disciples, “I am with
you always, to the end of the age” (ἐγὼ µεθ᾿ ὑµῶν εἰµι πάσας τὰς ἡµέρας
ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, Matt 28:20)? As Donald A. Hagner argues,
“Since Matthew has pictures both of the continuing presence of Christ

with the church and of the Christ who comes from heaven at the end of
history, neither can be intended as a literal, objectified statement about
the present location of the risen Lord. Each has its own distinct and
important theological function, but they cannot be combined on the
basis of literalism.”68
Boring agrees: Each depiction, both that of the “present” Christ and that
of the departed-and-coming-again Christ, “has its valid theological point
emphasis on Paul’s real sense and experience of the absence of the risen Lord”
(162).
67 See Peter Orr, “The Location of Christ: Paul and the Bodily Absence of
Christ,” in Exalted Above the Heavens: The Risen and Ascended Christ, New
Studies in Biblical Theology (London, England: IVP Academic, 2018), 115–32.
68 Hagner, Matthew 14–28, 457–504.
44
to make, but they cannot be conceptually resolved.”69 Furthermore, to
explain this paradox as “Christ is now present ‘spiritually’ but will return
‘physically’ at the Parousia” is “an attempt at explanation that falsely
objectifies the mystery of each reality, a reality that can be
conceptualized and spoken of only pictorially.”70 Therefore, Christ’s
presence is a paradox, as Christ is clearly present in heaven (Heb 9:24)
and clearly present on earth (Matt 28:20).71 However, this is a paradox of
the presence of Christ, not of his bodily location. It is obvious from Luke-
Acts and Paul’s writings that Christ’s presence is not currently a physical
one, a point Hagner would affirm.72 The New Testament authors also
believed Jesus would return in his physical body (Acts 1:11; 1 Thess
4:17). So, must Christ’s continuing presence be “spiritualized”? There are
a few possible solutions. Initially, it is noteworthy that Matthew has a
category for non-physical presence, as Matthew 18:20 indicates (“where
two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them”). Some
would argue that Christ’s continuing spiritual presence is facilitated by
69 M. Eugene Boring, “Matthew,” in NIB, vol. 8 (Nashville: Abingdon,

1995), 458.
70 Ibid., 504.
71 As Orr puts it, “the NT is crystal clear: Jesus is in heaven.” But, “the
NT is also crystal clear: Jesus dwells in and with believers. . . . [W]e seem to
have a tension, even a contradiction between some texts locating Christ in
heaven and some locating him in and with the believer.” Orr, Exalted, 77.
72
“Jesus, though not physically present among them, will not have
abandoned them.” Hagner, Matthew 14–28, 888–89.
45
his divine omnipresence.73 This idea fits with the broader theme of God’s
presence with his people (Exod 3:12; Judg 6:16; Jer 1:8).74 However, the
New Testament authors suggest a different resolution to this paradox is
to distinguish Jesus’ physical presence from his Spirit-mediated
presence. Jesus is not merely promising that his omnipresence will be
with his disciples, though he possesses that attribute, but he will
manifest a special presence among his disciples through the Spirit. Orr
exegetes several texts in 2 Corinthians to demonstrate that by the Spirit’s
empowerment the church’s gospel witness is the “aroma of Christ” (2:14),
“the letter of Christ” (3:1–3), “the glory of Christ” (3:18), “the face of
Christ” (4:1–6), and even “the life of Christ” (4:7–12). This “epiphanic
presence of Christ is the mediated presence of the absent Christ to the
senses of believers.”75 Thus, the church is empowered by the Spirit to
mediate the presence of Christ. This proposition aligns with Jesus’
statements: “I am with you” (Matt 28:20) and “where two or three are
gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matt 18:20). Peter speaks
73France, Gospel of Matthew, 1119; David M. Hay, Glory at the Right

Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 102; Craig S.
Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009), 718.
74“We must see Jesus’ promise of his presence in v. 20 in the light of the
full authority he freshly asserts for himself in v. 18.” John Nolland, The Gospel
of Matthew, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 1271.
75 Exalted, 152. See full discussion on pp. 133–53. In the “interval . . .
between his exaltation and his parousia . . . the Spirit would keep his people in
living union with their risen, glorified, and returning Lord” (152). Thus, Paul
speaks of the Spirit as “the ‘seal,’ ‘firstfruits,’ or ‘guarantee’ . . . of believers’
coming heritage of glory (Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14; 4:30).” F. F.
Bruce, The Book of Acts, revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 39.
46
of the “Spirit of Christ” that is “sent from Heaven” (1 Pet 1:11–12). Paul
argues that “the Spirit of God dwells” in the saints (Rom 8:9). He tells the
Romans that if they have “the Spirit of Christ,” then “Christ is in [them]”
because “the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in
[them]” (Rom 8:9–11). In light of such arguments, theologians have taken
Jesus’ promise to mean that after “his earthly role has come to an end,”
Jesus will henceforth “exert his influence on humanity from heavenly
glory through his Spirit.”76
Christ’s Resurrected Body Ascended into Heaven

Jesus’ ascension into heaven is a particular emphasis for Luke, as
he records the event in his gospel and in Acts. In each account, the
ascension is presented as a physical and spatial “going up” of Christ’s
body into the earth’s atmosphere with the implication that Christ then
transitioned into the hidden spiritual heaven. The account in Luke’s
gospel emphasizes the physical and spatial nature of the ascension in
76 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 210–11.
“Matthew closes his Gospel with Jesus’ promise to be spiritually present with
his followers until the end of this age, that is, until his return, when he will
once again be present bodily . . . John describes how Jesus had explained this
provision in much more detail as the ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 13–17).
Acts 2 will describe the decisive moment of the fulfillment of this promise at
Pentecost.” Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, Vol 22, NAC (Nashville: Broadman,
1992), 433. Cf. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 277; Buckwalter, 175; Norman, 5.
“From now on, although he is physically absent, the disciples will experience
his presence in a new way, through the same Spirit that empowered Jesus
while he was on earth (Matt. 3:16–17).” David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 690.
47
several ways.77 First, Christ is physically related to his disciples by
personally leading them to the physical site of the ascension (“he led
them out as far as Bethany,” Luke 24:51a). Second, his bodily posture is
mentioned when he blesses them (“lifting up his hands,” Luke 24:51b).
Such references to Christ’s physical body are foregrounded by the
detailed description of his physical body a few verses earlier (Luke 24:38–
43). Third, Jesus is “parted from them” (διέστη ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν). Citing this
text, BDAG gives διΐστηµι the sense “to move from, separate from, or take
leave of.”78 This “separation” puts Jesus’ physical motion in terms of the
disciples own bodily locale. The word informs the reader of both Jesus’s
and the disciples’ position. Fourth, Jesus is “carried up into heaven”
(ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν). The natural sense of ἀναφέρω in this case is
for Jesus to physically move upward.79 The imperfect tense seems to
77 Though the Western text is shorter, the longer text is superior as it

preserves a more difficult reading. Porter, “Unity of Luke-Acts,” 114–16. Cf.
Bock, Luke, 2:1949–50; Marshall, Luke, 909; P. A. van Stempvoort argues that
the “old harmonizing tendency” was at work to create a shorter reading that
would alleviate the tension between the ascension accounts. “Interpretation of
the Ascension in Luke and Acts,” New Testament Studies 5, no. 1 (1958): 36.
Arie Zwiep argues that the Western scribes consistently took out any reference
to Jesus’ physical ascension. Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God:
Essays on the Acts of the Apostles, WUNT 2. Reihe 293 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2012), 27–36. Contra Eldon J. Epp, “The Ascension in the Textual
Tradition in Luke-Acts,” Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism:
Collected Essays, 1962–2004, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 116
(Leiden: Brill, 2005), 211–25. Epp favors the Western reading and seems bent
on minimizing the ascension in the New Testament. While there are some
differences between Luke’s two accounts of the ascension, “none . . . precludes
common authorship.” Marshall, Luke, 907.
78 BDAG, 245.
79 BDAG gives the sense “to cause to move from a lower position to a
higher” citing this passage (75). “As for the semasiology of the verb άναφέρειν, it
has a concrete and realistic meaning, quite in agreement with the realistic
48
describe a gradual ascent over a period of time.80 It is difficult to imagine
encoding an instant disappearance with the imperfective aspect.81 All of
these details point toward a physical, spatial ascent of Christ’s body into
the sky. The ascension “marks the end of Jesus’ physical presence with
his disciples.”82
Luke’s second narrative83 account of Christ’s ascension is even
more explicitly physical and spatial.84 First, Jesus’ final words in Acts 1
pull spatial categories to the fore.85 Jesus’ proclamation that the
theology of Luke in this chapter: to be carried up to higher places.” Stempvoort,

36. Cf. Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2; Acts 9:39. “Luke 24:51 is an instance of a literal
use [of ἀναφέρω], indicating ascension on the basis of the adjunct ‘into heaven.’”
Porter, “Unity of Luke-Acts,” 123.
80 “When Jesus ascended into heaven, the fact that he went to a place
seems to be the entire point of the narrative, and the point that Jesus intended
his disciples to understand by the way in which he gradually ascended even
while speaking to them.” Grudem, 1159. Cf. Marshall, Luke, 909. Stempvoort,
36.
81 How can one describe a disappearance with an aspect that “does not
view the beginning or end” of the action? Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of
Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 60.
82 Stein, Luke, 624.
83 “This account is, in effect, a narrative” but it uses “apocalyptic stage
props to present in visible form Christ’s final departure.” Fitzmyer, Acts of the
Apostles, 208.
84 “It is remarkable how the categories of space and time dominate Acts i.
Historical factors gave rise to the realism of the second interpretation of the
Ascension, a realism not uncommon in Luke’s Gospel and Acts.” Stempvoort,
41. The longer text is superior, as, “in an attempt to reinterpret the ascension,
the Western tradition apparently minimized the visible nature of the ascension.”
Porter, “Unity of Luke-Acts,” 118.
85 “Certainly these words are ‘final and conclusive’, their position
affording a primacy effect within the narrative. Such positioning is
hermeneutically important for establishing the spatial priorities of Acts.
Furthermore, given that—even if unmentioned—the speaker’s body is always a
spatial reference point, as the speaker of these words in Acts 1 ascends into
49
disciples will be “[his] witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and
Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8) would be fresh in the
disciples’ minds as they hear from the angels that Jesus has been taken
up “into heaven” and will return “in the same way as [they] saw him go
into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Second, the six references to the disciples’ sight
in verses 9–11 emphasize their act of witness (βλεπόντων; ὀφθαλµῶν
αὐτῶν; ἀτενίζοντες;86 ἰδοὺ;87 [ἐµ]βλέποντες;88 ἐθεάσασθε).89 The verbs and
heaven, the words just spoken cannot be detached from this profound
relocation.” Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts,
SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 74. I am indebted to
Sleeman’s discussion in this paragraph, both as a source of corroboration and
inspiration.
86 Rick Strelan argues that the ascension “is best understood as a
revelatory vision experienced by the disciples . . . not a descriptive report of an
‘event’. This is partly implied by Luke’s use of the verb ἀτενίζοντες (1.10), a verb
that has revelatory undertones.” Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of
Acts of the Apostles, BZNW 126 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 38–39. However,
Steve Walton argues that this interpretation “is unlikely—the verb here (as
elsewhere) denotes intent looking or staring at something or someone (BDAG,
148). Even if Strelan were correct about ἀτενίζοντες, Luke has used numerous
other visual words which carry no such implication.” “‘The Heavens Opened’:
Cosmological and Theological Transformation in Luke and Acts,” in Cosmology
and New Testament Theology, eds. Sean M. McDonough and Jonathan T.
Pennington, T. & T. Clark Library of Biblical Studies. (London: T. & T. Clark,
2008), 65. C. K. Barrett argues that the use of βλεπόντων “places the Ascension
in the same category of events as any other happening in the story of Jesus.” C.
K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, ICC, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994),
81.
87 While Luke likely employs ἰδοὺ for literary reasons, the word also “tells
us the appearance was sudden,” communicating something concerning the
disciples’ sight. Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2007), 69.
88If the emphatic prefix is original it would be another indication that
Luke is trying to emphasize the disciples’ sight and witness.
89“The vivid pictorial depiction of Jesus’ ascension into heaven serves to
give tangible form to the apostles’ testimony to the exaltation of Christ. Indeed,
Luke stressed this by referring to their seeing and looking intently no fewer
50
pronouns used are plural, emphasizing that this was not a private vision,
but a public truth.90 These references to sight also establish the disciples
as witnesses throughout the rest of Acts. Third, the verbs ἐπαίρω (“to
cause to move upward,” cf. 1 Tim 2:8), ὑπολαµβάνω (“to cause to
ascend”), ἀναλαµβάνω (“to lift up and carry away”), ἔρχοµαι (“[t]he idea of
coming is even plainer in connection with the coming of the Human One
(Son of Man), the return of Jesus from his heavenly home”), and
πορεύοµαι (“to move over an area, generally with a point of departure or
destination specified”) imply physical movement (Acts 1:9–11).91 Again,
than five times in vv. 9–11, and he returned to the importance of their
eyewitness in v. 22.” John B. Pohill, Acts, NAB, vol. 26 (Nashville: Broadman,
1992), 87.
90 “The ascension, then, in all its glaring physicality, brings the Christian
claims about Christ right into the open market of real events in space and time.
We believe that the truth of Jesus Christ is what Lesslie Newbigin calls public
truth, the truth about what is the case.” Gerrit Scott Dawson, Jesus Ascended:
The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004),
35. Cf. Lesslie Newbigin, A Word in Season: Perspectives on Christian World
Missions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 54. Luke’s account of the ascension,
if not “scientific,” is certainly “empirical.” It is apparent that Luke finds the
account remarkable which is why he emphasizes the verbs of sight. In T. F.
Torrance’s words, “It just will not do to claim, as Bultmann does, that ‘the
objective form’ in which the New Testament and early Christian presentation of
Christ, with respect to the Incarnation, atonement, resurrection and ascension,
was cast, was the result of mythological objectifying shaped by a primitive and
unscientific world-view, as if the early Christians were not deeply aware of the
profound conflict between the Gospel and the prevailing world-view! On the
contrary, it is apparently [Bultmann’s] own world-view, with its dualist,
obsolete, scientific preconceptions, which make him ‘mythogolize’ the New
Testament in this way, and then ‘demythologize’ it in terms of his own mistaken
exaltation of self-understanding, which transfers the centre of reference away
from the action of God in the historical Jesus to some spiritual event of
‘resurrection’ in man’s experience.” Space, Time and Resurrection (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 17–18.
91All senses are quotations from BDAG which specifically mention Acts
1:9–11. Cf. Matthew Sleeman, “The Ascension and Spatial Theory,” in Ascent
into Heaven in Luke-Acts: New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge, eds. David
51
the imperfective aspect of πορεύω also seems to imply a gradual
movement, not a sudden disappearance.92 Van Stempvoort argues that
Acts 1 “is strongly realistic.”93 The word ἐπήρθη is a “concrete description
of an event[,] έπαίρω has verticality,” and typical Lukan realism “runs on
in the meaning of υπολαµβάνω.”94 Fourth, the disciples are said to be
“gazing into heaven” in verses 10 (ἀτενίζοντες ἦσαν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν) and 11
(ἐµβλέποντες εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν). Beyond the emphasis on sight, the
disciples look up into the physical sky, as the reference to the cloud in
K. Bryan and David W. Pao (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 158. The only textual
variant that would call these verbs presence in the text into question is the
variant found in D. Likely, the phrases in the NA28’s texts are original. 𝔓75, the
oldest text for this passage, includes them. Additionally, Zwiep argues that “[a]n
overwhelming majority of textual witnesses, beginning from 𝔓75, whose text at
this point gives little or no indication of being ‘tendentious’ (contra Parsons and
Ehrman), supports the Alexandrian (non-Western) text of Luke 24:50–53 and
Acts 1:1–2, 9–11; support for the so-called ‘shorter (Western) recension’ is
confined to only part of the (otherwise divided!) Western tradition.” Zwiep,
Christ, 34. The Western scribes consistently removed “any suggestion that
Jesus ascended physically— with a body of flesh and bones—into heaven.”
Bock, Acts, 68. “A bodily ascension fits the Jewish background, especially after
a physical resurrection” (68).
92 “The periphrastic imperfect and the participium praesens of πορ[εύω]
underline the movement of the going away of Christ.” Stempvoort, 38. “[T]he
imperfect suggests a gradual departure, as in Acts 1:9f.” I. Howard Marshall,
Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC, vol. 5 (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1980), 909.
93 Stempvoort, 37.
94 Ibid. Stempvoort also argues against a mythic understanding of the
cloud. “But Luke realistically stresses the final separation: ‘a cloud took him up
by getting under him (and so took him) out of their sight’. If we follow the
normal meaning of ὑπολαµβ[άνω] in this way, the cloud is not a fog cloud hiding
a mystery but a royal chariot showing the reality of the disappearance of Christ”
(38). “[T]he ascension is not merely a departure, it is also a heavenly arrival—
signaled by the obscuring cloud, which triggers connections with Daniel 7:13–
14—that promises a future earthly return.” Sleeman, “The Ascension,” 163.
52
verse 9 makes clear.95 Why would the disciples be looking up into the sky
unless they had seen Christ physically ascend into it?96 Fifth, the
fourfold repetition of “into heaven (εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν)” emphasizes it as a
location (Acts 1:10–11).97 Sixth, the angels’ question implies a new
location. Sleeman argues that “[t]wo formally similar Christological
questions within Luke’s Gospel (2:49; 24:5) help position this
realignment.”98 The young Jesus questions his mother that she would
not realize he would be located in the temple “about [his] Father’s
business” (Luke 2:29). The second question, a stronger parallel with Acts
1, is from the two angels outside of the empty tomb: “Why do you look for
the living among the dead?” (Luke 24:5).99 The angels’ question in Acts
1:11 follows a similar format. The angels question why the men of Galilee
95 “Although 1:10–11 presents heaven as a real site, the place of Jesus, it

lies beyond mortal sight. Even the witnesses do not witness this heavenly
locale, even though they were—in Barrett’s rendering—‘straining their eyes to
see’ into heaven, perhaps in a misplaced imitation of 2 Kings 2:9–12.” Sleeman,
Geography, 76–77.
96 Bruce does not describe the event as a literal going up of Christ’s
body. “Anyone leaving the earth’s surface appears to spectators to be ascending,
and so, when the cloud enveloped their Lord, the disciples stood ‘gazing into
heaven’ as he disappeared.” Bruce, 38. This reading is weak. Luke narrates
other instances where Christ “disappeared” (note the perfective aspect of Luke
24:31, ἄφαντος ἐγένετο), but the ascension is described quite differently.
97 This “tight repetition functions as an important way in which Luke
signals spatial-theological information within Acts.” Sleeman, Geography, 74.
Contra Strelan argues that είς τόν ούρανόν “is not a spatial or locative
description; it means that Jesus now participates in the rule of God.” Strelan,
39. It is “hard to accept Strelan’s antithesis . . . Why can location not be the
denotation and rule the connotation of the expression?” Walton, 61.
98 Sleeman, Geography, 76. Cf. Pohill, 87.
99 The reference to “Galilee” in Luke 24:6 may draw another conceptual
link between Luke 24:5–6 and Acts 1:11. Sleeman, Geography, 75.
53
are staring into the sky. As in Luke 24:5–6, the angels do not reveal new
information, but remind the disciples of what they already know. Based
on Jesus’ prophesies concerning his “coming on the clouds of heaven”
(e.g. Matt 24:30; 26:64; Mark 14:62), the disciples should conclude that
Jesus has done the necessary step of entering heaven so he can return
entering heaven in order that he can make his promised return.100 The
angels help the disciples understand how Jesus’ promise is “concretized
and affirmed by the ascension they had just witnessed.”101 Seventh, the
text is bookended with references to spatial locations, including concrete
details of travel and cities (Acts 1:8, 12–13).102 These details have led
many theologians to conclude that the ascension Luke describes should
be understood as spatial and physical.103
100ἐλεύσεται is a textbook (literally) example of a predictive future. Daniel

B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek
Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 244. Cf. Bock, Acts, 70.
101 Pohill, 88.
102 Sleeman, Geography, 81–82.
103 “His body was raised up above to the heavens.” John Calvin,
Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge. (Edinburgh: Calvin
Translation Society, 1845), 2.16.14. “The Christian rule of truth has always
resisted any spiritualizing of the resurrection, and the account of the ascension
dramatically rules out any thought of resurrection as only an interior spiritual
event in the believing church. Jesus, who rose from the dead in a body,
ascended in the same body.” Dawson, 36. Even those who disagree on how the
natures of Christ function in the ascension agree that it was a bodily ascension,
e.g. Hodge and Aquinas: “From the Scriptural accounts it is apparent (1) that
the ascension of Christ was of His whole person. It was the God-man, the Son
of God clothed in our nature, having a true body and a rational soul, who
ascended. (2) The ascension was visible. The disciples witnessed the whole
transaction. They saw the person of Christ gradually rise from the earth until a
cloud hid Him from their view. (3) It was a local transfer of His person from one
place to another, from earth to heaven. Heaven, then, must be a definite portion
of space where God specially manifests His presence, and where He is
54
But to where does Christ spatially ascend? While his body did
ascend into the physical sky, he is obviously not still hiding behind the
clouds in our atmosphere. Following the cosmology of his day, Luke
associates the physical sky with heaven. It seems that Luke is using
“intentional ambiguity” by using οὐρανός for both the celestial and
physical heavens.104 Jesus’ ascension has profound cosmological
implications. Unlike “angels, who come from heaven and return there,
Jesus is a human being who enters heaven. . . . In piercing the barrier
between earth and heaven, Jesus restructures how reality is understood,
both now and in the days to come.”105 Additionally, if Jesus’ body is
resurrected from the grave and that body ascends into heaven, and then
Jesus temporarily discards that body, the reader is left wondering, “What
was the point of that?” Why have resurrection at all if the spirit is all that
will remain? The cosmological subtext of the ascension is that Christ’s
body leaves the earth and enters another sphere, heaven, as the
subsequent section will clarify.
surrounded by His angels and by the spirits of the just made perfect.” Hodge,
417. “[T]he Ascension in no wise belongs to Christ according to the condition of
His Divine Nature; both because there is nothing higher than the Divine Nature
to which He can ascend; and because ascension is local motion, a thing not in
keeping with the Divine Nature, which is immovable and outside all place. Yet
the Ascension is in keeping with Christ according to His human nature, which
is limited by place, and can be the subject of motion. In this sense, then, we
can say that Christ ascended into heaven as man, but not as God.” Aquinas, III.
Q. 57. a. 2. Cf. Green, 862.
104 Charles Anderson, “Lukan Cosmology and the Ascension,” in Ascent
into Heaven in Luke-Acts: New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge, eds. David
K. Bryan and David W. Pao (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 203.
105 Walton, 61.
55
Objections to the Ascension of Christ’s Resurrected Body into Heaven
Some may argue that the ascension was essentially an act of
glorification, but to say it was an act of glorification does not rule out
that it was also a spatial, physical act. Peter speaks of Christ’s
resurrection as an act of glorification as well. Does this mean the
resurrection was not a physical event?106 Some may also argue that
based on the historical context Christ’s ascension should be read like
one of the ascensions of found in the literature of Second Temple
Judaism. Some of these ascensions Zwiep labels “heavenly journeys”
wherein “only the soul is taken up into heaven, the body remains in the
grave.”107 However,
“Acts allows no account of a heavenly journey through the celestial

spheres for Christ, let alone for his disciples. . . . Unlike accounts of
heavenly journeys circulating in the first century, the knowledge gained
by mortals in this instance is very much this-worldly, very much
geographical. Indeed, of Mary Dean-Otting’s eleven-point list of elements
characterising the Jewish heavenly journey form, at least nine are
subverted in some way by the Acts 1 account.”108

107 “The Ascension of the Messiah: An Inquiry into the Ascension and
Exaltation of Jesus in Lukan Christology” (Ph.D. diss., Durham University,
1996), 38. The burden of Zwiep’s thesis is to argue “that pre-Christian (or at
least pre-Lukan) Judaism provides a more plausible horizon of understanding
for the interpretation of the ascension of Jesus than the Graeco-Roman rapture
tradition” (i). So, while Judaic ascensions are more similar to Christ’s ascension
than the Graeco-Roman accounts are, yet the Judaic ascensions still differ
significantly from Christ’s ascension.
108 Sleeman, Geography, 76–77. Cf. Mary Dean-Otting, Heavenly
Journeys: A Study of the Motif in Hellenistic Jewish Literature (Frankfurt am
Main: Peter D Lang, 1984).
56
Thus, Zwiep categorizes Luke’s ascension as a “rapture,” which he
defines “as a bodily translation into the ‘beyond’ as the conclusion of one’s
earthly life without the intervention of death.”109
Christ’s Resurrected Body is Presently in Heaven

If Christ’s body did indeed ascend, the next question is where is it
now? Ralph Norman argues that the correct answer is “nowhere.”
Following the view articulated by Hans Conzelmann, Norman believes
that the New Testament authors had no consistent or developed
cosmology.110 Over time, Christian theology had to wrestle with
cosmology, particularly with the Platonic and Aristotelian cosmology that
considered the material universe finite and the “super-celestial” realm of
the Unmoved Mover was the immaterial beyond, the “great outside.”111 If
“the great outside” is an aspatial realm, discussing it in spatial terms is
meaningless. It is neither beyond nor outside of our universe. It is not
anywhere. As time passed, theologians working within this cosmological
framework simultaneously defended Christ’s continuing Incarnation.
This led Origen, Augustine, Maximus, Aquinas, and Calvin to affirm the
109 Zwiep, Christ, 46. Italics in original.

110 “[O]ne does not speculate about the structure of the cosmos when one
expects the imminent end of the world.” Norman, 5. Cf. Hans Conzelmann, An
Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1969), 14–15.
111 “Thus the divine heaven, the ‘great outside’, was not a spatially
extended realm at all, not a place of any kind, but, being outside the universe,
was precisely nothing at all, a nothing that could only be described negatively.
As Augustine would later argue, questions about what happened before time
are nonsensical because ‘before’ is a temporal concept; questions about what
lies outside space are nonsensical because ‘outside’ is a spatial concept.”
Norman, 7.
57
paradox that “Christ had Ascended to nowhere. His human body was
located nowhere, and yet remained a human body.”112 Thus, “the
Ascension is ultimately acosmic.”113
However, Norman’s formulation is not a paradox, but a
contradiction. A paradox is only an apparent contradiction,114 like the
ability of light to act both as a wave and as a particle.115 To say that
Christ’s human body is “nowhere” or in an aspatial “location” would
necessitate that Christ’s body no longer be a human body, as the
following syllogisms illustrate.
From the receptacle view of space:
Premise 1: Something is spatial if it is inside a spatial receptacle and
aspatial if it is outside of a spatial receptacle.
112 Norman, 8. “When Christ is said to be in heaven, we must not take it

that He dwells among the spheres and numbers the stars. Heaven denotes a
place higher than the spheres, which was appointed to the Son of God after His
resurrection. Not that it is strictly a place outside the world, but we cannot
speak of the Kingdom of God except in our own way.” John Calvin, Galatians,
Ephesians, Philippians & Colossians, trans. T. H. L. Parker (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), 176–77. See Norman’s helpful discussion on how Aquinas is
somewhat incoherent on the nature and properties of Christ’s glorified body,
13. On Irenaeus diametrical opposition to dualist cosmology, see Douglas B.
Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Ascension for
Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 45–51.
113 Norman, 9.
114 “An apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition,
or a strongly counter-intuitive one, which investigation, analysis, or explanation
may nevertheless prove to be well-founded or true.” Oxford English Dictionary,
s.v. “Paradox,” accessed April 13, 2020, https://www-oed-
com.ezproxy.bju.net/view/Entry/137353?rskey=4vdPWS&result=1&is
Advanced=false#eid
115 Ryan T. Mullins, The End of the Timeless God (New York: Oxford
58
Premise 2: Christ’s body is outside a spatial receptacle (namely, the
finite universe).
Conclusion: Christ’s body is aspatial.
From the relational view of space:
Premise 1: Something is spatial when it is spatially related to other
spatial entities.
Premise 2: Christ’s body is not related to other spatial entities.
Conclusion: Christ’s body is aspatial.
This would lead to the following syllogism:
Premise 1: All human bodies are spatial.
Premise 2: Christ’s “body” is aspatial.
Conclusion: Christ’s “body” is not a human body.
Perhaps a counterargument could be to argue that Christ’s body is
spatial, but it is still “nowhere” from a human perspective, in the sense of
being in a void outside of physical space. A body in a void is conceivable,
but this would imply that the void was or contained a location, being
defined by Christ’s body itself. The receptacle would be the
circumscription of Christ’s body. Christ’s feet would be spatially related

to his head. But this dimension would not be “nowhere.” Rather, Christ’s
body would be located in an ulterior universe of which his body
comprises the entirety. It is here that Christ’s body will remain until he
returns to earth “from heaven.” In other words, for Christ to remain
human, he can be in an unknown location, but it is impossible for a
human body to be “nowhere.” However, the New Testament authors
never conceived of a “Christ in the void,” of Jesus’ body being isolated in
an ulterior universe. Rather, they believed Christ to be in a spatial
59
heavenly realm. This can be demonstrated by (1) their explicit
statements, (2) their post-ascension visions, and (3) their expectation of
Christ’s return.
Heaven is Christ’s Stated Location

The New Testament authors explicitly state that Jesus is in
heaven. When people see Christ in visions they see him in heaven. In
1 Corinthians 15, Paul argues for the resurrection from the dead for both
Christ and the saints. Resurrected bodies will maintain their identity
with the person who died,116 but be glorified as “spiritual bodies” like
Jesus’ “heavenly” (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) body,117 in the “image of the man of
heaven” (1 Cor 15:44, 47, 49).118 John McClean argues that these
116 Orr notes that the witnesses at each point of Paul’s narrative in
verses 3–9 can identify Christ, thus stressing continuity with the one who died
and the one who was raised. “Bodily Absence,” 116.
117 “This qualitative interpretation of ἐξ οὐρανοῦ is confirmed when we
note that in verses 48, 49 ἐπουράνιος is used as its equivalent and applied to
believers as well as to Christ, and this can hardly mean that believers have
come from heaven. . . . The category of the heavenly dimension is associated
with Christ as the inaugurator of the resurrection life of the age to come.” A. T.
Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly
Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology, SNTSMS
43 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 46. Cf. Anthony C.
Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text,
NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1287.
118 The phrase σῶµα πνευµατικόν does not refer to a non-bodily spiritual
reality, but rather a “supernatural” body “animated and enlivened by God’s
Spirit.” Πνευµατικόν bears the “-ικός” ending which generally implies an ethical
or functional meaning, not a one of material or substance (which would be “-
ινός”). Volker Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and
Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life, WUNT 2. Reihe 283 (Tübingen: Mohr-
Siebeck, 2010), 95–96. “The risen Christ in heaven remains a human being.
Finally, Christ’s humanity has an important eschatological transformative
function in that believers will be transformed to bear his image (εἰκών), just as
they have borne the image of Adam (15:49).” Orr, “Bodily Absence,” 115.
60
expressions function within Paul’s view of the heavenly realm as “part of
the creation,” having “a spatio-temporal relationship to the earthly realm
as well as having a spatio-temporal dimension in itself.”119 Since “Paul,
along with other New Testament authors, perceives the heavenly realm
as the arena of God’s fully revealed glory” he believes “that whatever
comes to dwell there is transfigured and glorified.”120 Thus, Paul “asserts
a radically transformed character for the continued embodied existence
of the glorified Lord Jesus” as a “spiritual body” and “heavenly man.”121
But this does not mean “that the body of the ascended Christ does not
participate in time and space, even if heavenly time and space should be
thought of as somewhat different to that of earthly existence.”122 Rather,
Paul’s description of Jesus as the “heavenly man” implies he possesses a
body suited for a new heavenly location.
In Ephesians 1:20 and 2:6, Paul speaks of Christ as being “in
heavenly places.” Brannon argues that the “the appearances of ἐν τοῖς
ἐπουράνιος in Ephesians demand a local translation.”123 Since the
119 McClean, 91.

120 Ibid., 102.
121 Ibid., 102–03.
122 Ibid., 103.
123 M. Jeff Brannon, The Heavenlies in Ephesians: A Lexical, Exegetical,
and Conceptual Analysis, Library of New Testament Studies (London: T. & T.
Clark, 2011), 13. While “ἐπουράνιος can have various meanings and nuances, it
always refers to that which is spatially distinct from the earth. As a result, from
our examination of ἐπουράνιος in the New Testament, we conclude that there is
no precedent or basis for a spiritualization of the heavenlies in Ephesians”
(100).
61
majority of the formulaic phrase’s appearances “will not allow for a non-
local interpretation,” it makes sense to view “the expression” as “a local
one.”124 Christ is “above” (Col 3:1) rather than “on earth” (Col 3:2); he is
the saints’ master “in heaven” (Eph 6:9; Cf. Eph 6:5–6; Col 4:1; Cf. Col
1:7).125 In the hymn of 1 Timothy 3:16 the bookends of “manifested in
the flesh” and “taken up into glory” may imply a physical understanding
of both phrases. In addition, by affirming that Christ is “seen by angels”
Paul indicates Christ is in the heavenly realm. Paul locates Christ in
heaven in other texts as well (Rom 10:6; Eph 4:8–10).
Peter also conceives of Jesus as dwelling in heaven. After Jesus’
“death in the flesh” and resurrection by the Spirit (1 Pet 3:18), Christ
“has gone into heaven” (1 Pet 3:22). The connection between a physical
resurrection prefacing the ascension implies the ascension is spatial and
physical as well. It is from heaven that Christ sends the Holy Spirit
(1 Pet 1:12; cf. John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7) and from heaven that he
prepares an inheritance for the saints (1 Pet 1:4).
Hebrews also portrays Christ as in heaven. Jesus “has passed
through the heavens” (Heb 4:14; cf. 7:26), which is best understood as
his ascension through the visible sky, into heaven, the dwelling of God
(Heb 8:1; 9:24).126 The context emphasizes the human nature of Jesus as
124 Brannon, 14.

125The parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19:11–27) may be the
background for Paul’s teaching about Jesus as the master in a “far country.”
126 Such a reading resolves the tension surrounding with Jesus is above
the heavens or in them. See Robert B. Jamieson, Jesus’ Death and Heavenly
Offering in Hebrews, SNTSMS (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019),
95. Cf. Orr, Exalted, 95–97. “[E]ven if we do not understand Christ to be located
62
a proper priestly intercessor for mankind (Heb 4:15).127 Hebrews 7:24–26
also makes a strong connection between Jesus’ human priesthood and
his exaltation above the heavens to his place “seated at the right hand of
the throne of the Majesty in heaven” (Heb 8:1).128 Spatiality is very
important to the author of Hebrews, who even speaks of salvation in local
terms.129 At a macro level, George H. Guthrie argues that the structure of
the book tracks Christ’s movements from heaven to earth and back to
heaven.130
literally ‘exalted above the heavens’, an analogical understanding allows us to

see this as an expression of spatial separation” (97).
127 “The ascension may be described as the visible ascent of the person of
the Mediator from earth to heaven, according to His human nature. It was a
local transition, a going from place to place. This implies, of course, that heaven
is a place as well as earth. . . . The Saviour’s entrance into heaven is pictured as
an ascent. The disciples see Jesus ascending until a cloud intercepts Him and
hides Him from their sight. The same local coloring is present to the mind of the
writer of Hebrews in 4:14.” Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Carlisle, PA:
Banner of Truth Trust, 1958; reprint, Bath: Bath Press, 1998), 350.
128 “Though the term οὐρανός does not appear in Heb. 3.1, there is
nevertheless an implicit connection between the location of the κλήσεως
ἐπουρανίου and the location of the risen Christ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (8.1).” Brannon,
100. “He is now ‘exalted above’ (ὑψηλότερος) the heavens (7:26) and seated at
the right hand of God (8:1). Jesus is described as the forerunner into heaven,
thus emphasizing that he is the one who makes the way for the believer to enter
into heaven (6:20). Having entered into heaven, Jesus now has the privileged
position of being in the presence of God (8:1; 9:24). Jesus’ appearance before
God, however, is not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of humanity (ὑπὲρ
ἡµῶν; 9:24).” Small, 239. The concept of paving the way for believers implies a
spatial understanding of heaven.
129 “[R]edeemed humanity” is destined for “a place under various names
(resting place, city, throne room, etc.).” Jon Laansma, “The Cosmology of
Hebrews,” in Cosmology and New Testament Theology, eds. Sean M.
McDonough and Jonathan T. Pennington, T. & T. Clark Library of Biblical
Studies. (London: T. & T. Clark, 2008), 127.
130George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic
Analysis (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 121–24.
63
Heaven is Christ’s Location in Visions
That Christ is “in heaven” is not merely a theological expression.
Luke and Paul consider it a pivotal historical reality. At Stephen’s
martyrdom, Luke writes that he “gazed into heaven and saw the glory of
God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, ‘Behold,
I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand
of God’” (Acts 7:55–56).131 As the Venerable Bede notes, Luke may use
the term “Son of Man” instead of “Son of God” to emphasize that “the
same God who was crucified appeared crowned in heaven.”132 Similarly,
on the road to Damascus, Paul sees “a light from heaven” and Jesus
speaks to him (Acts 9:3–6; Cf. Acts 22:7–8). The implication is that Jesus
speaks to Paul from heaven. The men with Paul experience the vision
differently than Paul does (cf. Dan 10:7), though they are certainly aware
that something supernatural is taking place, objectifying Paul’s
experience (Acts 9:7; Acts 22:9).133 Paul believes that he has seen Christ.
He is willing to stake his apostleship on it (1 Cor 9:1) and makes no
linguistic distinction between how he saw Christ and how Peter and
131 “Stephen gains a glimpse directly into heaven, as the picture of

heaven opening . . . points to a revelatory experience. Usually διανοιγω
(dianoigõ, open) in the NT means that the perception of a person is opened up,
but disclosure is also often an additional point of the verb. God is granting
Stephen glimpse of heaven as an act of vindication for his claims.” Bock, Acts,
311.
132 “Deus homo crucifixus apparet coronatus in caelo.” Bede, The
Complete Works of Venerable Bede: In the Original Latin, vol. 12, trans. J. A.
Giles (London: Whittaker and Co., 1844), 37. Author’s translation.
133 Barrett, 451.
64
James did (1 Cor 15:8).134 In Peter’s trance at Joppa he sees a sheet
lowered from heaven and hears the voice of the Lord from heaven (Acts
11:5, 9–10). Peter identifies the term “Lord” with Jesus throughout the
passage (Acts 11:16–17, 20–21). In John’s vision, he enters through a
door in heaven (Rev 4:1) and sees the Lamb, Christ, in God’s heavenly
courtroom (Rev 5:6). John ends Revelation with a call for the Lord Jesus
to “Come!” which implies Christ’s absence (Rev 20:22). These visions
demonstrate that Stephen, Paul, Peter, and John all conceive of Jesus as
currently dwelling in heaven.
Heaven is the Location Wherefrom Christ Will Return to Earth

In the wake of Christ’s bodily, spatial ascension, Peter proclaims
that Jesus is one “whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring
all the things” (Acts 3:20b–21a). The word δέχοµαι (“receive”) “carries
with it the notion of remaining where one is received” and the use of “ἄχρι
makes this meaning certain here.”135 Heaven, not the sky, must show
Christ hospitality until the time of restoration. Polhill proposes that the
“best commentary on this concept is to be found in [Acts] 1:6–11. . . . The
134 The phrase “as to one untimely born” does not alter the meaning of
ὤφθη (which is used four times with no change in verb form). Paul simply
means that he was not someone who should have seen Christ due to being on
the scene after Jesus’ death. Paul calls this encounter “a heavenly vision” (τῇ
οὐρανίῳ ὀπτασίᾳ), but this does not mean that Paul did not think that he saw
Jesus.
135 Barrett, 205. Cf. Bock, Acts, 177; Bruce, 84. On δέχοµαι cf. Matt
10:14, 40; Luke 9:5, 11, 53; 10:8, 10; John 4:45; Col 4:10; Heb 11:31.
65
messiah’s present location in heaven presupposes the ascension and
return at his Parousia (1:9–11).”136
Paul contrasts the “enemies” whose minds are “set on earthly
things” with the saints who anticipate from “heaven . . . the Lord Jesus
Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body”
(Phil 3:18–21; Cf. 1 Thess 1:10). This text clearly places Christ in heaven
and emphasizes that he is present there in his glorious body until his
return.137 Similarly, 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 describes the day when
“the Lord himself will descend from heaven” and the saints, dead and
alive, will be “caught up together . . . to meet the Lord in the air.” This
text not only puts those who are “caught up” in spatial relation to Christ,
but in spatial relationship “with them” (1 Thess 4:17), the “dead in
Christ” (1 Thess 4:16), as well, implying Christ’s bodily descent from the
sky.138 Second Thessalonians 1:7 places Christ’s revelation “from
heaven” in spatial relationship with “his mighty angels.” That the angels
who typically dwell in heaven accompany Christ seems to indicate that
they are all leaving the same spatial realm together. As McClean argues,
because “Paul’s thought retains a clear place for a body of the ascended
Jesus, and that this body is one which occupied space and time in the
136 134–35.
137 This is another text that makes a clear distinction between Jesus’
glorified body and the church, contra Robinson.
138 The motifs of ascent/descent, angels/archangels, cloud/clouds
parallel Acts 1:9–11, implying a spatial interpretation.
66
resurrection and will do so again in the parousia, implies that it
continues to do so in Christ’s heavenly session.”139
Perhaps it is worth returning to the concept of “Christ in the void.”
Conceiving of Jesus’ body in its own dimension is logically coherent, yet
it fails not on logical but on literary grounds. What narrative sense does
it make for Christ to assume a human body that is crucified, buried, and
resurrected as an imperishable, glorified, “heavenly” (whatever that
means) body, only for that body to be relegated to “nowhere” for
thousands of years? And then find a use for that discarded body once
again in his glorious return to earth? The deflated arch of this disjointed
plotline finds no home in the New Testament. For the New Testament
authors, Christ’s Incarnation, crucifixion, and ascension led to his
enthronement in the heavenly court where he currently resides, waited
on by angelic servants, ruling as sovereign until the day when he rises
from his throne and returns to earth in power. That’s a story worth
hearing. And such an epideictic argument is not one foreign to the
biblical text, particularly that of Hebrews. Christ is not relegated to the
void. He ascended into heaven.140
139 McClean, 102–03.

140 “We do not doubt but that the selfsame body which was born of the
virgin, was crucified, dead, and buried, and which did rise again, did ascend
into the heavens, for the accomplishment of all things, where in our name and
for our comfort he has received all power in heaven and earth, where he sits at
the right hand of the Father, having received his kingdom, the only advocate
and mediator for us. . . . We believe that the same Lord Jesus shall visibly
return for this Last Judgment as he was seen to ascend.” The Scots Confession,
Chapter XI, “The Ascension,” 3.11. in The Constitution of the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.), Part I: The Book of Confessions (Louisville: The Office of the
General Assembly, 1999), 3.11.
67
Objections to Christ’s Bodily Presence in Heaven
Luther and his followers have argued that Christ’s resurrected
body is not confined to heaven, but is now ubiquitous. This ubiquity
allowed Luther to affirm that Christ’s body is truly and corporeally,
though not locally, present in the Holy Supper.141 At the heart of this
doctrine lies the Lutheran preference for paradox.142 Holding that
Christ’s body was ubiquitous “attempted to answer the question as to
how the body could be in heaven and simultaneously on earth.”143
Torrance argues that the disagreement over Christ’s bodily location is
rooted in a disagreement over the fundamental meaning of space.144 The
Lutherans held to a receptacle view of space, while the Reformed
(including the Anglicans), following the patristics, held to a relational
view. Theologically, by making Christ’s human body and divine nature
coextensive with the receptacle of the universe, Luther inadvertently
blurred the line between Christ’s divine and human nature, allowing
141 Luther, following Aquinas, writes, “Christ’s body is not present locally
(like straw in a sack) but definitively.” Luther’s Works, American ed., vol. 8,
Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds. (Philadelphia: Muehlenberg and
Fortress; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955–86), 301. Grudem comments that Christ’s
ubiquity “seems to have been a position that Luther himself took mainly in an
attempt to justify his view that Christ’s body was actually present in the Lord’s
Supper (not in the elements themselves, but with them).” Grudem, 558.
142 As Ristau notes, simul iustus et peccator (“simultaneously justified
and sinner”) is “a motif that sets the foundation for Lutheran hermeneutics,
homiletics, ethics, and in short, all other theology.” Harold Ristau, “Ubiquity
and Epiphany: Luther’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Presence in Space and Time,”
Logia 22, no. 4 (2013): 26.
143 Ristau, 26.
144 Torrance, Incarnation, 30–37. Cf. Dawson, 44–45.
68
monophysitism to come “in by the back door. Finitum capax infiniti.”145
Exegetically, since the last supper is the first instance of the Holy Supper
it follows that Christ’s ubiquitous body is not necessary to celebrate the
Supper (since Christ’s body was circumscriptively present in its pre-
glorified state as they partook). Also, the Lutheran position fails to
account for Christ’s bodily absence from believers.146
A possible objection that some might raise against Christ’s
ascended body is the statement of 1 Corinthians 15:50 that “flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” Rather than denying that
bodies may enter heaven, this “statement clearly means that our old
weak and corrupt earthly bodies, existing as they do under the power of
sin, cannot enter heaven.”147 Bodies may enter heaven after being
“changed, transformed, glorified into new resurrection bodies—as was
Jesus’ body in his resurrection.”148
Humans Spatially Dwell in Heaven

Humanity is the most obviously spatial of the entities discussed in
this chapter, but the least clearly located in heaven. That heavenly is a
spatial inhabited by humans will be established by demonstrating that
145 Torrance, Incarnation, 62.

146 Orr rightly notes, “The problem is that [Luther’s position] does not
account for what we might call the absence of Christ. That is, it is not simply
that some texts locate Christ in heaven, but that they describe him as absent
from believers.” Exalted, 78. Cf. Norman, 4.
147 Stephen T. Davis, “The Meaning of the Ascension for Christian
Scholars,” Perspectives, 22, no. 4 (2007), 14.
148 Davis, 14.
69
the New Testament authors considered (1) it possible for a human body
to enter heaven, (2) disembodied human souls to be spatially present in
heaven, and (3) the heavenly realm to be the future abode for redeemed,
embodied humans.
Human Bodily Ascent into Heaven is a Conceptual Possibility

Second Corinthians 12:1–5 illuminates Paul’s conception of
cosmology. While the complete conceptual framework within which Paul
uses the term “the third heaven” is debated, what is abundantly clear
from the parallel phrases in 2 Corinthians 12:2–3 is that, for Paul, “the
third heaven” is “paradise.” Paul was “caught up to the third heaven” (2
Cor 12:2). The word for “caught up” (ἁρπάζω) is the same word used in
Acts 8:39 when “the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the
eunuch saw him no more.” Philip’s being caught up was certainly a
bodily occurrence as he dramatically changed locations (Acts 8:40). It is
also the same word used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 for the saints who will
be caught up (ἁρπάζω) “to meet the Lord in the air.” Thus, a bodily
translation is within the semantic range of the word. But Paul
emphatically states that he did not know whether this was an experience
in his body or not (2b, 3b), and only a foolish commentator would claim
to know what Paul himself did not. However, Paul’s statement does
reveal that, in his mind, bodily ascension into paradise was a conceptual
option. If Paul viewed heaven as a state or a non-spatial realm, then
wouldn’t Paul’s theology have been able to answer this question for Him?
Would not Paul have thought, “I could not tell if I was in the body or not,
but since I was in paradise and paradise is not a place I must have been
70
out of the body”? But Paul claims emphatic ignorance. Whether Paul’s
body was in paradise is a mystery; whether Paul’s body could have been
in paradise is not.149
The background to Paul’s ascension may be that of the Old
Testament prophets’ presence in Yahweh’s council (discussed in further
detail infra). As several scholars have pointed out, to be a true prophet of
Yahweh one must have “stood in150 the council of the Yahweh” ( ‫ָעמַד בְּסוֹד‬
‫י ְהוָה‬, Jer 23:18, cf. 22).151 Amos 3:7 says, “For the Lord Yahweh does not
do anything unless he [first] has revealed his secret council (‫ )סוֹדוֹ‬to his
servants the prophets.”152 The “secret council” (‫ )סוֹד‬refers to “the secrets
revealed at the council meeting that the prophet is to make known to the
149The idea that Paul considers bodily ascent into heaven as an option is
undergirded by his use of “paradise,” a likely allusion to the heavenly temple.
Se Jason B. Hood, “The Temple and the Thorn: 2 Corinthians 12 and Paul’s
Heavenly Ecclesiology,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 21, no. 3 (2011): 357–70.
A locative ‫ ְבּ‬makes good sense here. John C. Beckman, Williams’

150
Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 97.
151 Polley believes that the prophetic formula, “thus saith the Lord,”
“provides a body of material that should be related to the council of meeting.”
Max E. Polley, “Hebrew Prophecy Within the Council of Yahweh, Examined in
its Ancient Near Eastern Setting,” in Scripture in Context: Essays on the
Comparative Method, ed. Dikran Y. Hadidian (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980), 149.
Cf. Edwin C. Kingsbury, “The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh,” JBL 83
(1964): 279–86; H. Wheeler Robinson, “The Psychology and Metaphysic of ‘Thus
Saith Yahweh’: A Paper Read before the Society for Old Testament Study,
Meeting in London, January 3rd, 1923,” ZAW 41 (1923): 10–12. The concept of
Yahweh “sending” (‫ )שׁלח‬his prophets and gives them something to “speak” (‫)אמר‬
finds many parallels in other ANE literature, such as the Mari texts, Ras
Shamra Tablets, and Amarna Letters. See W. L. Moran, “Akkadian Letters,”
ANET 3, 623; J. F. Ross, “The Prophet as Yahweh’s Messenger,” Israel’s
Prophetic Heritage, 100–01; Polley, 149–56; Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm:
Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham: Lexham, 2015),
232–239.
152 Author’s translation.
71
people.”153 Several texts present humans interacting, even physically (Isa
6:6–7; Rev 4:1), with God and his angelic servants in heaven.154 These
visionary texts, while not definitively locating prophets in heaven, provide
conceptual categories in which the New Testament authors may have
understood other references to humans in heaven.
Disembodied Humans are Spatially in Heaven

Conversely, Paul does locate redeemed disembodied humans
spatially in heaven. Interestingly, Paul does not think that being
disembodied necessitates aspatiality. Given that angelic spirits are
spatial (Heb 1:14), it makes sense to see human spirits as spatial also, as
Paul indicates in 2 Corinthians 5:1–10.155 While in an “earthly body,” a
saint longs for his “heavenly dwelling” (2 Cor 5:1–2). Though
disembodiment is not preferable, Paul would take the discomfort of being
“unclothed” (2 Cor 5:4) so that he can be “away from the body and at
home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). What does Paul mean when he says to
be “at home in the body” is to be “away from the Lord” (2 Cor 5:6)? If one
assumes, for the sake of argument, that Paul is not presenting a spatial
reality, but a spiritual one, then why does he associate being “with the
Lord” spiritually with being “away from” his body? Why would Paul need
153 Max E. Polley, “Hebrew Prophecy,” 149.

154 1 Kgs 22:19–22; 2 Chr 22:18–21; Isa 6:1–11; Zech 3:1–5; Rev 4:1–8.
155 On the unity of Paul’s presentation of the afterlife in 1 Corinthians 15
and 2 Corinthians 5, see Ronald Berry, “Death and Life in Christ: The Meaning
of 2 Corinthians 5.1–10,” Scottish Journal of Theology 14, no. 1 (March 1961):
60–76. Contra Richard Frederick Hettlinger, “2 Corinthians 5:1–10,” Scottish
Journal of Theology, 10, no. 2 (June 1957): 174–194.
72
to be apart from his spatial body to be present spiritually with the Lord?
What is the distinction between being spiritually “with the Lord” after
death and being spiritually “with the Lord” in this life? Such a reading
does not take into account Paul’s view that believers currently enjoy the
Lord’s presence in a spiritual sense (Eph 2:6).156 This reading also falsely
assumes that spirits cannot be spatial entities. Paul believes that his
spirit will spatially depart from his body and await the resurrection from
heaven (Cf. Phil 1:23; Luke 23:43).157 Comparing a physical location
(Paul’s body) with a non-spatial place (heaven) does not do the text
justice. Paul gives no hint of viewing this heavenly realm as an aspatial
reality in either the present or future. Rather, the reason humans enter
heaven in a disembodied state is so that their corrupt sinful bodies may
await the resurrection of those bodies in the grave.
Redeemed Humanity Will Bodily Dwell in Heaven

Redeemed humanity is also destined for glorified bodies and these
bodies will dwell in the heaven-earth consummation.158 Saints are
commended for living as “strangers and exiles on earth,” as they seek a
“better country, that is, a heavenly one” in which God has “prepared for
156 See Orr, Exalted, 133–153.

157 “Like many Jewish people, Paul believed that the soul lived in heaven
till the resurrection of the body, and that soul and body would be reunited at
the resurrection (2 Cor 5:1–10).” Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background
Commentary: New Testament, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014),
592.
158 “For heaven and earth will then no longer be separated, as they are
now, but will be one (see Rev. 21:1–3).” Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the
Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 274.
73
them a city” (Heb 11:13, 16). Paul also conceived of the heavenly
kingdom as one he may be brought into (2 Tim 4:18) in a context that
associates the kingdom with Christ’s appearing to judge the living and
the dead (2 Tim 4:1).159 The locus classicus for Paul’s dogmatism
concerning resurrected human bodies also mentions the kingdom (1 Cor
15:24), indicating the Paul viewed the entrance into the heavenly
kingdom as a bodily event. Job expresses this hope when he says, “after
my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God” (Job
19:26). Revelation 21 depicts the New Jerusalem descending from the
heavens to earth and becoming the dwelling place of both God and man
(Rev 21:3).160 This heaven-earth unity is inhabited by resurrected saints
(Rev 20:5–6).161 Grudem argues that “the fact that we will have
resurrection bodies like Christ’s resurrection body indicates that heaven
159 “Heaven for him [Paul] was the kingdom whither the righteous
Christians would ascend to join their God, and there inherit heavenly bodies
and inhabit celestial mansions (1 Cor. 15:20–57; 2 Cor 5:1–5; Eph. 2:6; Phil.
3:20–21).” J. Edward Wright, The Early History of Heaven (New York: Oxford,
2000), 150.
160 Anthony C. Thiselton argues that Paul believed that “the totality of
the mode of life in the resurrection existence in the Holy Spirit is more than
physical but not less.” Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A
Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1278. Thus,
Paul “affirms the biblical tradition of a positive attitude toward physicality as a
condition for experiencing life in its fullness.” (1279). “[T]here is no compelling
reason to imagine that [Paul’s] view of resurrection life is characterized by
anything other than embodied materiality, possibly even non-corruptible fleshly
materiality.” Andrew Johnson, “Turning the World Upside Down in 1
Corinthians 15: Apocalyptic Epistemology, the Resurrected Body and the New
Creation,” Evangelical Quarterly 15 (2003), 307. Cf. McClean, 103.
161 This unification of heaven and earth is a time when, in Meredith G.
Kline’s words, “heaven will then be cosmos and cosmos will be heaven.” God,
Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos (Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock, 2006), 5.
74
will be a place, for in such physical bodies (made perfect, never to be
weak or die again), we will inhabit a specific place at a specific time, just
as Jesus now does in his resurrection body.”162 Jesus describes this
heavenly country as his “Father’s house” which has “many rooms” (John
14:2). Given the fact that Jesus’ departure was a physical departure
(Acts 1:9), his words, “I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again
and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also” (John
14:2–3), necessitate that Jesus is speaking of a departure and return
that is spatially related to the disciples. Jesus also clarifies that he and
the disciples will be together in the place he is preparing for them. Since
humans can and will dwell in the heavenly realm, these statements imply
that it must be a spatial realm.163
Objections to Human Spatially Dwelling in Heaven

As Davis notes, some scholars seem uncomfortable with “the idea
of an embodied person being received into heaven. But this objection is
easily dealt with; it must simply be asked where those scholars got the
idea that no embodied person can be in heaven.”164 Paul’s statement
“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50) simply
“means that our old weak and corrupt earthly bodies, existing as they do
162 Grudem, 1160.

163 “Many conceive of heaven also as a subjective condition,” but the
“Scripture clearly presents heaven as a place. Christ ascended to heaven, which
can only mean that He went from one place to another.” Berkhof, 818.
164 Stephen T. Davis, “The Meaning of the Ascension for Christian
Scholars,” Perspectives, 22, no. 4 (2007), 13.
75
under the power of sin, cannot enter heaven. Our bodies must be
changed, transformed, glorified into new resurrection bodies—as was
Jesus’ body in his resurrection—and in them we will inherit the kingdom
of God.”165 Orthodox theologians who consent to the spatial nature of
heaven for resurrected saints should also concede that there is no
evidence that the biblical authors considered heaven fundamentally
changing from a non-spatial entity into a spatial one at the heaven-earth
consummation, as is clear from Paul’s view of the possibility of his bodily
ascent. Rather, heaven is spatial both in the present and in the future.
Conclusion: Human Spatiality Implies Heavenly Spatiality

That human spatiality implies heavenly spatiality follows from the
same logic used with angels and Christ, as can be shown by the following
syllogism:
Premise 1: Humans are spatial.
Premise 2: Humans can and will inhabit heaven.
Conclusion: Human spatiality necessitates heavenly spatiality
To disprove this argument, one of the following must be
demonstrated: (1) Humans are not spatial. If one were to reject human
spatiality, then it is unlikely that one would have a use for the term
“spatiality” at all. Metaphysics aside, the biblical authors speak
comfortably of humans in spatial terms. (2) Humans do not dwell in
heaven either as disembodied souls or as resurrected bodies in the future
heaven-earth consummation. The clear statements of Scripture, and
165 Davis, “The Meaning of the Ascension,” 13.

76
orthodox affirmations of bodily resurrection, conflict with such a
position. Neither of these being the case, human spatiality clearly
necessitates heavenly spatial.
Conclusion
Angelic, Christological, and human spatiality necessitate heavenly
spatiality. To reject that heaven is a spatial realm, one must argue either
that angels, Christ, or humans are not spatial or that angels, Christ, or
humans do not inhabit heaven. If any one of these entities both is spatial
and dwells in heaven, heaven must be a spatial realm. This section has
argued that all three entities are spatial and all three dwell in heaven. As
Berkhof observes, “Some Christian scholars of recent date consider
heaven to be a condition rather than a place.”166 But the “local
conception” is “favored by” the way that “Heaven is represented in
Scripture as the dwelling place of created beings (angels, saints, the
human nature of Christ). These are all in some way related to space.”167
166 Berkhof, 350.

167 Berkhof, 350.
CHAPTER 2: Our Father, Who Art in Heaven
To ascribe spatiality to the Father’s heavenly manifestation one of

the following must be demonstrated: (1) If one espouses the relational
view of space, then it must be demonstrated that the Father’s
manifestation is proximate to other spatial entities. (2) If one espouses
the receptacle view of space, then it must be demonstrated that the
Father’s manifestation dwells within a spatial realm. These will both be
addressed simultaneously, as proving that an entity is in spatial
relationship with other spatial entities necessitates spatiality from the

relational view and proving that an entity is proximate to other spatial
entities within a spatial realm necessitates spatiality from the receptacle
view. The three sections will demonstrate that the Father is spatially
proximate to angels, Christ’s resurrected body, and humans respectively.
God the Father’s Manifestation is Spatially Proximate to Angels1

This section will demonstrate that the Father’s manifestation is
spatially proximate to angels. In the minds of the New Testament
authors, (1) angels assemble around Yahweh in the divine council and (2)
the character of Yahweh enthroned in the divine council is the Father.
1 The following section draws heavily from a previous paper written by

the author on related themes. Judson Greene, “Omni and Intra: God’s Personal,
Temporal, Locative Presence in the Divine Council,” a paper presented for
STH792 Introduction to Theological Research, Bob Jones University, December
2018. As in Chapter 1, the term “angels” is used as a catch-all term for God’s
supernatural servants.
77
78
This places the Father’s manifestation in spatial relationship with his
angels.
Angels Assemble in the Divine Council

Following the 1929 discovery of the Ugaritic tablets at Ras Shamra,
comparative studies of the Old Testament have developed the biblical
theme of the divine council. The divine council is “the heavenly host, the
pantheon of divine beings who administer the affairs of the cosmos. All
ancient Mediterranean cultures had some conception of a divine
council.”2 Various scholars have contributed to a more full-orbed
understanding of how Israel’s divine council reflects that of its ancient
neighbors,3 as well as exegetical studies of Yahweh’s council on its own
terms.4
2 Heiser, Michael S. “Divine Council,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament:

Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, eds. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers
Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 112. H. Wheeler Robinson was one of the first to
trace this theme through the Old Testament. His work is an excellent primer on
the subject. “The Council of Yahweh,” Journal of Theological Studies 45 no. 179–
180 (July 1944): 151–57.
3 See W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: An Historical
Analysis of Two Conflicting Faiths (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968); Mark S.
Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel,
2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
4 See Michael Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-
Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature” (Ph.D. diss., University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 2004); Ronn A. Johnson, “The Old Testament Background
for Paul’s Use of ‘Principalities and Powers’” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological
Seminary, 2004); Patrick D. Miller, “Cosmology and World Order in the Old
Testament: The Divine Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol,” Horizons in Biblical
Theology 9, no. 2 (1987): 53–78; Daniel Porter, “God Among the Gods: An
Analysis of the Function of Yahweh in the Divine Council of Deuteronomy 32
and Psalm 82” (MA Thesis, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, May 2010);
Matitiahu Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly,” HUCA 40–41 (1969–1970):
123–37; Marylyn Ellen White, “The Council of Yahweh: Its Structure and
Membership” (Ph.D. diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2012).
79
Both David Fleming and Min Suc Kee argue that the major
instances of the divine council take the form of type scenes.5 A type
scene is “an indispensable narratorial framework” that uses “a fixed
sequence of motifs common to the type-scene” that occurs at a critical
point in a narrative.6 Chart 1 catalogs each major divine council scene
with its accompanying type scene motifs.7 Each text presented below will
5 David Marron Fleming, “The Divine Council as Type Scene in the

Hebrew Bible” (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989);
Min Suc Kee, “The Heavenly Council and Its Type-Scene,” Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament, no. 3 (2007): 259; Kee, “A Study of the Heavenly Council
in the Ancient Near Eastern Texts, and its Employment as a Type-Scene in the
Hebrew Bible” (Ph.D. diss., The University of Manchester, 2003).
6 Fleming, 37. Italics in original. While agreeing overall with Kee, Fleming
categorizes Isaiah 40:1–11 as a divine council type scene and questions whether
Daniel 7:9–14, though a divine council scene, ought to be classified as a type
scene due to its lack of obvious narrative time (230–31). Conversely, Kee thinks
that seeing Isaiah 40:1–11 as a divine council scene is “highly speculative.” “A
Study,” 24. It is somewhat surprising that Kee missed Fleming’s work in his
bibliography despite post-dating it by over 13 years. Kee also does not interact
with Robert Alter despite the latter’s extensive work with the idea of the type
scene. See Robert Alter, “How Convention Helps Us Read: The Case of the
Bible’s Annunciation Type-Scene,” Prooftexts 3, no. 2 (1983): 115–30. These
oversights however may at least indicate that these works are not suffering from
an echo chamber. On another defense of Isaiah 40 as a divine council scene,
see Frank M. Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 12, no. 4 (1953): 275–76.
7 Chart 1 is partly adapted from Kee, “A Study,” 19–24, and Kee, “The
Heavenly Council,” 259. Kee states that the major divine council type scenes
are indicated by the motif “the high God . . . at the centre of the council,
surrounded by its members” (“A Study,” 20; italics in the original). White uses
the following criteria to determine “a Council of Yahweh text: 1) Multiple gods
are present; 2) The setting is Heaven; 3) There is judgment; 4) There is some
form of discussion; and 5) Yahweh is the leader of the council.” Marylyn Ellen
White, “The Council of Yahweh: Its Structure and Membership.” (Ph.D. diss.,
University of St. Michael’s College, 2012), ii. White concludes that 1 Kings 22,
Isaiah 6, Job 1–2, Zechariah 3, and Daniel 7 are divine council texts. Because
“the council itself is put on trial” (41), Psalm 82 does not make the cut. Rather
than Yahweh’s council, White thinks this is a council of the gods over other
nations. Even if White’s argument that Psalm 82 may be referring to a different
divine council than Yahweh’s own is granted, this text will still be discussed
80
be discussed in logical order of the subsequent argument (most to least
clear).
Chart 1: Divine Council Scene Motifs
Text Yahweh Yahweh is Attendants Deliberation/

is Enthroned Standing Judgment
Central8 By
1 Kgs 22:19–23 • • • •
(2 Chr 18:18–22)
Is 6 • • • •
Job 1:6–12; 2:1–6 • • •
Ps 82 • • •
Zech 39 • (?)10 • •
Dan 7:9–14 • • • •
Rev 4–5 • • • • (Rev 6)
Kee argues that these motifs are largely “derived from the royal
court-scene” (Exod 18:13; 1 Sam 22:6ff; Zech 6:13).11 Like a king over
his royal court, God presides over his council. Each of these council
since it places Yahweh in a spatial relationship to other created entities.

Revelation as a divine council scene will be discussed infra.
8
This is meant as a term of location, not of prominence or narrative
emphasis.
9
“All the major scholarly works on the divine council agree that Zech
3:1–7 is a divine council scene.” Heiser, “The Divine Council,” 135.
10
The Angel of Yahweh takes center stage in this account. Kee thinks the
implication is that “YHWH is withdrawn in the background of the scene of the
heavenly council but the angel of YHWH appears in the foreground.” “A Study,”
23.
11
Kee, “A Study,” 23. Kee classifies minor divine council scenes as those
which seem to hint at the council’s presence but do not have all of the motifs of
the type scene: Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Exod 15:11; Deut 4:19; 17:3; 32:8; 33:2–
3; Judg 5:20; 1 Chr 16:25; Neh 9:6; Job 15:8; 38:7; Pss 25:14; 29:1–2; 49:19;
58:1–2; 73:15; 89:5–8; 96:4–5; 97:7, 9; 148:2–3; Isa 14:13; Jer 8:2; 23:18, 22a;
Amos 8:14; Zech 14:5. Min Suc Kee, “The Heavenly Council,” 260–62.
81
scenes depict God’s spatial relationship to the other members of the
council.
In 1 Kings 22:19–23, Micaiah records a vivid vision of Yahweh
“sitting on his throne (‫)יֹשֵׁב עַל־ ִכּסְאוֹ‬, and all the host of heaven standing
beside him on his right hand and on his left (‫( ”)עֹמֵד ָעלָיו מִימִינוֹ וּ ִמשְּׂמ ֹאלו‬1 Kgs
22:19). As Yahweh and the council debated what to do to make Ahab go
to war, “a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD
(‫(”) ַויֵּצֵא הָרוּ ַח וַ ֽיַּעֲמ ֹד ִל ְפנֵי י ְהוָה‬1 Kgs 22:21).
The context indicates that Micaiah’s oracle is not parabolic,
metaphorical, or symbolic. First, while Micaiah does employ a brief simile
in the context, that of Israel as a flock without a shepherd (1 Kgs 22:17),
it is a common figure of speech for kingly rule in the Ancient Near East,
one used by previous Israelite kings (e.g. Ps 23).12 Within Micaiah’s
cultural context, this particular simile is obviously symbolic and the
symbols have obvious referents. Second, if the vision of Yahweh’s council
is a symbol, what is the referent? What could a vision of Yahweh and his
council deliberating and sending a lying spirit be a symbol for? This type
scene contributes to “the ultimate theme of the books of the Kings, which
is that heaven is the utmost authority.”13 What else could Yahweh be a
symbol for and how would that contribute to the book’s theme? Third,
due to the presence of the divine council concept in other ANE religions,
12
This image is common in ANE typology. For examples see Jeffrey
Neihaus, Ancient Near East Themes in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel
Academic, 2008), 39, 46, 58.
13 Kee, “A Study,” 155.
82
appealing to a vision of the divine court would more likely be understood
by its hearers as a revelation of what was actually occurring in heaven.14
It would be odd for individuals of an ANE culture to assume a symbolic
interpretation of Micaiah’s words. Fourth, because a prophet’s
application of a parable demonstrates the true meaning behind the
metaphors (e.g. 2 Sam 12:7), then Micaiah’s oracle is likely not a parable
because it confirms the accurate details of the parable (1 Kgs 22:23).
Fifth, the parallels between the earthly and heavenly council indicate
that the oracle is a narrative account. There is an obvious parallel
between kings Ahab and Jehoshaphat “sitting on their thrones
(‫שׁבִים אִישׁ עַל־ ִכּסְאוֹ‬
ְ ֹ ‫ ”)י‬in their court with their councilors “prophesying before
them (‫( ”) ִל ְפנֵיהֶם‬1 Kgs 22:10) and the divine council with Yahweh on his
throne and his councilors coming before him.15 Sixth, Micaiah says, “that
which Yahweh says to me, it I will speak
(‫( ”)כִּי אֶת־ ֲאשֶׁר י ֹאמַר י ְהוָה ֵאלַי א ֹתוֹ אֲדַ בֵּר‬1 Kgs 22:14).16 Rather than inventing a
parable or metaphor, “[t]he oracle was merely the relaying of what
Micaiah had seen and heard.”17 The author of 1 Kings intend this
14This vision bears resemblance to the ANE heavenly council scenes in A

Vision of the Nether World, Prayer to the Moon God, the Enuma Elish, and The
Tamarisk and the Palm. See Kee, “The Heavenly Council,” 259.
15 Zedekiah likely parallels the “lying spirit” (‫שׁקֶר‬
ֶ ‫)רוּ ַח‬. Cf. Ezra 14:9.
16 Author’s translation.
17 Edwin C. Kingsbury, “The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh,” JBL
83 (1964): 280. As Job 15:8 says, “Have you listened in the council of God?”
(‫ )אֱלוֹ ַה ַהבְסוֹ‬A true prophet must be able to answer, “yes.” Polley says, “The heart
of the prophetic credentials is to have stood within the council of Yahweh.” Max
E. Polley, “Hebrew Prophecy Within the Council of Yahweh, Examined in Its
Ancient Near Eastern Setting,” in Scripture in Context: Essays on the
Comparative Method, ed. Dikran Y. Hadidian (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980), 148.
83
account to be just as historical as Jehoshaphat and Ahab’s conversation.
Therefore, the aspects of the account that point to a narrative genre
indicate that the original readers (and hearers) would have understood
this vision as a glimpse into the reality of the divine council, happening
in the heavenly sphere. Thus, the spirits described should be understood
as being in spatial relationship with Yahweh: some spirits on his right
and left hand and one coming before him.
In Isaiah 6, Isaiah sees a vision of “Yahweh of hosts” enthroned in
the heavenly temple, surrounded by angelic creatures (Isa 6:1–3).18 The
spatial nature of the location is emphasized through Yahweh’s robe and
smoke filling the temple, and the foundations shaking (Isa 6:1, 4). The
seraphim are spatially related to Yahweh, as they are “standing above
him (‫)עֹמְדִ ים ִמ ַמּעַל לוֹ‬.”19 Isaiah foregrounds his own presence by referencing
his physical eyes (6:5) and joining the conversation (6:8). More
emphatically, the seraphim are spatially proximate to Isaiah, as one of
The “true prophets have stood and listened in Yahweh’s divine council; false
prophets have not.” Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the
Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham: Lexham, 2015), 239.
18 “Yahweh of hosts” suggests “that there were other heavenly creatures
present also” (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19). Edwin C. Kingsbury, “The Prophets and the
Council of Yahweh,” JBL 83 (1964): 281. The divine council and heavenly host
are overlapping concepts. The council is not simply a group of advisors, but
also a part of the heavenly army which Yahweh leads as the Divine Warrior. See
Patrick D. Miller, “The Divine Council and the Prophetic Call to War,” VT 18
(1968): 100–07; Patrick D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1973).
19“Above” is the correct translation, “since God is pictured as seated, his
attendants, who of course stand, naturally rise above him.” H. G. M.
Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27, ICC, vol. 2
(New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006), 15–16.
84
them touches his mouth with a burning coal (Isa 6:6). This places
Yahweh in spatial relation to both angelic creatures and his prophet.
Job 1 and 2 present similar divine council scenes where Yahweh is
spatially related to angelic creatures: the “sons of God20 came and stood
before21 Yahweh (‫( ”) ַויּ ָב ֹאוּ ְבּנֵי ָהאֱֹלהִים ְלהִתְ יַצֵּב עַל־י ְהוָה‬Job 1:6, cf. 2:1); “the
Satan came in the midst of them (‫שּׂטָן בְּתוֹכָם‬
ָ ‫( ”) ַויּ ָבוֹא גַם־ ַה‬Job 1:6, cf. 2:1);22
the Satan “went out from the face of Yahweh (‫שּׂטָן ֵמעִם ְפּנֵי י ְהוָה‬
ָ ‫( ”) ַויֵּצֵא ַה‬Job
1:12).23 The Satan draws attention to his spatial nature with his
response to Yahweh that his previous earthly location is in contrast with
his current heavenly one (Job 1:13; 2:2). Similarly, the Satan leaves
Yahweh’s presence and strikes Job (Job 2:7), implying a spatial contrast.
The heaven and earth parallel running through Job 1–2 means that
whatever genre applies to the book of Job as a whole should be applied
to the divine council scenes.
In Psalm 82, God “has taken his stand (‫”)נִצָּב‬24 in the divine council,
“in the midst of the gods (‫( ”) ְבּק ֶֶרב אֱֹלהִים‬Ps 82:1). Whether these “gods” are
human judges or inferior divine beings has been debated for years. The
20
For their identification, see Gerald Cooke, “The Sons of (the) God(s),”
ZAW 76, no. 1 (1964): 22–47.
After a verb of standing or going, “before” is the best sense for ‫עַל‬. See
21
GKC 383 §119. cc.
22Note the definite article, indicating that ‫שּׂטָן‬
ָ ‫ ַה‬is a title. For a discussion
of the place and function of ‫שּׂטָן‬
ָ ‫ ַה‬in the council, see White, 76–87.
23 All translations original.
The term ‫נצב‬, “to be positioned, stand” (HALOT, 714) likely refers to
24
Yahweh’s “taking the floor” as he presides over and judges the court.
85
key to the problem is not solved through a word study of ‫( אֱֹלהִים‬while that
is illuminating). Rather, the comparative ‫ ְכּ‬clarifies that these ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬are
not humans. As Elmer B. Smick states, “If then they are going to die like
mortals, they are not mortals.”25 This would seem to indicate that God’s
presence is spatially related to these divine beings in a new way when he
comes in judgment.
Daniel 7:9–14 presents the Ancient of Days taking his seat. The
Ancient of Days has white hair and a white robe, his court in session,
thousands standing before him in service.26 The “one like a son of man”
25 Elmer B. Smick, “Mythopoetic Language in the Psalms,” The

Westminster Theological Journal 44, no. 1 (1982): 95. Cf. Gerald Cooke, “The
Sons of (the) God(s).” ZAW 76, no. 1 (1964): 31; Kee, “A Study,” 109; W. S.
Prinsloo, “Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?” Biblica 76, no. 2 (1995): 227;
White, 38–39. Seeing the Psalm as a compilation, Julian Morgenstern posits
verses 1, 6, and 7 as references to divine beings and the rest as references to
human judges. “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” HUCA 14 (1939):
30–35. Oddly, the NASB diverges from its usual formal equivalence and
translates ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬as “rulers.” The evidence for this view is a few parallel passages
in which ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬is used when a human intermediary is in view (Exod 21:6; 22:8,
28; Ps 58:11; Isa 3:13). Even if it is granted that ‫ אֱֹלהִים‬may refer to human
judges acting in God’s place, that usage does not work in Psalm 82. It also
conflicts with the emphatic first-person pronoun (‫אנִי־אמ ְַרתִּ י‬V ). On Jesus’ use of
Psalm 82 and how it fits with this understanding of the ‫אֱֹלהִים‬, see James S.
Ackerman, “The Rabbinic Interpretation of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John,”
The Harvard Theological Review 59, no. 2 (April 1966): 186–91. James M.
Trotter argues that human kings regarded as divinity is the best interpretation.
“Death of the ‫ אלהים‬in Psalm,” Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 2 (2012):
221–39. Trotter’s interpretation suffers because it takes the setting as one in
which El presides and Yahweh is a lower ranking prosecutor. This seems
unlikely as there is no explicit reference to ‫ יהוה‬made in BHS and ‫ נצב‬need not
always be understood as implying inferiority. Trotter’s reading also fails to
provide a satisfactory solution for the use of ‫ ְכּ‬in verse 7. For a critique of the
view that both El and Yahweh are present see Heiser, “The Divine Council,” 75–
82.
26The “Ancient of Days” is a title for Yahweh. John J. Collins, “The Son
of Man in First-Century Judaism,” New Testament Studies 38, no. 3 (1992):
464.
86
coming with the clouds “came to the Ancient of Days and was presented
before him (‫וּקְדָ מוֹהִי ַהק ְְרבוּהִי‬27 ‫( ”) ְמטָה‬Dan 7:13). The Ancient of Days entrusts
the son of man with a kingdom and dominion. It is worth noting the
early, non-Christian interpretation of this text. Collins argues that the
Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra share “some common features which are
significant for the understanding of Daniel 7 in the first century.”28 First,
the “son of man” is an individual, not a symbol.29 Second, the “son of
man” is a messianic figure.30 This interpretation comports with the view
of early Jewish rabbis.31 Third, the “son of man” is a pre-existent,
heavenly figure, even appropriating “imagery traditionally reserved for
27 Citing this verse, HALOT gives ‫ קֳדָ ם‬the sense “with spatial significance,
in front of the king.”
28 Collins, 464.
29 Black argues that Daniel 7:18, 22, and 28 interpret the “son of man”
as a symbol “for the Saints of the Most High, i.e., the purified and redeemed
Israel.” Matthew Black, “Throne-Theophany Prophetic Commission and the ‘Son
of Man’: A Study in Tradition-History,” in Jews, Greeks and Christians:
Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honor of William David Davies
(Leiden: Brill, 1976), 61. That “the saints of the Most High” have a fate
intertwined in the status of the “son of man” is clear from these texts, but this
does not necessitate that the “son of man” is a one-to-one symbol for the saints.
Collins points out that both the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra “assume that
the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel refers to an individual, and is not a
collective symbol.” Collins, 465. There is no clear attestation to the symbolic-
collective interpretation until Ibn Ezra in the 12th century (465).
30
In the Similitudes of Enoch, the title “son of man” is equated with the
Messiah (1 En 48:10; 52:4; cf. 48:2).
31 Sank 98a; NumR 13.14; Aggadat Bereshit 14.3; 23.1; Sanhedrin 38b.
Cf. Hay’s commentary on Rabbi Akiva’s interpretation. David M. Hay, Glory at
the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 26.
87
God.”32 This deistic description is corroborated by the fact that the “son
of man” comes “with the clouds,” a symbol associated with
theophanies.33 Also, as Black avers, understanding Daniel’s Ezekielic
background clarifies that “[t]he phrase ‘one like the appearance of a man’
is always used either of the numen praesens et visible of Jahweh
theophany or of an angelic theophany,” though the two can be difficult to
distinguish at times.34 David M. Hay notes that it is possible that the
“son of man” is going “to receive one of the heavenly thrones” and that
the writer of Daniel 7 may have been “thinking of Ps 110.1 (the only
scriptural text which explicitly speaks of someone enthroned beside
God).”35 If that is the case, we then have a pre-Christian interpretation of
Psalm 110:1 “which connects it with the enthronement of a heavenly
32 “[T]he Enochic Son of Man sits on the throne of glory, and the figure in
4 Ezra is portrayed in terms of the theophany of the divine warrior.” Collins,
465. Collins also notes that unlike Daniel 7, the “son of man” in Similitudes and
4 Ezra actively destroys the wicked. However, Daniel may not differ as much as
Collins thinks. Poythress argues that the dark clouds that accompany
theophanies symbolize wrath (cf. Pss 18:11; 97:2–3; Matt 27:45). This may be a
conceptual link between the “son of man” that judges the wicked in Daniel and
the apocalyptic accounts. See Vern S. Poythress, Theophany: A Biblical Theology
of God’s Appearing (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 49–50. John also associates the
son of man riding a cloud with judgment (Rev 14:14; cf. 1:7).
33 Exod 13:21–22; 16:10; 19:16; 24:15–18; 33:9 34:5 40:34, 38; Lev
16:2, 13; Num 9:15–16; 11:25; 12:5, 10; 14:14; 16:42; Deut 1:33; 5:22; 31:15;
2 Sam 22:12; 1 Kgs 8:10–11; 2 Chr 5:13–14; Pss 97:2; 99:7; Isa 4:5; 14:14; Jer
4:13; Ezra 1:4; 10:3–4; Lam 3:44; Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:34–35. For an
interpretation of the symbol, see Vern S. Poythress, “Appearing in a Cloud,” in
Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s Appearing (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018),
47–52.
34 Black, 61. Here Black is not arguing his own position, but that of
André Feuillet. See Feuillet’s argument in “Fils de l’homme de Daniel et La
Tradition Biblique,” Revue Biblique 60, no. 3 (1953): 321–46.
35 Hay, 26.
88
being.”36 The pairing of Yahweh on his throne with a messianic figure
described in deistic terms before him caused Daniel 7 to be a
foundational text for the “two powers in heaven” doctrine.37 Daniel 7
depicts Yahweh in spatial relationship both with his courters and the
deific messiah.
In Zechariah 3, there is spatial interplay between Joshua (1, 3, 5),
Zechariah (1, 5), the council attendants (4–5), the angel of Yahweh (1–6),
and apparently Yahweh himself (2). The Satan is at the right of Joshua
(Zech 3:1, cf. Ps 109:6) and Joshua is before the angel of Yahweh.
Whether the angel of Yahweh is best understood as standing or sitting
prior to verse 5 is debated.38 The “consensus view,” understanding
Yahweh to be the speaker of verse 2, presents Yahweh as “presiding over
the proceedings.”39 Kline thinks the angel of Yahweh is the one speaking
in verse 2, functioning in a “dual role” as “ the Judge who renders the
36 Hay, 26.
37 See Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about
Christianity and Gnosticism, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25 (Leiden:
Brill, 1977). Segal’s work is the major work on the two powers in heaven. A few
minor problems that detract from it is that Segal assumes that there was a
clear “orthodox” position of hard monotheism concerning the two powers in first
century Judaism. The “orthodox” position may have been hard monotheism or
it could have been a binitarian formulation. For example, Philo never defends
his view of “two Gods” as though it were heretical (Som. i, 227ff). See James F.
McGrath and Jerry Truex, “‘Two Powers’ and Early Jewish and Christian
Monotheism,” Journal of Biblical Studies 4, no. 1 (2004): 44, fn 8. Cf. Heiser,
“The Divine Council,” 159.
38If ‫ עֹמֵד‬could be repointed as ‫ ָעמַד‬can be the changed to it would indicate
that the angel stood at this point. Thus, the LXX’s εἱστήκει. See Heiser, “The
Divine Council,” 133.
39 Heiser, “The Divine Council,” 129.
89
verdict” and “as Advocate for the covenant people.”40 But the absence of
the explicit title “angel of Yahweh” or the prophetic formula, “Thus says
Yahweh” (cf. Zech 3:7), makes this interpretation unlikely.41 It seems
best to understand the scene as Yahweh speaking from his throne as
judge with the angel of Yahweh acting as defense attorney and the Satan
acting as prosecuting attorney. This reading would fit these characters’
roles in other parts of Scripture. If Yahweh is indeed present, his
manifestation would be in spatial relationship with all of the characters
in the scene. While set in a context of prophetic visions, Kline notes that
“[u]nlike the visions before and after it, 3:1–9 does not introduce
imaginary objects to symbolize the earthly realities but presents actual
living persons (Joshua and his priestly colleagues).”42 While the other
visions contain symbols for historical people and heavenly beings, “the
divine angel appears . . . in the form he assumed elsewhere in
nonvisionary theophany” and “Zechariah 3 remains distinctive in its
inclusion of actual earthly persons in the visual action.”43 In
Zechariah 3,
“the heavenly court coalesces with the holy throne room on earth,
celestial beings whose proper sphere is the invisible, supernal realm
appearing alongside the earthly high priest Joshua. Such an interlinking
of heavenly archetype and earthly ectype is what was involved in the
non-visionary, external reality of the presence of the Glory-Spirit, the
40 Meredith G. Kline, Glory in Our Midst: A Biblical-Theological Reading

of Zechariah’s Night Visions (Overland Park: Two Age, 2001), 98.
41 Cf. Fleming, 198.
42 Kline, Glory, 180.
43 Ibid., 180.
90
epiphany of the heavenly court, manifested in the Israelite tabernacle or
temple.”44
So, while it is a visionary experience, Zechariah’s court vision

demonstrates a greater similitude with a narrative genre than other
visions generally, and Zechariah’s other visions in particular.
The Biblical Authors Considered God the Father

to be in the Divine Council
How would the New Testament authors have understood these
divine council scenes? Particularly, which member of the Trinity did the
New Testament authors consider Yahweh as enthroned in his council to
be? To answer this question, the following facets of the New Testament
will inform a reconstruction of their thought.
First, the New Testament authors conceive of the Father as
enthroned in heaven. The most frequently cited text in the New Testa-
ment is Psalm 110:1, which implies the Father’s enthroned position.45
One such text presents the risen and ascended Christ as “seated at the
right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven” (Heb 8:1).46 Stephen’s
vision seems to allude to Psalm 110:1 as well (Acts 7:55–56). Like Christ
(Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69), the New Testament authors use
Psalm 110:1 to refer to Christ’s post-ascension position, so it seems

45 Matt 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42; 22:69; Acts
2:34–35; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12,13; 12:2; 1 Pet
3:22.
46 Hebrews places two thrones in the heavenly tabernacle/temple, not
one (Heb 1:8; 12:2).
91
reasonable to conclude that they would have thought of the Father as the
enthroned character in Old Testament pre-ascension texts.47
Second, Jesus indicates that the Father is the central character in
divine council scenes. When Jesus is on trial he is charged with
blasphemy for saying that he will be seated at the right hand of God
(Luke 22:69) and come with the clouds of heaven (Matt 26:64; Mark
14:62). This “coming” is discussed elsewhere as coming with the “glory of
the Father” and with “angels” (Matt 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26).
Collated, Jesus’ sayings contain all the motifs that demarcate a divine
council scene: the Father is given a central position,48 seated on a
throne, surrounded by angelic heavenly attendants, and “coming” in
judgment.49 Jesus’ drawing on the key motifs of the divine council would
lead the disciples to conceive of the Father as the correct interpretation
for Yahweh, the central character enthroned in the divine council.
Third, in the New Testament’s only divine council type scene, John
presents the Father enthroned in the divine council. In R. Dean Davis’s
dissertation, “The Heavenly Court Scene of Revelation 4–5,” he analyzes
several Old Testament divine council scenes and notes the significant
47For a full analysis, see Hay, Glory at the Right Hand. While he draws
some distinctions in how the New Testament authors use Psalm 110:1, none of
them understand it to be a pre-ascension reality. See objection section below.
48 The Son’s position (“at the right hand”) is described in relation to the
Father’s position, indicating the Father has the central position (Matt 26:64;
Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69).
49 See Chart 1.
92
parallels between them and the scene depicted in Revelation 4–5.50 That
Revelation 4–5 is a divine council type scene can be drawn from the
scene’s heavenly location (Rev 4:1) where God is in the central position
on his throne (Rev 4:2–3), surrounded by divine beings (Rev 4:4, 6–8, 9–
10), deliberating (Rev 5:2) and passing judgment (Rev 5:5, 12).51 John
sees God the Father in spatial relation to the four living creatures, the
twenty-four elders, the Lamb, myriads of angels (Rev 5:11), and John
himself. John even sees “every creature in heaven and on earth and
under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them” respond in
worship to the Father and to the Lamb (Rev 5:13). The creatures are
specified by location, drawing a distinction between those on earth and
those in heaven who are “around the throne” (Rev 5:11), but
simultaneously placing them in spatial relationship with them. The
character “seated on the throne” is worshipped as “Lord” and “God” (Rev
4:9–11). This is clearly referring to the Father, since the Son is
characterized as “the Lamb” (Rev 5:6, 8).
Given the characterization in this text and the motivic parallels
with divine council scenes, it seems reasonable to conclude that when
50 R. Dean Davis, “The Heavenly Court Scene of Revelation 4–5” (Ph.D.

diss., Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1986), 104–33. Note the
shared motifs in Chart 1. Alan S. Bandy also concludes that Revelation 4–5 is a
divine council scene. “The Prophetic Lawsuit in the Book of Revelation: An
Analysis of the Lawsuit Motif in Revelation with Reference to the Use of the Old
Testament” (Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007),
229–31.
51 The elders may be members of the divine council (cf. Isa 24:21–23).
See Timothy Willis, “Yahweh’s Elders (Isa 24:23): Senior Officials of the Divine
Court,” ZAW, 103, no. 3 (1991): 375–85.
93
John and the other New Testament authors read the Old Testament
divine council scenes they would assume that the Father was the
character on the throne. This comports with Daniel’s vision as well.
Jesus uses the “son of man” as his favorite self-designation.52 For the
early Christians, Daniel 7 presents Jesus as the son of man in spatial
proximity to God the Father. Due to its visionary genre, one might
assume that Daniel 7 makes a poor foundation for the Father’s heavenly,
spatial presence, but the surprising literalness of Luke’s account of
Jesus’ ascension cracks open the door to a more literal interpretation.
Collins’s observation should also be kept in mind: “Apocalyptic symbols
may be either allegorical or mythic-realistic. So for example, the beasts in
Daniel 7 are allegorical symbols which stand for something else (kings or
kingdoms), but the Ancient of Days is a mythic-realistic representation of
God, and is identified rather than interpreted.”53 The “Ancient of Days”
and “son of man” are not symbols for other entities, but representations
of the entities themselves. Furthermore, if the apostles interpret the “son
of man” as a true son of man—that is, Jesus in a human body—the “son
of man” would enable us to interpret the “Ancient of Days” in spatial

proximity to this glorified human. At minimum, Daniel 7 symbolizes the
Father and the Son as distinct figures in heaven.54
52 Matt 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27; 22:69.

53 Collins, 463–64.
54 “The ‘manlike’ appearance is here separate and distinguished from the
‘Ancient of Years’ upon the throne: the one ‘like the appearance of a man’ has
ceased to be simply a symbol for the numen praesens of Jahweh . . . it has
become a separate divine being.” Black, 60. Daniel 7 represents “a theology
94
Due to the substantial continuity in the divine council motifs, one
can assume the New Testament authors would have also read the Father
into the Yahweh character of 1 Kings 22, Job 1–2, Psalm 82, and
possibly into the background of Zechariah 3. They also would have
certainly read Micaiah’s vision as a historical narrative. If, in the minds
of biblical authors, Micaiah’s divine council scene reflects a heavenly
reality, then such a conception would influence how they viewed other
instances of the heavenly court in poetry and prophecy. Since the Father
is clearly on the throne in Revelation 4–5, one can safely assume that the
New Testament authors viewed the Father as having a manifestation that
spatially interacted with his heavenly host in previous history, namely in
1 Kings 22.
These conceptual categories can be used to understand the New
Testament authors’ depiction of the Father in spatial relationship to
angels. Angels dwell in heaven,55 where the Father is.56 The “glory of the
Father” is associated with the “holy angels” (Matt 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke
9:26). Jesus assumed that angels are typically privy to the Father’s
council (Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32) and taught that some angels “always
see the face of [his] Father who is in heaven” (Matt 18:10). R. T. France
notes that the description of the angels as those “who always behold the
which seems virtually ditheistic. It is only a step to the identification of the

second ‘divinity’ with the supra-mundane Messiah” (61).
55 Matt 18:10; Mark 12:25; Luke 2:13; John 1:51; Gal 1:7; Heb 12:22.
56E.g. Matt 5:16; 7:11; Mark 11:25; Luke 15:7, 10; John 12:28; Acts
7:55–56; Heb 12:9; Jas 1:17.
95
face of God” is “a phrase derived from courtly language for personal
access to the king.”57 It would seem very likely that this association of
angels’ being in the Father’s heavenly presence was either derived (in
part) from the divine council scenes or would inform the New Testament
authors’ understanding of divine council scenes. Thus, the New
Testament authors conceived of the Father’s manifestation as spatially
related to angels.
Objections to the Father’s Manifestation’s Spatial Proximity to Angels

One could argue that the New Testament authors thought the Son
was the person of the Trinity on the throne in the Old Testament divine
57 R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC, vol. 1

(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1985), 276. Italics in original. Morris argues that
“[c]ertainly the angels to whom Jesus refers are in heaven; he further says that
they continually see the face of my Father . . . The whole expression is surely a
way of saying that these angels have immediate access to God.” Leon Morris,
The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 465,
italics in original. “In line with the belief which finds expression elsewhere in
the Bible (Gen xlviii 16; Dan x 11, 20) Jesus asserts that those apt to be
despised because of their status have representatives in the heavenly courts,
just as nations have such representatives (cf. also Acts xii 15). Such
representatives naturally have access to the Father.” W. F. Albright and
Christopher Stephen Mann, Matthew, AB, vol. 26 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1971), 218. Cf. Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman,
1992), 276. There seem to be what have been called “angels of the face” (Jub.
2:2, 18; 1QH 6:13; 1QSb 4:26; Luke 1:19), while “some angels may not look
directly at God (Isa 6:2; 1 En. 14:21).” R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew,
NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 686. Hagner points out that the
present tense “behold” (βλέπουσιν) seems to rule out notion that the “angels”
are the departed spirits of the “little ones.” Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28,
WBC, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 526. Cf. Grant R. Osborne,
Matthew, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 680–81; Craig S. Keener,
The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009), 450–51. Contra D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Matthew & Mark,
Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Revised Edition, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2010), 454–55. Angelic presence before God is underscored by
Gabriel’s words to Zechariah (Luke 1:19) previously discussed.
96
council scenes. Evidence for this objection may be found in John 12,
which cites Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10 and then says that “Isaiah said these
things because he saw his glory and spoke of him” (John 12:41). The
natural referent for “him” is Jesus; the natural occasion for Isaiah’s sight
is the vision of Isaiah 6. This would place the Son, not the Father, on the
throne in a divine council scene.
D. A. Carson offers an interesting reading of John 12:41, noting
that the Aramaic paraphrase Targum Jonathan emphasizes that what
Isaiah saw in Isaiah 6:1 and 4 was not the Lord, but the glory of the
Lord.58 Even if one does not think “John appeals to the Targum, it is still
possible to think he is saying that Jesus is God’s glory.”59 Then the
passage could be read, “Isaiah ‘saw his [i.e. God’s] glory, namely,
Christ.”60 Carson observes that this reading would make the connection
between Isaiah 6:10 and 53:1 very tight, bringing together themes of
obduracy (Isa 6:10; 53:1), being “lifted up” (Isa 6:1; 52:13), glory (Isa 6:3;
52:13 LXX), and sin (6:7; 53:12).61 Carson concludes that when John
“says that Isaiah saw God’s glory, namely Jesus, and spoke about him, he
may well be thinking of the Suffering Servant who was exalted.”62 John
58 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1991), 449.
59 Ibid., 450.
60 Craig A. Evans, “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant: Some Observations
on the Use of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel,” in Early Jewish and
Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, eds. Craig A.
Evans and William F. Stinespring (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 232.
61 Carson, Gospel According to John, 450.
62 Carson, Gospel According to John, 450. Italics in original.
97
12’s many allusions to Isaiah’s servant songs corroborate this reading.63
While these literary connections are sound, taking “his glory” (John
12:41) as referring to God’s glory does not seem warranted. John
emphasizes the revelation of Jesus’ glory frequently, making it the more
likely reference.64
A better reading is that of Catrin H. Williams, who rightly notes
that the pronoun “his (αὐτοῦ)” most naturally refers to Jesus (John
12:41, cf. John 12:37, 42), but believes that John is referring to Isaiah’s
foreseeing Christ’s earthly glory, not the temple vision specifically.65 The
context of John’s words emphasizes that despite Christ’s “many signs”
the people “still did not believe in him” (John 12:37). John then cites
Isaiah’s prophecy of this obduracy and writes that “Isaiah said these
things because he saw his glory and spoke of him” (John 12:41). John’s
thought process is not that Isaiah saw the pre-incarnate Christ gloriously
enthroned in the temple, heard God’s words, and then wrote down the
prophesy that that Jesus would be rejected. If this were the case, why
would not John point to Isaiah hearing God’s word? What does seeing
“his glory” have to do with this prophecy’s fulfillment? According to

Williams, while John 12:41 does presuppose “Jesus’ pre-existent glory,”
John’s point is that “the prophetic testimony presented by Isaiah (53:1;
63 Evans, “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant,” 23–236.

64 John 1:14; 2:11; 8:50, 54; 11:4; 17:5, 22, 24.
65Catrin H. Williams, “Isaiah in John’s Gospel,” in Isaiah in the New
Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel, eds. M. J. J.
Menken and Steve Moyise (London: T. & T. Clark, 2005), 110–11.
98
6:10) reflects his vision of Jesus’ earthly glory (12:41b: ‘because he saw
his glory’), which enabled him to speak as he did about Jesus’ earthly
mission and to predict the unbelief that Jesus would encounter during
his earthly life (12:41c: ‘and he spoke about him’).”66 Thus, John draws a
contrast between the people who have physically seen Christ’s signs and
yet who “failed to see his glory (12:37–38; cf. 2:11; 11:4, 40) because of
the blinding of their eyes and the hardening of their heart (12:39–40)”
and Isaiah who, like Abraham (John 8:56), “possessed the kind of sight,
not only physical but spiritual, that enabled him to recognize Jesus’ true
identity (cf. 1:14; 8:56).”67 Unlike the Jewish authorities who “loved the
glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God”
(John 12:43), “Isaiah, as a result of his temple vision, recognized Jesus
as the embodiment of God’s glory.”68
If one does not find this interpretation compelling, one should at
least concede that the argument that Christ is the enthroned character of
Isaiah 6 is inferential, and that the dual quotations of Isaiah 6 and 53
likely point to a broader referent. As Poythress notes, while the vision of
Isaiah 6 may be in view, John may be “speaking more broadly of all that
God revealed to Isaiah concerning the coming of the Messiah, including
Isa. 53:1, quoted in John 12:38.”69 John likely intends his compilation of
66 Williams, 112–13.
67 Ibid., 113.
68 Ibid.
69 Poythress, Theophany, 309–10. “Isaiah had in mind the glory revealed
in Christ. . . . It points at once to the supreme greatness of Christ and the cross
as the supreme illustration of His greatness. Here it includes the thought of His
99
the two Isaianic texts to help his readers understand that it is “Jesus’
lifting up by crucifixion that revealed his identity as deity.”70
Consequently, that John thinks Isaiah saw Jesus enthroned is, at best,
unclear.
Reading the Son back into the enthroned character of a divine
council scenes is also unlikely because it ignores the transition that
Christ undergoes. First, Daniel 7 is the only divine council scene that
presents multiple thrones. If Christ is the enthroned character in the
other divine council scenes, then is the Father only enthroned in Daniel?
And why then, in Daniel 7, the only Old Testament text that seems to
distinguish the two characters clearly, is the Father (the Ancient of Days)
seated on a throne in the central position (Dan 7:9–10) when the Son
(“one like a son of man”) comes to him? Second, Daniel 7 and Psalm 110
were not depictions of a current reality, but prophecies of a future one. It
is when Jesus ascends with the clouds (Acts 1:9) that he comes to
receive his kingdom. It is after Jesus arrives in the heavenly sanctuary
that the words of Psalm 110:1 and 4 are spoken and Christ takes his
seat.71 This transition is also indicated by the New Testament shift from
rejection, for that, too, is part of His real glory.” Leon Morris, The Gospel
According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 605.
70
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 885.
71
See Robert B. Jamieson, Jesus’ Death and Heavenly Offering in
Hebrews, SNTSMS (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 34.
100
future tense to aorist, perfect, and present tense verbs to describe
Christ’s session, as Chart 2 illustrates.72
Chart 2: Verb Tenses of Christ’s Session
Time Tense Text Verb
period
Pre- Future Mt 26:64 ὄψεσθε, they “will see” Jesus at
ascension the right hand
Mk 14:62 ὄψεσθε, they “will see” Jesus at
the right hand
Lk 22:69 ἔσται … καθήµενος, Jesus “will
be seated” at the right hand
Post- Aorist Mk 16:19; Heb ἐκάθισεν, Jesus “sat down” at the
ascension 1:3; 8:1; 10:12 right hand
Eph 1:20 καθίσας, Jesus “was caused to
sit” at the right hand
Perf.73 Heb 12:2 κεκάθικεν, Jesus “has sat down”
at the right hand
Present 1 Cor 15:25 δεῖ … αὐτὸν βασιλεύειν, Jesus
“must continue to reign” (alludes
to Ps 110:1b)
Rom 8:34 ἐστιν, Jesus “is” at the right hand
Col 3:1 καθήµενος, Jesus is sitting at the
right hand
Heb 10:13 ἐκδεχόµενος, Jesus “is waiting”
at the right hand (alludes to Ps
110:1b)
1 Pt 3:22 ἐστιν, Jesus “is” at the right hand
72 The author holds to an eclectic view of the Greek tense, finding verbal
aspect, Aktionsart, and true tense helpful categories. Even for those who hold
that most tenses do not encode time, “the future tense-form is a real tense.
That is, future temporal reference is a semantic feature of the form. This is
easily derived by the fact that all futures refer to the future.” Constantine R.
Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2008), 39. Even if one rejects that the aorist, perfect, or present semantically
encode time, the contrast with the true-tense future is still noteworthy.
73 “[T]he perfect tense expressing a durative situation ‘has sat down.’”
Arie W. Zwiep, “The Ascension of the Messiah: An Inquiry into the Ascension
and Exaltation of Jesus in Lukan Christology” (Ph.D. diss., Durham University,
1996), 159.
101
The point of Christ’s intercessory work is that it is a new reality
that is available because Christ, the great high priest, has ascended
through the heavens and sat down at the right hand of the Father (Rom
8:34; Heb 4:14–16). Christ’s throne is “forever and ever” (Heb 1:8) but
this is due to his coronation (Heb 1:9).74 Christ declares in Revelation
3:21, “The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my
throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.”
Here again, the session of Christ is presented as an event and status
which post-dates Christ’s ascension. Thus, when the New Testament
authors read divine council scenes, they would assume that the Father
was the one on the throne, not the Son.
Conclusion: Angelic Spatiality Necessitates the Spatiality

of the Father’s Manifestation
This section has demonstrated the following:
Premise 1: Angels are spatial.
Premise 2: The Father’s Manifestation is spatially proximate to angels.
Conclusion: The Father’s Manifestation is spatial.
For it to be demonstrated that the Father’s heavenly manifestation

is not spatial, one must prove either that (1) angels are not spatial, (2)
the Father is present in none of the divine council scenes, or (3) that all
of the divine council scenes are symbols for some other reality about the
Father and his angels. Given how the New Testament authors discuss
74 See Matthew W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit
in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 163–65.
102
angels, the Father in heaven, and the Father’s place in the divine
council, it seems unlikely that they did not conceive of the Father as
having a heavenly manifestation, so that, in Jesus’ words, these spatial
“angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt 18:10).
God the Father’s Manifestation is Spatially Proximate to Christ’s Body

As observed in Chapter 1, Jesus’ resurrected and ascended body is
a physical, spatial entity residing in the heavens. For the New Testament
authors, Jesus’ body is spatially related to the Father. This will be
demonstrated by noting (1) the references in the Gospels to Christ’s
spatial absence from the Father before the ascension and (2) the
references in Acts and the Epistles to Christ’s spatial presence with the
Father after the ascension.
Pre-Ascension, God the Father’s Manifestation is Spatially

Absent from Christ’s Body
The Gospel writers imply in various ways that Christ is spatially
absent from the Father before his ascension. At Jesus’ baptism, the
spatial disparity between Jesus and the Father is stressed as the barrier
separating Jesus and the Father is temporarily severed when the
heavens open (Matt 3:16–17; Mark 1:10–11; Luke 3:21–22). Leon Morris
thinks that the heavens opening probably indicates “that for a short time
the barrier between this world and heaven was set aside so that there
could be some form of intercourse between the two.”75 The public nature
75 Matthew’s “characteristic look . . . draws attention to what follows and

makes it all more vivid.” Matthew, 66.
103
of this event also emphasizes its reality. The “fact that God says ‘This is
my Son’ means that the scene was intended for onlookers as well.”76
Given the likelihood that the bystanders heard the Father’s words, one
may assume they saw the heavens open and the dove descend as well.77
76 Osborne, 124. So Darrell L. Bock, Luke, 2 vols., BECNT (Grand

Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 1:340; France, Gospel of Matthew, 122; Carson,
“Matthew,” 137; Morris, Matthew, 67–68; “In Matthew the announcement is
addressed to a wider circle—at least John, more likely the bystander public in
general, since in chaps. 1–2 Jesus’ identity is already a matter of family and
public knowledge.” M. Eugene Boring, “Matthew,” in NIB, vol. 8 (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1995), 160; Davies and Allison argue that “Matthew has displaced
εἶδεν so that it now comes after the opening of the heavens. This makes the
event more public because the occurrence in the sky is no longer qualified by
‘he saw’ but instead narrated as a straightforward fact.” W. D. Davies and Dale
C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1988), 330; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX),
AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 481. Contra Jack Dean Kingsbury, who
argues the event is private to Jesus because (1) Matthew 3:16 implies that
Jesus removed himself from John, (2) if this were a public event Jesus would
have had greater reception, and (3) John seems to indicate in Matthew 11:2–3
that he did not see the event. Matthew as Story, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1988), 51. However, Matthew 3:16 does not say that Christ removed himself. He
did what anyone would do after being in a river. He “he went up from the water”
(Matt 3:16). The size of the crowd standing by is not given, so their public
testimony could have been minimal and not had great impact on his ministry.
Also, Matthew 11:2–3 is coming from a disheartened John in prison, and his
doubts do not mean he did not witness the heavens opening. Donald A. Hagner
thinks that the “Synoptics do not indicate whether the crowds witnessed the
event, but the silence is probably to be interpreted as meaning they did not; in
the Fourth Gospel, however, John the Baptist is explicitly made a witness.”
Matthew 1–13, WBC, vol. 33a (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 57. The silence does
not necessitate this conclusion, especially since John is clearly a witness to
Christ’s baptisms, and it would be a reasonable assumption to assume he
witnessed the Spirit’s descent as well. Nolland argues that this account alludes
to Job 1:8 and 2:3 and the words are “being heard in heaven: this is God’s
acclamation of Jesus before the heavenly court,” a connection strengthened by
Jesus’ immediate departure to be tempted. John Nolland, The Gospel of
Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005), 157. However, there are almost no divine council motifs present and
even if the Father’s words were heard by the divine council in heaven, this does
not mean they could not also have been heard by human bystanders.
77In Matthew 3:16, the inclusion of the αὐτῷ (in brackets in the NA28) is
questionable as ‫ *א‬and B omit it but ‫א‬1 C DS contain it. David Matthewson
104
Additionally, all other instances in the Gospels where the Father speaks
from heaven are clearly public events (Matt 17:5–6; John 12:28–29).78
The emphasis on the event’s historical reality highlights the spatiality
between the Son on the earth and the Father in heaven.
Matthew’s contrast between heaven and earth establishes the
Father’s distance from the Son. Using his idiosyncratic plural οὐρανός,
Matthew consistently characterizes the Father as being “in heaven.”79
Conversely, the Son is one who has “come” (Matt 5:17; 10:34–35) to earth
on a mission from his Father. In Matthew 10:32–33, Christ also
intimates that he will go back to the Father when he says that everyone
argues that the presence of αὐτῷ “only makes explicit what is already implicit:
this is an apocalyptic visionary experience had by Jesus, not a public vision.”
“The Apocalyptic Vision of Jesus According to the Gospel of Matthew: Reading
Matthew 3:16–4:11 Intertextually,” Tyndale Bulletin 62, no. 1 (2011): 89–108.
But the presence of apocalyptic elements does not mean that it is a private
vision (e.g. Acts 1:9–11) and not everyone who is attuned to apocalyptic themes
in this pericope believes it to be a private event. So Christopher Rowland, The
Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (Eugene:
Wipf and Stock, 2002), 359. Also, just because the heavens were opened “to
him” does not de facto indicate that the heavens were not open to anyone else.
Curiously, the Father’s pronouncement in Matthew 3:17, “this is my beloved
Son,” which holds the key phrase that causes other commentators take the
vision as a public event (see previous footnote), is unaddressed in Matthewson’s
article.
78 Matthew 17:5–6 is in a context in which the disciples are on “a high
mountain by themselves,” presumably so others will not see. Also, the context
associates this event with John the Baptist (Matt 17:9–13), linking it with the
baptism account. Cf. Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 134.
79 Matt 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1, 9, 14, 26, 32; 7:11, 21; 10:32, 33; 12:50;
15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 14, 19, 35; 23:9. Pennington argues that Matthew’s use of
plural οὐρανός is not a semitism or an allusion to a cosmology with multiple
heavens, but an idiolectic usage that heightens the contrasts between the
heavenly and earthly realm. Jonathan T. Pennington, Heaven and Earth in the
Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 125–161. Contra
Hagner, who thinks heavens is a translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic.
Matthew 1–13, 101.
105
who confesses (ὁµολογήσει, future) Christ “before men” (ἔµπροσθεν τῶν
ἀνθρώπων) will be confessed by him (ὁµολογήσω, future) before his Father
in heaven (τοῦ πατρός µου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), and whoever denies
(ἀρνήσηταί, aorist) Christ before men (ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων) will be
denied (ἀρνήσοµαι, future) before Christ’s “Father who is in heaven”
(ἔµπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός µου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς). The use of the future for
Christ’s acts before his Father comports with his current absence from
the Father. As previously discussed, Christ indicates that his ascension
will be a transition into closer spatial relationship with the Father (Matt
26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69).
John’s gospel particularly emphasizes Christ’s spatial distance
from the Father. Jesus speaks of heavenly things he has “seen and
heard” (ἑώρακεν καὶ ἤκουσεν) because he is one who “comes from above”
(ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόµενος) and “comes from heaven” (ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
ἐρχόµενος) (John 3:12–13).80 Jesus roots his ministry in the fact that the
things he says he “heard from [his] Father” (John 15:15). Jesus
descended from heaven as the true manna from heaven (John 6:32–35;
cf. 48–51; 56–59). The Father, not the earthling Moses, gives “true bread
from heaven,” which is “he who comes down from heaven and gives life to
the world” (John 6:32–33). This contrast between this world and heaven
places the Father, as giver of the “true bread from heaven,” in the latter
realm. Thus, Jesus has “come down from heaven” to perform “the will of
him who sent me,” viz., the Father (John 6:38).
80The insertion, “who is in heaven,” is not likely original. See Carson,

The Gospel According to John, 203.
106
In John 13:1–4, Jesus knows that he must “depart out of this
world to the Father” (John 13:1). The contrast between the world and the
Father in tandem with a verb of motion clarifies that Christ is about to
embark on a spatial relocation and implies the Father’s presence in
heaven. By “this world,” John is not referring to the world of evil forces
opposed to God (1 John 2:15–17).81 Rather, the “world” is the sphere of
humanity.82 For Christ to “depart out of this world (ἐκ τοῦ κόσµου τούτου)
to the Father” (John 13:1) is to go through a spatial transition. The
demonstrative pronoun indicates that Jesus goes from one world to
another, the sphere of humanity to the sphere of the Father. Jesus had
both “come from God and was going back to God” (John 13:3). Jesus
clearly says, “I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer” (John
16:10). Such statements must refer to Christ’s body, since it is Christ’s
body that the disciples will no longer see (cf. John 12:8). Jesus employs a
spatial chiasm to emphasize his relocation: “I came from the Father and
have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to
the Father” (John 16:28). The disciples take this as plain speech, not
symbolic language (John 16:29–30). The language of coming “from the

Father” and coming “into the world” is overtly spatial.
The disciples would later see Jesus physically ascend. In light of
this spatial relocation, when the disciples later thought of Christ’s words,
81 For this sense of “world,” see Andrew David Naselli, “Do Not Love the
World: Breaking the Evil Enchantment of Worldliness (A Sermon on 1 John
2:15–17),” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 22, no. 1 (2018): 111–25.
82 Cf. John 6:14; 7:4; 9:39; 10:36; 11:27; 12:25; 13:1; 16:33; 17:5, 11,
13; 18:36; 21:25.
107
“now I am going to him who sent me” (John 16:5), they would have likely
understood them as indicating a spatial change. The Spirit’s coming in a
spatial way makes Jesus’ words that he must “go away” in order to send
the paraclete (John 16:6–7), his departure and glorification being
essential preliminaries (John 7:39), imply spatiality. Jesus’ spatial
absence from the Father implies the Father’s spatial relationship to
Jesus.
Objections to Christ’s Pre-Ascension Spatial Absence from the Father’s

Manifestation
In John 16:32, Christ says, “Yet I am not alone, for the Father is
with me.” Does this text throw a wrench in the idea that Christ is
spatially absent from the Father? It seems obvious that John intends his
readers to recognize the paradoxical truths that Christ has come from,
will go to, and is with the Father as he weaves them into the same
pericope (John 16:28, 32). The question is, in what sense do these words
apply to Jesus? Is it that Jesus is with the Father according to his
divinity or because the Father is mediated to him by the Spirit or some
other sense? Whatever one makes of Jesus’ words that the Father is with
him, the sense in which the Father is away from him is clear. Jesus
cannot be away from the Father in his divine essence (Col 2:9), in their
unity (John 17:21), in their purpose (Heb 10:7), or in the Spirit’s
mediatorial work (Isa 61:1). Jesus must be away from the Father as a
human who came into the physical world and will leave the world to go
back to the Father in his ascension (John 13:3). Thus, whatever sense
108
Jesus is with the Father, the sine qua non of Christ’s words is that in his
humanity Jesus is spatially distant from the Father.
Post-Ascension, God the Father’s Manifestation

is Spatially Present with Christ’s Body
Christ’s bodily ascension, discussed in Chapter 1, presents Jesus
as spatially relocating from earth to heaven. The ascension culminates
after Christ’s heavenly offering with his session at the right hand of the
Father. Many interpreters rightly discuss the various nuances and
connotations that Christ’s session brings. Tait observes the connotations
of rest, honor, judgment, sovereign kingship, and glory.83 However, Tait
does not think that Christ’s session has anything to do with his physical
body. He criticizes “the many generations of Christion thinkers” who had
a “very limited conception of heaven,” namely, a local one.84 But in the
defense of early Christians, Tait argues that
they entertained no idea of a literal session of Christ at a literal right

hand of God, nor did they conceive of God or of Christ, according to His
Deity, as being circumscribed or localized; but they did believe that
Christ, according to His humanity, was localized, existing somewhere in
space other than this earth, and that this locality was the sphere in
which the open vision of God was vouchsafed to those who were the true
disciples of Christ.85
No argument will be made here that any member of the Trinity is

circumscribed according to his deity. But can one be no more specific
83Arthur J. Tait, The Heavenly Session of Our Lord (London: Robert Scott
Roxburghe House, 1912), 3–24.
84 Tait, 216.
85 Ibid., 216–17.
109
concerning Christ’s localizable body than “somewhere in space other
than this earth”?
The authors of the New Testament are much more specific. They
certainly conceive of Christ’s session as having strong symbolic
associations of rule, glory, and judgment. But they, unlike many
theologians, conceive of the physical and spatial act of sitting down as
the symbol itself. By definition, a symbol is “Something that stands for,
represents, or denotes something else . . . esp. a material object
representing or taken to represent something immaterial or abstract, as
a being, idea, quality, or condition.”86 Thus, the cross as a Christian
symbol is rooted in the historical, wooden cross that Jesus’ body died on.
Jesus’s physical act of sitting was a symbol of rule, glory, and judgment.
The symbolic and physical are not opposed. Rather, they mutually
support each other.
For example, 1 Kings 1 describes the conflict regarding who would
succeed David as king: Solomon or Adonijah? The question of who “will
sit on the throne” is woven throughout the narrative, the word “throne”
(‫ ) ִכּסֵּא‬being mentioned thirteen times in thirty-six verses. In the cultural

milieu of an ancient monarchy, the symbols of throne and crown were
pregnant with meaning. It was because kings sat on thrones that sitting
on a throne became a symbol for rule. When Solomon rides the king’s
mule, is anointed, sits on the throne, and is affirmed by witnesses (1 Kgs
86Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “Symbol,” accessed April 20, 2020,

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/185831?redirectedFrom=spatiality#eid2161
4092.
110
1:44–46), these powerfully symbolic actions effectively quell any hope of
Adonijah becoming king (1 Kgs 1:49–50). Today, being sworn in makes
one a president. For Solomon, sitting on a throne made him a king. The
act symbolic act is both physical and figurative.87
This section will argue that Christ’s session is a physical act that is
spatially related to the Father. This fact will be proven by demonstrating
that (1) Christ performed his self-offering in the spatial heavenly temple
and (2) he then sat on a throne in this temple. Both acts place Christ in
spatial relationship with the Father’s manifestation. These points will be
drawn primarily from the book of Hebrews. To prove that the other
biblical authors thought of Christ’s session in a similar way, it will be
shown (3) that both they as well as Hebrews use a “single sacrificial
script” that binds Christ’s bodily resurrection, ascension, and session
together. Finally, these findings will be corroborated by (4) the visible
appearances of Christ in session after his ascension. While this section
focuses on the nature of Christ’s session, proving that Christ’s session is
in his human body necessitates that the Father at Christ’s left hand be
in spatial relationship with him.
Christ’s Human Offering Implies a Spatial Relationship with the Father’s

Manifestation
To demonstrate that Christ’s human offering is spatially proximate
to the Father, this section will demonstrate that (1) heaven contains a
87 On the physical and figurative going hand in hand, see James B.

Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood,
TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), 9–11.
111
spatial sanctuary that can accommodate a human body, (2) Christ
offered himself in this sanctuary, and (3) the Father’s presence is
uniquely associated with this sanctuary indicating Christ’s spatial
relationship with the Father.
Heaven Contains a Spatial Sanctuary

As Jamieson observes, “Heb 8:1–2 positions the heavenly
tabernacle as a spatial frame for the entire ensuing expository section
(8:3–10:18).”88 The concept of a heavenly sanctuary is rooted in the Old
Testament (Ps 11:4). In Exodus 25:40 God commands Moses to build the
tabernacle and its furnishings “after the pattern (‫ )תַּ ְבנִית‬for them, which is
being shown you on the mountain” (Cf. Exod 25:9; Acts 7:44). The
author of Hebrews conceives of this pattern as a “tabernacle existing in
heaven, on which the earthly one was patterned”89 since the author
contrasts the respective priesthoods (one earthly, one heavenly). A
parallel passage describes the tabernacle and its furniture as the “copies
of the in-the-heavenlies things (ὑποδείγµατα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς)” (Heb
9:23).90 The term for “copy (ὑπόδειγµα)” can “denote a crafted mimetic
representation.”91 The tabernacle Moses built was not an expansion of a

miniature heavenly model shown him on the mountain. The archetypal
88 Jamieson, Jesus’ Death, 52.

90 “In 9:23 the spatial preposition is significant: that on which the earthly
tabernacle was patterned is located in heaven.” Ibid. Author’s translation.
91 See ibid. for a more developed argument and word study.
112
heavenly model is the original, “real tent that the Lord pitched” (Heb 8:2),
made without hands,92 and Moses’s ectypal tabernacle was the “copy
(ὑπόδειγµα)” (Heb 8:5; 9:23).93
The spatiality of this heavenly tabernacle created by God is
apparent because the tabernacle houses angels, Christ’s body, and
humans. First, the heavenly sanctuary is operated by spatial angelic
servants (Heb 13:10). In Daniel 10:5, the angel wears linen, “the garb of a
priest; here as in Ezek 9–10 the servants of the heavenly temple concern
themselves with the affairs of its earthly equivalent.”94 Second, this
tabernacle is also a place “in which a glorified human ministers.”95 Jesus
entered the heavenly tabernacle (Heb 9:24) and, “as 9:28 indicates, Jesus
will remain in the heavenly tabernacle until he appears on earth ‘a
92Acts 7:48; 17:24; Heb 9:11, 24; cf. Mark 14:58. See BDAG on ἀληθινός
(43) and πήγνυµι (811). Author’s translation.
93 “Hence, contra those who argue that Moses was shown only a
blueprint or architectural model, in 8:5 the tabernacle Moses built copied one
God had already built (cf. 8:2). Contra those who argue that Hebrews attests a
cosmic temple, in which earth and heaven together constitute the ultimate
sanctuary, in 8:5 the whole tent in heaven is the archetype of the whole tent on
earth. Contra those who argue that Moses was shown a preview of the
eschatological heavenly tabernacle that was only established when Christ
entered it, the relationship 8:5 takes Exod 25:40 to attest is spatial, not
temporal. Further, this reading makes the earthly tabernacle a model for the
heavenly, whereas 8:5 asserts the opposite. Hebrews’ heavenly tabernacle was
pitched by God (8:2), shown to Moses on the mountain as the pattern for its
earthly likeness (8:5), and in the fullness of time entered by Christ (6:19–20;
9:11–12, 24; cf. 8:1–2).” Jamieson, Jesus’ Death, 56.
94 John E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC, vol. 30 (Dallas: Word Books, 1989),
290.
113
second time . . . to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.’”96
Whatever transcendent characteristics Hebrews ascribes to “heaven, its
heavenly tabernacle must be ‘real’ enough for the resurrected Jesus to be
there now.”97 Third, when the “tent of God” (ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ) appears in
Revelation, in addition to housing angels (Rev 15:5), it becomes the home
of redeemed humanity (Rev 21:3; cf. 13:6). That these spatial entities
necessitate the heavenly sanctuary’s spatiality may be demonstrated by
the following polysyllogism:
Premise 1: Only spatial realms can house spatial entities.
Premise 2: Angels, Christ’s body, and humans are spatial entities.
Premise 3: The heavenly sanctuary houses angels, Christ’s body, and
humans.
Conclusion: The heavenly sanctuary is a spatial realm.
96Jamieson, Jesus’ Death, 54. “Jesus’ entry to the heavenly sanctuary is

inseparable from his continuing presence there. There he went; there he
remains” (67).
97 Ibid. For the various views of Hebrews’ heavenly temple see Robert B.
Jamieson, “When and Where Did Jesus Offer Himself?: A Taxonomy of Recent
Scholarship on Hebrews,” Currents in Biblical Research 15, no. 3 (2017): 338–
68. On Hebrews’ cosmology in general, see Jon Laansma, “The Cosmology of
Hebrews,” in Cosmology and New Testament Theology, eds. Sean M.
McDonough and Jonathan T. Pennington, T. & T. Clark Library of Biblical
Studies (London: T. & T. Clark, 2008), 125–43. “The heavenly sanctuary is a
place where Christ goes, not a metaphor for something else. Christ went there,
remains there, and from there will return (6:19–20; 8:1–5; 9:11–12, 24, 28;
10:12–13; cf. 1:3; 12:2). Any reading of the sequence of Christ’s sacrifice that
makes ‘metaphor’ programmatic founders on the intractably referential quality
of Hebrews’ assertions that Jesus entered heaven. Jesus’ entry to the heavenly
sanctuary not only explains how he obtained redemption but specifies his
present location (8:1; 9:24).” Jamieson, Jesus’ Death, 92.
114
Christ Offered Himself in the Heavenly Sanctuary

It is within this spatial sanctuary that Christ performs his offering
in his human body.98 Hebrews clearly places Christ’s heavenly offering in
the temple (Heb 9:24–25) after his ascension (Heb 4:14).99 Christ’s body
and blood is superior to the blood of animals (Heb 9:12–14; 10:5, 8, 10).
The new covenant is established through Christ’s bodily death (Heb 9:15)
and the saints “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of
Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb 10:10). The humanity of Christ’s offering
is also emphasized through the comparison between his priesthood in
the heavenly sanctuary and the human earthly priests in the earthly
tabernacle.100
In fact, not only must this heavenly tabernacle be able to
accommodate a human, Hebrews 10:5–14 “treats Christ’s bodily self-
offering in heaven as a goal of his Incarnation.”101 The heavenly
tabernacle was built for this offering.102 In Scott D. Mackie’s words, “As
98 The “offering” of Christ’s body is a different event than his bodily

“sacrifice.” The word προσφορά (Heb 10:10, 14) “typically denotes something
presented to God.” Jamieson, Jesus’ Death, 17. As when the high priest offered
the blood in the tabernacle, slaughter is presupposed, but it is a different act
than that of offering (Heb 9:7).
99 The offering is a priestly work, and Christ must be in heaven to be a
priest (Heb 8:4). Jamieson undertakes a comprehensive argument for the place
and timing of Christ’s offering in Jesus’ Death. See p. 70 for a summary of the
arguments for why Christ’s offering takes place in heaven.
100 Heb 5:1; 7:5, 20, 23, 27–28; 8:3–4; 9:6–7; 10:11.
102 “The Son took on a body in order, ultimately, to offer that body to God
in heaven.” Ibid., 79.
115
the place where Jesus’ sacrifice is completed, the Heavenly Sanctuary
must be as ‘real’ for both author and audience as the cross where Jesus’
self-offering began.”103
Christ’s Offering was Spatial Proximate to the Father’s Manifestation

Christ has not entered into the “hand-made sanctuary, . . . but
into heaven itself, now to make an appearance before the face of God (τῷ
προσώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ) on behalf of us . . . to offer himself” (Heb 9:24–25).104
Whatever one makes of this heavenly tabernacle, it is uniquely
associated with God’s presence, and it is in Christ’s humanity that he
enters God’s presence to offer himself. Theologically, how could Christ’s
divinity not be present with God (John 1:18)? Thus, it cannot be Christ’s
divinity that enters the heavenly tabernacle since it was already present.
Additionally, how can Christ offer “himself,” an offering associated with
his sacrifice and death (Heb 9:26–27), except in his humanity? Mortality
is a property of Christ’s humanity, not his divinity. This means that
Christ offered his body in the heavenly temple in a unique spatial
relationship with the presence of God (assuming “before the face” in Heb
9:24 is idiomatic), implying a spatial relationship with the Father.
103Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews, WUNT 2.

Reihe 223 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2007), 159.
104 Author’s translation. English speakers frequently use the word
“appear” to connote a lack of reality. The phrase “make an appearance” better
conveys the idea of true presence (as ἐµφανίζω does, Matt 27:53). On ἅγιος as
“sanctuary,” see Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed., (New York:
United Bible Societies, 1989), 84. Cf. BDAG 11.
116
Christ’s Human Enthronement Implies a Spatial Relationship with the
Father’s Manifestation
For Christ to be humanly enthroned at the Father’s right hand
implies a spatial relationship. To demonstrate that Christ’s human
enthronement is in spatial proximity to the Father, this section will
demonstrate that (1) the heavenly sanctuary contains a throne that can
accommodate a human body (2) Christ is seated on the throne in his
human body, and (3) this throne is spatially related to the Father.
The Heavenly Sanctuary Contains a Throne which can Accommodate a

Human Body
The throne in Hebrews’ heavenly temple is referenced several
times, explicitly (Heb 1:8; 8:1; 12:2) and implicitly (Heb 1:3; 10:12).
Jesus sits beside “the throne of the Majesty in heaven” within “the holy
places, in the true tent that the Lord set up” (Heb 8:1–2). This text clearly
places the “throne” within the “true tent” in heaven (Heb 8:4). Hebrews
8:1–2 also clarifies that while Christ is sitting on a throne in the true tent
(Heb 1:8), it may not be “the throne.” Either Hebrews pictures two
thrones next to each other, “the throne of Majesty” being the central one
(Heb 8:1), or a single throne that Christ shares with the Father (cf. Heb
1:8; 12:2).105 The frequent allusion in Hebrews to Psalm 110:1 ties
together Christ’s entrance into the heavenly temple and his session on
the throne as “every passage in Hebrews that attests Christ’s exaltation
105Whether it is best understood as two thrones, seeing Daniel 7:9–14 as

the background, or a shared throne, as Revelation 3:21 would have it (where
humans are presented as on the throne as well), is not essential to this study.
117
to God’s right hand also attests his entrance to the heavenly Holy of
Holies, where God’s throne is (1:3, 13; 10:12–13; 12:2; cf. 4:16).”106 This
connection implies that “for Hebrews the heavenly tabernacle Christ
enters is just as real as the throne on which he sits.”107
The concept of God’s throne appears throughout the Old
Testament,108 sometimes as located in heaven or on Zion. 109 Locating the
throne of God in the sanctuary finds its roots in the Israelite tabernacle
which contained the ark of the covenant, which they conceived of as the
throne of God.110 Isaiah and Ezekiel explicitly place God’s throne in the
heavenly temple (Isa 6:1; Ezra 43:5–6; cf. Jer 17:12). Zechariah 6:12–14
provides even more specific details:
And say to him, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘Behold, the man whose
name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall
build the temple of the Lord. It is he who shall build the temple of the
Lord and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne (‫עַל־‬
‫) ִכּסְאוֹ‬. And there shall be a priest on his throne (‫) ַעל־ ִכּסְאוֹ‬, and the counsel of
peace shall be between them both.’” And the crown shall be in the temple
of the Lord as a reminder to Helem, Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Hen the son of
Zephaniah.

107 Ibid.
108 God’s throne generally: Pss 9:4, 7; 45:6; 47:8; 89:14; 93:2; 97:2;
103:19; 110:1; Isa 6:1; Jer 3:17; 13:13; 49:38; Lam 5:19; Ezra 1:26; 10:1; 46:6–
7; Dan 7:9; Zech 6:13–14.
109 God’s throne in heaven: 1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chr 18:18; Pss 2:4; 11:4;
33:13–14; 103:19; 123:1; Isa 40:22; 66:1–2; Jer 14:21–22. God’s throne on
Zion: Prov 2:5; 110:2.
110 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:15; 1 Chr 13:6; Pss 80:1; 99:1; Isa
37:16; cf. Ezra 10:1. “Israel thought of the Ark as the throne of Jahweh.”
Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1, trans. D. M. G. Stalker
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 237.
118
Kline argues that the repetition of ‫“ עַל־ ִכּסְאוֹ‬demands that it is a
single figure, a priest-king who is depicted here as sitting by Yahweh’s
throne.”111 Thus, with Solomon’s kingly work of building the temple and
his sitting on “the throne of Yahweh” (1 Chr 29:23–25) as background,
Kline argues that Zechariah 6:13 “affirms that the majestic priest who
‘shall build the temple of Yahweh ... shall sit and rule by his [Yahweh’s]
throne [‫ ]עַל־ ִכּסְאוֹ‬and shall be a priest by his [Yahweh’s] throne [‫]עַל־ ִכּסְאוֹ‬.”112
Like Hebrews, Zechariah 6:12–14 intertwines the themes of priest,
temple, coronation, and throne. This comports with the depictions of the
divine throne in Revelation, as “the vocabulary of Revelation 11:19
suggests that the heavenly temple is closely associated with the heavenly
throne of God. . . . God and Christ rule over the world from the heavenly
throne room/temple.”113 While the influence of Merkabah mysticism on
the biblical authors is debated, placing the throne within the heavenly
temple is also a consistent motif of such literature.114 The heavenly
tabernacle-throne provides the conceptual framework into which

112 Ibid., 244.
113
J. Edward Wright, The Early History of Heaven (New York: Oxford,
2000), 135.
114Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism
and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, WUNT 2. Reihe 142 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2001).
119
references to Christ’s enthronement and session may be placed
throughout the other gospels.115
In His Humanity, Jesus Sits on the Heavenly Throne

That Christ is seated on the throne as a human is evident because
(1) the session marks the completion of his embodied priestly work and
(2) the session was granted Jesus because the work accomplished in his
capacity as a human, not because of his divine status, as the contrast
with the angels clarifies. Additionally, (3) the author of Hebrews and the
other New Testament authors employ a “single sacrificial script” that
embeds Christ’s session within contexts which emphasize Jesus’ bodily
death, resurrection, and ascension, thus providing a context within
which a physical understanding of Christ’s session corresponds. Finally,
(4) these findings will be corroborated by the visions of Christ the early
disciples received.
Jesus’ Session Marks the Completion of His Embodied Priestly
Work. Hebrews clearly presents the “great high priest who has passed
through the heavens” as the same Jesus who is able “to sympathize with
our weaknesses” through his Incarnation (Heb 4:14–15). As a human

high priest, Christ uses his own human blood to mediate the new
covenant (Heb 12:24). Christ is also an eternal priest (Heb 7:20–28), both
human and immortal. As “a high priest,” Christ entered “through the
greater and more perfect tent (διὰ τῆς µείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς) . . .
115 Matt 19:28; 20:20–28; Mark 10:35–45; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 1:32–33;
22:69; John 13:1–4; Acts 2:30–35; 5:31; 7:55–56; 15:14–16; Rom 8:34; Eph
1:20; Col 3:1; 1 Pet 3:22.
120
not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own
blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb 9:11–12).116 If it is in
his humanity that Christ makes “purification for sins” (Heb 1:3a)
through his heavenly self-offering, then it follows that it is in his
humanity that “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high”
(Heb 1:3b).117 Having “been made perfect forever” (Heb 7:28), that is,
having accomplished his mission, Jesus now “is seated at the right hand
of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in
the true tent that the Lord set up, not man” (Heb 8:1–2).118 Jesus “sitting
at God’s right hand is a dramatic indication of the completion of Christ’s
work of redemption.”119 These texts consistently link Christ’s priestly
offering, which is clearly an embodied work, with his session, implying
that it is also an embodied work. Thus, after the “offering of the body of
Jesus Christ once for all” in the heavenly sanctuary, Jesus, unlike “every
116 “Some scholars interpret the tent symbolically as representing the

body of Jesus in some manner. They argue that διά should be instrumental as
it is in the following verse (9:12). More likely, διά should be taken locally. The
participle παραγενόµενος suggests movement. Moreover, it is not unusual to use
the same preposition in two different senses in the same sentence.” Brian C.
Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews, Biblical
Interpretation Series (Boston: Brill, 2014), 238–39.
117 “Hebrews’ seamless transition from sacrifice to session makes far
better sense if both follow Christ’s resurrection, and if Jesus presentation of his
sacrifice immediately precedes his session. Christ offered himself and then sat
down because the throne he sat on is in the place where he offered himself, the
Holy of Holies in heaven.” Jamieson, Jesus’ Death, 78.
118On the interpretation of Christ’s being made perfect, see Paul E. Zell,
“How Has the Son of God Been ‘Made Perfect’? (Hebrews 2:9–11; 5:9; 7:28),”
Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 106, no. 4 (2009): 292–95.
119 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical
Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 618.
121
priest” who “stands daily at his service,” finished his offering and “sat
down at the right hand of God” (Heb 10:10–12).120 This contrast with
human priests’ standing (the priests had no chairs in the tabernacle)
stresses the human act and indicates that Christ’s act of sitting is done
in his human body. What then does “the right hand of God” refer to (Heb
10:12)? Is this phrase, surrounded by references to Christ’s bodily place
and activities, designed to indicate rule, glory, and judgment generically?
More precisely, does the phrase “the right hand of God” encode zero
information about Christ’s bodily position? Given the phrase’s context,
taking it as a reference both to Jesus’ bodily location and honored
position makes the most sense.
Christ was Granted the Session for Accomplishments in His Human,
not Angelic or Divine, Nature. Hebrews 1 and 2 argue that Christ’s
enthronement is received because of his work done as a human, not
simply because of his divinity, as the contrast with the angels clarifies.
Hebrews 1 argues that Jesus is “better” because he possesses a more
excellent name (Heb 1:4), is God’s begotten Son (1:5), is worshipped by
angels (1:6), is anointed (1:8–9), is eternally unchanging (1:10–12), and

seated at God’s right hand (1:13). Christ’s exalted status contrasts with
the angels that are “spirits” who “minister” (note the repetition of
120 “This welcoming into the presence of God and sitting at God’s right
hand is a dramatic indication of the completion of Christ’s work of redemption.
Just as a human being will sit down at the completion of a large task to enjoy
the satisfaction of having accomplished it, so Jesus sat at the right hand of
God, visibly demonstrating that his work of redemption was completed. In
addition to showing the completion of Christ’s work of redemption, the act of
sitting at God’s right hand is an indication that he received authority over the
universe.” Grudem, 618.
122
πνεύµατα and the λειτουργ- root in 1:7, 14) and who have not been
invited to sit at the right hand (Heb 1:14). Certainly, the session Christ is
granted contrasts the function of Christ and the angels. But while
Hebrews 1 presents a contrast between Christ’s divine nature (1:10–12)
and the angels, it seems that the primary contrast is an ontological one
between Christ as a human and the angels as spirits.121 This
angelic/human contrast is implied by Hebrews 1:9 which says that
Christ is exalted above his “companions” or “peers (µετόχους),” i.e. other
humans.122 And, as Hebrews 1:13 clarifies, God has never exalted any of
the angels to his throne (πρὸς τίνα δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων). Hebrews 1:5 and 13
contrast God’s speech to the Son with his hypothetical speech to angels.
Likely, in the mind of the author of Hebrews, if God were to speak
to an angel it would be a literal speaking (cf. 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15),
implying that when God speaks to the Son it is a literal speaking.
Jamieson argues that God speaks “to Christ face-to-face, in the heavenly
throne room.”123 Jamieson states,
121 “[T]he writer’s argument in Heb 1–2 for the elevation of Jesus above
the angelic spirits assumes that Jesus has his humanity—his blood and flesh—
with him in heaven” (iv). Moffitt argues that in Hebrews 1 and 2 “the
fundamental contrast between the Son’s invitation to sit upon the heavenly
throne and the angels’ lower position” is founded “on the fact that the latter are
spirits, while the former is a human being—blood and flesh (Heb 2:14).” David
M. Moffitt, “A New and Living Way: Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in
the Epistle to the Hebrews” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 2010), 67. Defending
this view is the burden of pages 58–188 of Moffitt’s dissertation.
122 Moffitt argues that this term indicates that “[t]he Son is one among
many, and in particular, the specific one from the group who was anointed.”
Moffitt, 65.
123 “So then, when did God speak Ps 110:4 to Christ? Since the citation
of Ps 2:7 in 1:5 elaborates the assertion of Christ’s enthronement in 1:3–4, it is
clear that Hebrews understands God to have spoken the words of this psalm to
123
At Jesus’ entrance to heaven, God appoints Jesus high priest by
declaring, ‘You are a priest forever’ (Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6). Then, after
entering the heavenly Holy of Holies and offering himself there, Jesus is
invited by God to sit at his right hand (Ps 110:1; Heb 1:3, 13). He does,
and God, declares, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’ (Ps 2:7,
Heb 1:5).124
These speech acts of investiture and coronation seem to be the same

kind of speech that God could proclaim to angels, one that finite, spatial
creatures can hear. The angels also seem to be the audience for these
words (Heb 1:6), indicating that these words were audibly spoken in the
heavenly sanctuary.
The argument continues in Hebrews 2, pointing out that God did
not subject the world to angels (2:5), but to mankind (2:6–18).125
Scholars take Hebrews’ use of Psalm 8 in 2:6–8 as either anthropological,
Christological, or some “both-and” position.126 Who is the “man” of Psalm
8:4 and to whom do the pronouns of Hebrews 2:6–8 refer? Given that the
key contrast of Hebrews 1 is between Christ and angels, viewing Hebrews
Christ face-to-face, in the heavenly throne room. That the author links Ps 2:7
with Ps 110:4 in 5:5–6 suggests that he understands the latter address also to
have been spoken by God to Christ in person. Hence, even before we see how
Christ’s appointment to priesthood is elaborated in 5:7–10, the most likely
temporal referent for this address is Christ’s arrival in heaven. In other words,
5:5–6 locates the moment when God speaks Ps 110:4 to Jesus after his entire
earthly career.” Jamieson, Jesus’ Death, 28.
125 While Hebrews 1 is sometimes characterized as the text that
demonstrates Christ’s superiority to the angels, the argument continues
through chapter 2. A brief glance at the word “angels” (occurring 6x in chapter
1 and 5x in chapter 2) indicates this. Hebrews 2:5 obviously sets up the
Christ/angels contrast and the mention of angels in 2:16 demonstrates that it
is a continuing theme.
126 See Jamieson, Jesus’s Death, 99–104.
124
2:6–8 Christologically would seem to make sense.127 However, taking the
anthropological view, that the man of Hebrews 2:6–8 is mankind in
general, is a superior reading. Jamieson points out that in the context of
Psalm 8 “these verses clearly refer to humankind,” not the Messiah, and
early Jewish readings took the passage as describing “the dominion
granted humankind at creation.”128 Hebrews 2:8–9 indicates a contrast:
“Now (νῦν δὲ) we do not yet see (οὔπω ὁρῶµεν) everything having been
subjected to him (αὐτῷ). But (δὲ) we do see (βλέποµεν) the one who for a
little has been made lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the
suffering of death has been crowned in glory and honor.”129 Compton
argues that the pronoun “him (αὐτῷ)” in Hebrews 2:8 is not referring to
Christ. If αὐτῷ was intended to refer to Christ, would not the appellation
of Hebrews 2:9 have preceded the pronoun? Grammatically and logically,
αὐτῷ seems to point back to mankind as discussed in Psalm 8:4–6 (Heb
2:6–8). This means that the contrast here is not between angels and
Christ, per se, but between angels and humanity. Thus, Hebrews 2
progressively makes that contrast more explicit. Jesus as a mortal,
passible human is exalted through his death (Heb 2:9). It is by Jesus’
127 “It has not been subjected to angels; if not to them, to whom? . . . The
figure who stands over against angels is, as ch. 1 makes unmistakably clear,
not man in general but the Son of God; it is to him that the world to come is
made subject.” C. K. Barrett, On Paul: Aspects of His Life, Work and Influence in
the Early Church (London: T. & T. Clark, 2003), 202.
128 Jamieson, Jesus’s Death, 101.
129 The point about αὐτῷ was originally made by Jared M. Compton,
“Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews” (Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, 2013), 43. Cf. Jamieson, Jesus’s Death, 101. Author’s translation.
125
humanity that he will bring “many sons to glory” (Heb 2:10) because he
shares “in flesh and blood . . . that through death he might . . . deliver all
those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery” (Heb
2:14–15). This accomplishment, again, achieved victory for humans, not
angels (Heb 2:16). It is the human Christ that will be crowned, with
“everything put in subjection under his feet” (Heb 2:8). This expression,
quoting Psalm 8, has linguistic parallels with Psalm 110:1 as quoted in
Hebrews 1:13.130 Compton argues that Hebrews 2:5–9 is indebted to
Psalm 110:1 in the former’s allusions to Christ’s coronation,
eschatological purview, and belief in the necessity of Jesus’ suffering to
achieve messianic rule.131 This subtext implies that it is in Christ’s
humanity that he is exalted at the Father’s right hand. Since Christ’s
humanity is necessarily spatial, to locate Christ’s humanity at the
Father’s right hand implies a spatial relationship between Christ’s bodily
location and the Father’s location.132
130 Compton, 60.

131 Compton, 73–75.
132 “9:24–25 presupposes that Christ entered the heavenly tabernacle in
order to offer himself there. If we add 10:12 to the sequence, we can say that
Jesus entered the heavenly tabernacle, offered himself to God, then sat down at
God’s right hand . . . There is nothing jarring or inconsistent in Hebrews saying
that Christ entered God’s heavenly dwelling, presented himself or his body to
God, and then sat down.” Jamieson, Jesus’s Death, 77.
126
Christ’s “Single Sacrificial Script” Implies a Spatial Relationship with the
Hebrews presents Christ’s Incarnation (2:14a), crucifixion (2:14b),
ascension (4:14),133 heavenly offering (1:3; 10:10),134 session (1:3, 13;
8:1; 10:12; 12:2), and second coming (9:27–28) as acts that involve
Jesus’ physical body. Curiously, theologians tend to acknowledge all of
these as bodily events except for his session. However, Hebrews
unabashedly presents Christ’s session as part of a sequence of Christ’s
physical body. As previously discussed, Jesus accomplished his heavenly
offering in his human body, and it is in that body that he sat down.
Several texts in Hebrews present tight connections between Jesus’ death,
resurrection, ascension, and session (e.g. Heb 1:3; 7:23–8:6). Unlike the
iterative animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant (Heb 10:1–9), “the offering
of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” is finished (Heb 10:10) and Jesus
now sit “down at the right hand of God” (10:12–13) because of his single
133 “The preexistent Son embraced the body prepared for him in order to
offer that body back to God in heaven after obeying, suffering, dying, and rising
again. Christ’s incarnation sets in motion a sequence that leads through
faithful endurance of suffering, to the cross, and then, through his appointment
as high priest at his arrival in heaven, into God’s innermost presence in the
heavenly Holy of Holies. And Christ’s incarnate obedience is integral to his
heavenly self-offering in that his offering consummates the lived commitment to
God that defines the new covenant, whose promises Christ’s offering brought to
fruition. Hence there is no tension between a focus on Jesus’ incarnation and
his bodily self-offering in heaven; the two themes are tightly bound together. . . .
Heb 10:5–14 treats Christ’s bodily self-offering in heaven as a goal of his
incarnation.” Jamieson, Jesus’s Death, 81–82.
134 “The Saviour’s entrance into heaven is pictured as an ascent. The
disciples see Jesus ascending until a cloud intercepts Him and hides Him from
their sight. The same local coloring is present to the mind of the writer of
Hebrews in 4:14.” Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of
Truth Trust, 1958; reprint, Bath: Bath Press, 1998), 350.
127
offering (Heb 10:14). Jesus “endured the cross, despising the shame, and
is seated at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb 12:2).
Nelson terms this tight sequence of events “a single sacrificial
script” which Hebrews uses to bind “Christ’s cross and exaltation”
together.135 These events are “successive stages in a ‘single sacrifice’
(10:12) and a ‘single offering’ (v. 14; cf. v. 10) made ‘once for all.’”136
Christ’s death “was the first phase of a complex priestly action that
continued in his ascension through the heavenly realms and entrance
with blood into the heavenly sanctuary. It concluded with a decisive act
of purification and being seated beside God’s throne, where Christ can
continually intercede for his followers.”137 The fact that the “script”
contains both Christ’s death and heavenly offering seems to indicate that
both should be considered physical events. If the one is an intrinsically
physical action, it makes sense to take the other as physical too. Thus,
Mackie concludes that Hebrew’s
author consistently portrays Jesus’ self-offering holistically, with

his suffering/death and exaltation always inseparably linked
within a ‘single sacrificial script,’ lend[ing] further support for a
literal understanding of the Heavenly Sanctuary. . . . As the place
where Jesus’ sacrifice is completed, the Heavenly Sanctuary must
be as ‘real’ for both author and audience as the cross where Jesus’
self-offering began.138
135 Richard D. Nelson, “‘He Offered Himself’: Sacrifice in Hebrews,”

Interpretation 57 (2003): 255.
136 Ibid., 255.
137 Ibid.
138 Scott D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, WUNT 2. Reihe 223 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2007), 158–59.
128
But this point does not just apply to the heavenly temple. Mason
takes Mackie’s logic a step further, arguing that due to the “prominent
use of Ps 110:1 in connection with Jesus’ priestly sacrifice demands that
any explanation of the conception of the heavenly sanctuary must also
take into account the nature of the divine throne. . . . The author moves
very comfortably in the book between discussions of Jesus in the
heavenly sanctuary and at the right hand of the enthroned God.”139 In
other words, Hebrew’s single sacrificial script implies that if the
sanctuary accommodates a human body, the throne does as well. The
gory physicality of the cross led to the glorious seat next to the Father’s
throne (Heb 12:2), indicating the spatial nature of Christ’s session and
his proximity to the Father.
For Hebrews, Christ’s death was “the primary event that triggers or
puts into motion the sequence of events that culminates in Jesus’
offering and elevation to throne at God’s right hand.”140 While Christ’s
crucifixion was the primary event (being first), Christ’s session is the
ultimate event.141 This fact is syntactically communicated in Hebrews
139 Eric F. Mason, “‘Sit at My Right Hand’: Enthronement and the

Heavenly Sanctuary in Hebrews,” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in
Honor of James C. VanderKam, vol. 2, eds. Eric F. Mason, Kelley Coblentz
Bautch, Angela Kim Harkins, and Daniel A. Machiela, JSJSup 153 (Leiden:
Brill, 2012), 909, 912.
140 Moffitt, 386.
141 “Christians were familiar with the notion of the Son’s session at God’s
right hand from creedal confessions and hymns. They would recognize
immediately that the reference was to Christ’s exaltation after his resurrection.
This may explain why there is so little direct appeal to the fact of Jesus’
resurrection in Hebrews (cf. 13:20). In v 3, and elsewhere, an allusion to the
position at God’s right hand apparently served as an inclusive reference to
129
1:3–4 where the three participial clauses of verse 3 depend on the verb
ἐκάθισεν, which “grammatically provides the main assertion of vv 3–4.”142
Hebrews uses Christ’s session as proof of his superiority to angels (Heb
1:3–4, 13), high priesthood (Heb 8:1), and once-for-all sacrifice (Heb
10:12), as well as motivation for Hebrews’ audience to pursue a like joy
through their trials (Heb 12:2). It makes sense to consider a physical
event to be the support for the physical events of Christ’s resurrection
and ascension.
The same “single sacrificial script” finds a home in the Pauline
corpus as well. Paul writes that God “did not spare his own Son but gave
him up” (Rom 8:32) and that “Christ Jesus is the one who died—more
than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed
is interceding for us” (Rom 8:34).143 While the words that Jesus “died,
“was raised,” and “is at the right hand of God” (Rom 8:34) bear
significant theological freight, Paul obviously intends the first two to have
a spatial meaning. As to the third, Orr argues that Romans 8:34 points
to Christ’s humanity when it speaks of Christ’s session.144 First, Paul
Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and continuing Exaltation.” William L. Lane,

Hebrews, WBC 47a, vol. 1 (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 16. Cf. Hay, 43–45, 90.
142 “This is particularly significant in the case of the preceding clause, for
it establishes that the act of purifying and sitting were temporally sequential
(‘after he had made purification for sins he sat down’). These two clauses
announce the major themes of the writer’s christology, i.e., sacrifice and
exaltation” (15). In addition to temporality, “The addition of ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, ‘on high’
. . . intensifies the spatial aspect of the image (cf. ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ‘in heaven,’ in
8:1).” Lane, Hebrews, 16.
143
Paul’s epanorthosis emphasizes the resurrection and the emphatic
καί emphasizes the session. See BDF §495.
130
emphasizes “the continuity of identity between” the Jesus “who died and
was raised,” implying continuity between the Jesus who was raised and
is seated.145 Second, while humanity is not essential to the act of
intercession (cf. Rom 8:26), “the fact that Christ is not described as ‘Son’
but as ‘Christ Jesus’ may suggest that his humanity is primarily in
view.”146 Third, the background of Isaiah 53 suggests that Paul “is
thinking of the exalted Christ in human terms analogous to the exalted
Servant. Christ, then, is pictured as a human being in an exalted
position at the right hand of God.”147
Conversely, Paul and his readers would have taken Romans 8:34
as a cataphatic geographical statement given that
“[i]n the period around and following Paul there seems to have been a fair
degree of speculation regarding heroes of the faith having been exalted to
a glorious throne in heaven—a speculation probably stimulated by the
plural “thrones” in Dan 7:9. . . . The striking feature of the earliest
Christian use of Ps 110:1 then is not the claim itself, but the fact that it
was made of one whose life was a very recent memory (rather than of a
hero from the dim mists of Israel’s ancient past).”148
Whether one thinks that Paul and his readers would have made
conscious connections to Merkabah mysticism, it seems much more
likely that these Judaic traditions informed their symbolic universe to a

146 Ibid.
147 Ibid.
148 James D. G. Dunn et al., Romans 1–8, WBC, vol. 38a (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2018), 504. “Adam (T. Abr. 11.4–18), Enoch (Sim.
Enoch = 1 Enoch 45.3; 51:.3; 55.4; 61.8; 69:27.27–29; 71.14), Melchizedek
(11QMelch), Job (T. Job 33.3), the Messiah (R. Akiba, according to b. Sanh.
38b)” (504) would all fit into this category.
131
greater degree than the philosophical concepts of Plato and Aristotle.
Jesus is a human person whom the apostles knew. They saw and
touched him (1 John 1:1–3). Even Paul saw Christ in heaven and makes
no distinction between his experience and that of his fellow disciples who
saw Jesus (1 Cor 15:8).149 Since the disciples knew Jesus personally,
when they thought of him their mental image of him would be more vivid
and visceral. As when modern Christians think of a departed loved one in
heaven, even if they believe that only the loved one’s soul is there (2 Cor
5:1–5), they will often envision their loved one in physical terms. This fact
in tandem with Paul’s sequencing of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and
session together in every instance where he envisions Jesus at God’s
right hand (Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20) gives credence to the idea that Paul’s
conception of Christ’s session was one of Jesus bodily sitting. He gives
no indication that one event should be considered spatial and the other
not. Paul even alludes to Christ’s session in the locus classicus for bodily
resurrection (1 Cor 15:25). Thus, Paul’s use of the “single sacrificial
script” also implies Christ is physically enthroned in heaven.
In Ephesians 1:20, Paul adds two crucial points that clarify his
conception.150 First, Paul places the session “in the heavenlies (ἐν τοῖς
ἐπουρανίοις).” This phrase is synonymous with “in the heavens (ἐν τοῖς
149 Note the four uses of ὤφθη from 1 Corinthians 15:5–8.

150 Contra Eskola, who argues that Christ’s enthronement is the same
event as Christ’s resurrection, Brannon argues that they are “separate events
and distinct phenomena” because resurrection within itself does not prove
Christ’s messianic rule. M. Jeff Brannon, The Heavenlies in Ephesians: A
Lexical, Exegetical, and Conceptual Analysis, Library of New Testament Studies
(London: T. & T. Clark, 2011), 121.
132
οὐρανοῖς)” (Heb 8:1) and informs the reader of “the location of Christ.”151
Second, this text clarifies that the person of the Trinity that the Son is
seated beside is not the Spirit or the Trinity in general, but the “his
αὐτοῦ” (Eph 1:20) refers to “the Father of glory” specifically (Eph 1:17).
Peter employs a similar sacrificial script in Acts 2. He declares that
“Jesus of Nazareth,” a miracle-worker, as Peter’s audience is aware, was
crucified by “lawless men” and raised by God (Acts 2:22–24). Peter cites
Psalm 16:8–11, where David prophesies that the Messiah will not rot in
the grave (Acts 2:25–28). David cannot be referring to himself because
David is rotting in a grave (Acts 2:29). Instead, David, having the promise
“that God swore to him with an oath to seat one from the fruit of his
loins (ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ) upon his throne” and the prescience of
a prophet, foretells the resurrection (Acts 2:30).152 Peter foregrounds the
physical aspect of this promise’s fulfillment by alluding to David’s
genitalia.153 This physical aspect is also stressed by early manuscripts
corruptions, such as Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis’s insertion of the
151 Brannon, 125. Due to the parallels with other New Testament texts
and the extrabiblical usage of ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, “commentators such as
Odeberg, McGough, and others who spiritualize the heavenlies are flawed in
their interpretation” (125).
152 Author’s translation. On the logic of Peter’s argument, see Darrell L.
Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 124.
153 ὅτι ὅρκῳ ὤµοσεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ καθίσαι ἐπὶ
τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. The NET translation notes comment, “‘Loins’ is the traditional
translation of ὀσφῦς (osphus), referring to the male genital organs. A literal
rendering like “one who came from his genital organs” would be regarded as too
specific and perhaps even vulgar by many contemporary readers. Most modern
translations thus render the phrase ‘one of his descendants.’” The New English
Translation Bible with Strong’s Numbers, 2nd ed.
133
phrase “according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ and (κατα
σαρκα αναστησαι τον χριστον και)” seat him at God’s right hand,
indicating that the early scribes do not seem troubled by a fleshly
session.154 Jesus’ “flesh,” unlike David’s, did not “see corruption” since
“this Jesus”155 was “raised up” so he could sit on the Davidic throne,
being “exalted at the right hand of God” (Acts 2:31–33),156 fulfilling—in
part or whole—the promise made to David (Ps 132:11–18; cf. 2 Sam
7:12–16; Ps 89:3–4, 35–37).157 For proof of Christ’s session, Peter points
to the fact that Jesus has “received from the Father the promise of the
Holy Spirit” and “poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and
hearing” (Acts 2:33). Peter then explicitly connects Christ’s ascension as
necessary to his session: “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but
Other mss insert a reference to Christ’s flesh: D1, Ψ, 33, 104, 614,
154
945, 1241, 1505, 2818, 𝔐, mae, syh, Origen. Though D* does opt for the more
appropriate (or perhaps spiritual) καρδιας (“heart”) over ὀσφύος (“waist/loins”).
155 Note the emphatic τοῦτον emphasizing that the same Jesus was
crucified and ascended. Cf. Bock, Acts, 129–30.
156 τῇ δεξιᾷ . . . τοῦ θεοῦ cannot be instrumental (“by the right hand”),
because taking it as such ignores “the conceptual backdrop of Ps. 110:1 in
verse 34, which is connected to the occurrence of this term here and points to
locale, not means. The expression also is an allusion to verse 30 and seating
one on a throne.” Bock, Acts, 132. The parallels with Acts 5:31 also indicate
that “the local sense of the dat. is preferable.” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of
the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New
York: Doubleday, 1998), 259. So BDF §199. Contra C. K. Barrett, The Acts of
the Apostles, ICC, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 149; F. F. Bruce, The
Book of Acts, revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 66.
157 The allusion to Psalm 132:11 in Acts 2:30, with ties to 2 Samuel 7,
clarifies that “Jesus’ sitting in heaven initially fulfills the Davidic promise that
one will sit on David’s throne.” Bock, Luke, 2:1797. Thus, “Peter’s point
throughout his speech is not about the future but about what is evident in the
present.” Bock, Acts, 129.
134
he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,”’” (Acts
2:34).158 Peter implies that David is not at the Father’s right hand
because he “did not ascend (ἀνέβη) into the heavens.”159 If the session
was a spiritual reality, then this argument would be baseless. It is
because Christ ascended in his body that he is able to sit at the right
hand of the Father.
Additionally, Peter, likely drawing from Psalm 68:18,160 underlines
the necessity of Christ’s bodily ascension for his outpouring of the
Spirit.161 Peter recognizes, as does John (John 16:7; cf. John 7:39; 14:16,
158 The quotation of Psalm 110:1 clarifies that “the theodramatic setting
for these words” is the “occasion of the Son’s ascension and enthronement . . .
when he was installed as heavenly Lord. This theodramatic event has already
found an actualized setting in the heavenly realm for Peter so that it is in his
immediate past tense (cf. Acts I: 9), as has been proven by the outpouring of the
Spirit at Pentecost.” Bates, 161. Italics in original.
159 The “vast majority” of instances of ἀναβαίνω are literal. Stanley E.
Porter, “The Unity of Luke-Acts and the Ascension Narratives,” in Ascent into
Heaven in Luke-Acts: New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge, eds. David K.
Bryan and David W. Pao (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 122. “That locale is a
major topic is clear from the way the passage is introduced. . . . Luke records
the affirmation by an explanatory use of γάρ (gar)—’for’ it was not David who
ascended into heaven. . . . Like the point made about David’s being buried, this
detail says that David cannot be the ultimate referent for the psalm’s language.”
Bock, Acts, 134. The οὐ “suggests that the meaning is not simply, David did not
ascend, but, It [sic] was not David who ascended. . . . If it was not David who
ascended some other must be found who did so.” Barrett, Acts of the Apostles,
150. Like the argument “based on Ps. 16:10,” Peter demonstrates that the
“invitation to sit at God’s right hand was not addressed to David: David did not
ascend personally to heaven to share the throne of God.” Bruce, 67. Rather the
invitation “found its fulfillment in Jesus. He has been exalted not only by God’s
right hand (as has been stated in v. 33) but to take his place at God’s right
hand, the position of supremacy over the universe” (67). Thus, the session
vindicates Jesus’ words (Luke 22:69).
160 Zwiep, “An Inquiry,” 187; John B. Pohill, Acts, NAB, vol. 26
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 115.
161 “As important as the resurrection is to show that Jesus is alive and
vindicated, it is even more significant as an indication of where Jesus went (to
135
26), that Christ needed to “go away” to “send” the Spirit “from the Father”
(John 15:26). As previously discussed, this departure must refer to a
bodily absence. Christ’s new location is where he is “exalted at the right
hand of God” (Acts 2:33), and it is from there that he pours out the
Spirit.162 This Trinitarian verse places God the Father proximate to
Christ’s resurrected flesh.
Similarly, Peter later tells the council and high priest that the
disciples’ ultimate obedience is to Jesus because God “raised Jesus”
whom they “killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right
hand as Leader and Savior . . . and we are witnesses to these things, and
so is the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:31–32). The emphatic demonstrative
pronoun (τοῦτον) emphasizes that “this crucified” Jesus “was the one
whom God had exalted to sit at his right hand.”163 After being crucified
as a sinner and criminal Jesus is raised as Leader and Savior.164 As in
Acts 2, Peter notes that the apostles witnessed of the crucifixion,
God’s right hand, to God’s presence) and what he does from there (giving the
gift of the Spirit).” Bock, Acts, 133. Cf. Bruce, 66.
162 The pouring out the Spirit is an act of the “enthroned Davidic king.”
Joshua W. Jipp, “‘For David Did Not Ascend into Heaven...’ (Acts 2:34a):
Reprogramming Royal Psalms to Proclaim the Enthroned-in-Heaven King,” in
Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts: New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge,
eds. David K. Bryan and David W. Pao (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 55.
163 I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC,
vol. 5 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1980), 126.
164 This language tightly links Christ’s exaltation and his newly bestowed
titles. This does not mean the exaltation is symbolic or has no basis in history.
Paul states that Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God . . . by his
resurrection from the dead” (Rom 1:4). The title was declared by the physical
action of resurrection.
136
resurrection, and session as evidenced by the Spirit. Peter’s first epistle
employs a similar single sacrificial script when he speaks of Jesus’
suffering and “death in the flesh,” his resurrection, his entrance “into
heaven,” and his current status “at the right hand of God” (1 Pet 3:18–
21). The smoothness of this catalogue implies Christ’s session is bodily
and that he is proximate to the right hand of God.
The synoptic Gospels record Jesus using a similar single sacrificial
script. At his trial, Jesus tells the council that the “Son of Man” will
soon165 be “seated at the right hand of” God (Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62;
Luke 22:69).166 This is a crucial claim, as it is the tipping point that
sends Christ to the cross (Matt 26:65; Mark 14:63–64; Luke 22:70–71).
165 The phrase απ’ αρτι may indicate an imminent fulfillment of the
session, but not the “coming.” This does not refer to “the imminent seeing but
to the imminent sitting of the Son of Man at God’s right hand, which will take
place in the immediate future in the resurrection of Jesus.” Donald A. Hagner,
Matthew 14–28, 800. So Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC, vol. 22 (Nashville:
Broadman, 1992), 403. Another possibility is that the phrase is actually meant
to be a single word meaning “assuredly.” Davies and Allison, 531. It could also
signal a turning point with “roots of the change in what was to happen
immediately,” but “the complete fulfillment . . . belongs to the future.” Morris,
684. Cf. Osborne, 178–79. It could also indicate a change in the mode of the
Sanhedrin’s seeing—they will now “not see him as he now stands before them
but only in his capacity as undisputed King Messiah and sovereign Judge.”
Carson, “Matthew,” 621. So C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint
Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, CGTC (Cambridge: Cambridge
166 Matthew and Mark replace “God” with “power” (δυνάµεως). Some
consider this submission a “kind of reverent periphrasis” intended “to avoid
pronouncing the divine name” which would “be readily recognized by his
hearers as meaning God.” Morris, 685. So Hagner, Matthew 14–28, 801;
Osborne, 998. However, “Jesus has hitherto shown no diffidence about using
God’s name, in public as well as in private.” Perhaps the submission is
designed to make “the high priest’s charge of ‘blasphemy’ less easy to
establish.” France, Gospel of Matthew, 1028. Cf. William L. Lane, The Gospel
According to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 537.
137
Phrases such as “seated at the right hand,” “Son of Man,” and
“coming on/with the clouds” (Matt 26:64/Mark 14:62) pull together
concepts from Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:13. Together, they locate Christ’s
enthronement in a divine council setting; as Marshall notes, “The
reference to the Son of man can be seen as an allusion to the heavenly
court.”167 Christ indicates that he will soon be vindicated by going to a
heavenly realm, and it is from there he will return in judgment.168
Christ’s words implies a local transfer, one that the disciples would later
interpret as happening at his ascension.169 Since the New Testament
authors understood Jesus words about his coming with the clouds to
indicate a spatial transition, they would go back and read the ascension
that they witnessed into the details of Daniel 7:9–14 (frankly, it is
difficult to image them not doing this), making them conclude that the
physical, bodily ascension led to a bodily session at the Father’s right
167 I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek

Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 850. William L. Lane, Mark, 537.
168 “Luke is particularly interested in the royal enthronement of Jesus in
heaven (cf. 9:51; 19:12; 24:26; Acts 1:11; 2:30, 33–36; 3:20). This will be the
vindication of Jesus’ messianic identity that counts (cf. Acts 2:23–24; 3:13–15).”
John Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, WBC, vol. 35c (Dallas: Word Books, 1993),
1110. “Jesus claims a ‘heavenly’ status in 22:69 . . . and promises the thief on
the cross a place in Paradise (23:43).” David K. Bryan, “A Revised Cosmic
Hierarchy Revealed,” in Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts: New Explorations of
Luke’s Narrative Hinge, eds. David K. Bryan and David W. Pao (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2016), 78.
169 As the story unfolds, “it becomes clear that the allusion to being
seated at God’s side is fulfilled in the resurrection-ascension. Peter’s speech in
Acts 2:30–36 completes this development by using Ps. 110 to show that the
ascension to God’s right hand has led to Jesus’ functioning as a mediatorial
vice-regent at God’s side. Jesus has received and bestows salvific blessing;
namely, he distributes the Spirit.” Bock, Luke, 2:1796–97.
138
hand until his bodily return (Acts 1:11). Thus, Cyril interprets Christ’s
words as the following: “[I]mmediately after I clothe Myself in honor; I
ascend to glory which I had from the beginning: I am made even in the
flesh the partner of God the Father on His throne, and possess
sovereignty over all, even though I have taken upon Me your likeness.”170
These texts move comfortably from crucifixion to ascension to
session to coming in contexts which highlight Christ’s body. Is the
session a zeugma in the catalog? Far more likely, the New Testament
authors believed that Christ was in session in the physical body that
they had seen and handled (1 John 1:1–3). They freely describe Christ’s
location as in spatial relationship to the Father. One’s theology may
conceive of Christ’s session as purely symbolic. The biblical authors do
not.171
Visions of Christ’s Session Imply He is Spatially Related to the Father’s

Manifestation
Luke records that Stephen “gazed into heaven and saw the glory of
God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, ‘Behold,
I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand
170
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, trans. R.
Payne Smith (Astoria, NY: Studion, 1983), 596–97.
171 Though likely not Markan, Mark’s longer ending portrays the session
with strong continuity as Christ speaks with his disciples and then is “taken up
into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19). For a
summary of arguments surrounding the textual criticism of Mark’s longer
ending, see Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC, vol. 34b (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 2001), 549.
139
of God’” (Acts 7:55).172 The “Son of Man,” an unusual title when not
found on the lips of Jesus, may, as the Venerable Bede notes, be used
instead of “Son of God” to emphasize that “the same God who was
crucified appears crowned in heaven.”173 Stephen, like his Lord, was
executed for declaring the identity of the Son of Man. Bock states that
Stephen was stoned “because, in the view of these Jews, no one has the
right to be at the side of God’s heavenly presence.”174 If defiling this
standard is what incurred the Jews’ wrath, then it seems that they
considered Stephen’s claim one concerning the human Jesus. Likely, the
Son of Man language alludes back to Daniel 7, which also presents a
similar vision of a Son of Man at God’s right hand. Stephen saw Jesus in
spatial relationship to God, even if one agrees with Marshall that the
reference to “glory of God” may imply a “glory that hides God from
view.”175 Luke underlines Stephen’s vision “by repeating it in direct
discourse” because Luke sees it as a crucial confirmation that “Jesus is
172 For a good summary of views on why Christ is standing, see Barrett,
The Acts of the Apostles, 384–385. While various nuances may be present,
Bruce is likely correct to say that that Christ is “rising up from the throne of
God to greet his proto-martyr.” Bruce, 156.
173 “Deus homo crucifixus apparet coronatus in caelo.” Bede, The Complete
Works of Venerable Bede: In the Original Latin, vol. 12, trans. J. A. Giles
(London: Whittaker and Co., 1844), 37. Cf. C. K. Barrett, Acts of the Apostles,
385. Author’s translation.
174 Acts, 312.
175 I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC,
vol. 5 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1980), 157. The reference to glory also
seems to form an inclusio with the beginning of Stephen’s speech when he
speaks of Abraham seeing the “God of glory,” the point being that Stephen saw
the same glorious God that Abraham did.
140
indeed now risen and exalted to his position of authority at God’s right
hand. The vision confirm[s] Stephen’s testimony.”176 But if this vision
was merely inside Stephen’s head, how can it confirm anything? If
Stephen was granted a symbolic, pictorial description of Christ’s exalted
state, it could prove either that Stephen was a prophet or that he was
insane. Conversely, if Stephen actually “gazed into heaven and saw . . .
Jesus standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55), as Luke records it,
his sight of the same Jesus that died, rose, and ascended is proof that
his sermon was accurate.
The early Christians who heard Stephen’s words walked, talked,
and ate with the human named Jesus for several years. Days before
Stephen’s martyrdom, Jesus’ disciples watched him levitate into the sky.
At his death, Stephen used his last breath to say that he saw “the Son of
man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55). Is it likely that Luke
thought God was projecting onto Stephen’s retinas a mere metaphor for
Jesus’ exalted status? Far more likely, the early Christians understood
Stephen to be receiving an actual vision of the physical, bodily man they
saw die, rise, and ascend. They thought Stephen’s “eyes were opened to
see a spiritual dimension of reality,” a place that “really does exist in our
space/time universe, and within which Jesus now lives in his physical
resurrection body.”177 The natural implication of what Stephen saw
would have also included Jesus’ spatial relation to God the Father.
176 Pohill, 207.

177 Grudem, 1159–60.
141
In John’s vision, he ascended through a door in heaven to the
heavenly throne room (Rev 4:1–2) where he was spatial proximate to the
twenty-four elders, the four living creatures, the one sitting on the
throne, the scroll to the right of the throne, and the Lamb standing
among the elders. How to interpret this text is debated, but it is
noteworthy that within John’s conceptual framework he could present
the Lamb—who is clearly symbolizing a spatial, embodied Jesus—in
proximity to God the Father, surrounded by creatures that also represent
spatial creatures.
Jesus’ Human Enthronement is Spatially Related to the Father

In his human body, Jesus was crucified, raised from the dead, and
taken up into heaven to offer himself in the heavenly temple and sit
down at the right hand of God the Father. What location, if any, do the
New Testament authors indicate by saying that Jesus is at the Father’s
right hand? As discussed in chapter 2, Orr, citing Norman, thinks that
the location of Christ’s session should be understood as nowhere:
The location of Christ at the right hand of God should not be understood
in cosmic categories that need to be demythologized. Nevertheless, in
describing Christ in his humanity with God [in Romans 8:34], Paul is
operating in spatial and locational terms. The risen, exalted, human
Christ is not here; he is with God – beyond the realm of this universe. He
is not making a point about the geographical location of Christ but about
his bodily absence.178
Oddly, whereas the Nicene creed affirms that the “Lord Jesus
Christ . . . ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the
178 Orr, Exalted, 131. Italics in original.

142
Father”179 and “credal assertions are meant to be positive statements
intelligibly correlated with the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ,”180
Norman (and apparently, Orr) believe this “classical doctrine is therefore
essentially a negative doctrine. The affirmation that Christ is ‘beyond the
ultimate sphere’ means precisely that we know nothing about how he is
there, and must instead confess our intellectual poverty.”181
Unlike Orr and Norman’s apophatic conclusions, the New
Testament authors’ cataphatic statements indicate that Jesus possesses
a spatial body which is at the “right hand of the God” (Rom 8:34).182 How
else can Paul’s statement that God “raised him from the dead and seated
him at his right hand in the heavenly places” be understood except as
cosmological (Eph 1:20)? How can Paul’s theology of Christ’s “bodily
absence” not make, in Orr’s words, “a point about the geographical
location of Christ” and his spatial body?183 Even Orr himself makes a
point about Christ’s location via negativa.
179 As quoted by Epiphanius of Salamis c. 374 A.D. Andrew E. Burn, The

Nicene Creed (New York: Edwin S. Gorham, 1909), 2–3.
180 F. Torrance, Space, Time and Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1969), 1.
181Norman, 8–9. Similarly, Cyril argued that the statement was
incompressible. Cat., 14.27. See Andrew E. Burn, The Nicene Creed (New York:
Edwin S. Gorham, 1909), 74.
182 Cf. Matt 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 1:32–33;
20:42; 22:69; Acts 2:34–35; 1 Cor 15:25; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3,
13; 8:1; 10:12,13; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22.
183 Orr, Exalted, 131. Italics in original.
143
Likely, the authors of the New Testament thought of Christ in his
body at the right hand of God the Father. The men who had witnessed
Jesus’ bloody death, physical resurrection, and spatial ascension speak
of Christ’s session as though it were also an embodied event. While
Christ’s place at the Father’s right hand bears great symbolic
connotations, the New Testament authors do not give any linguistic
indications that the Father’s right hand should be understood purely
symbolically. Rather, like the kings of the disciples’ cultural context,
Christ’s sessio ad dextram is both symbolic and ontic.
Such a view is expressed by Paul J. Griffiths, when he states that
an affirmation “required of Christians” is that Jesus’ “ascended flesh is at
the right hand of the Father, which is a frequent scriptural and creedal
affirmation.”184 Simply put, taking the apostles to believe that the Father
possesses a spatial heavenly manifestation is to take them, not to
mention the writers of the Apostle’s and Nicene creed, at their word.
Objections to the Son’s Post-Ascension Spatial Relationship with the

One may object that Christ’s session cannot be a physical reality

because Paul writes that the Father “raised [the saints] up with him and
seated [them] with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph 2:6).
How can Christ’s session be in his body if the saints are seated there
with him? The answer is found in Paul’s theology of union with Christ.
184 Paul J. Griffiths, Christian Flesh (Stanford: Stanford University Press,

2018), 49.
144
Thomas G. Allen notes the significant parallel between Ephesians 1:20
and 2:6:
Chart 3185
Eph 1:20 Eph 2:6

ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ συνήγειρεν
καὶ καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ καὶ συνεκάθισεν
ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις
ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
“[he] raised him from the dead “and raised us up with him
and seated him at his right hand and seated us with him
in the heavenlies” in the heavenlies
in Christ Jesus”
In this parallel the “solidarity between Christ and believers is

stressed by the use of συν-compounds,” fitting within Paul’s larger
theology of union with Christ.186 Just as the saints were once dead in sin
and resurrected to new life in Christ (Eph 2:5), they have also ascended
and been seated with him (Eph 2:6). The saints’ union with Christ
empowers them to participate in his physical acts of resurrection and
ascension. The saints are even dead and buried with Christ (Rom 6:2–4).
Certainly we do not infer from this connection that Jesus’s death and
burial must not be embodied acts. Whereas one might think that
Ephesians 2:6 would indicate that Christ’s session is not a physical
reality, the fact that Paul bases the saints’ death, resurrection, and
185 This chart is adapted from that of Thomas G. Allen, “Exaltation and
Solidarity with Christ: Ephesians 1:20 and 2:6,” Journal for the Study of the
New Testament 9, no. 28 (1986): 104. Author’s translation.
186 Allen, 105.
145
ascension on Christ’s embodied acts implies that Paul intends Christ’s
session to be taken in the same way. In effect, the text that casts doubt
on Christ’s physical session at first blush actually undergirds that very
session.
Another objection is that of Didymus Alexandrinus, who thought
that a physical session was shown to be “impossible . . . when it is
remembered that the Father is also said to be at the right hand of the
Son” in Acts 2:25 (citing Ps 16).187 However, the immediate context of
verses 5–8 indicate that David’s words ought to be taken metaphorically.
David, prophesying of Jesus as Peter demonstrates, says that the Lord is
his “portion” and “cup” (Ps 16:5), the Lord is “always before” him, and the
Lord is at his “right hand” so that he “shall not be shaken” (Ps 16:8).
Obviously, David does not intend “right hand” to be taken any more
literally than “portion” or “cup.” In his sermon, Peter makes no claims
that verse 8 is not metaphorical. Rather, Peter thinks that Christ’s
resurrection was evidence that the Lord was indeed “at [Jesus’] right
hand” (Acts 2:25–32). However, surprisingly, Peter demonstrates that
verses 9–10 are not as metaphorical as would first appear. As discussed

above, Peter thinks Psalm 16:9–10 applies to Christ, not David, because
David is rotting in the grave. Likewise, Peter thinks that Psalm 110:1
applies to Christ, not David, because David did not ascend into heaven.
Thus, Peter demonstrates that he interprets these references to the right
hand differently, putting one (Acts 2:26b–28) in the context of Christ’s
187 Cited in Tait, 217.

146
hope in the grave and the other (Acts 234b–35) as a consequence of
Christ’s ascension. A dissimilar interpretation of the terms is most
consistent with Peter’s interpretation.
Conclusion: Christ’s Bodily Spatiality Necessitates the

Father’s Heavenly Manifestation’s Spatiality
Following the same logic of the previous sections, the following has
been demonstrated:
Premise 1: Christ’s body is spatial.
Premise 2: The Father’s Manifestation is spatially proximate to Christ’s
body.
God the Father’s Manifestation is Spatially Proximate to Humans

This section will argue that the Father’s manifestation is spatially
proximate to humans. That the New Testament authors believed this to
be the case will be demonstrated by (1) their conceptual framework for
prophetic presence in the divine council, (2) their view of disembodied
humans in the Lord’s presence, and (3) their eschatological hope of being
in the Father’s presence.
The Prophetic Presence in the Divine Council Implies

the Spatiality of the Father’s Manifestation
A previously discussed, Paul could not tell if he was “caught up to
the third heaven” in or out of his body (2 Cor 12:2–3), implying that Paul
conceived of a bodily ascent to heaven as a conceptual possibility. This
may be rooted in the view of how prophets might function in the divine
147
council. The prophet’s entrance into the divine council is present in four
of the seven divine council scenes previously discussed (see Chart 1). In
the divine council, the prophets can see and hear.188 They even speak
and are heard by the council (Isa 6:5, 8, 11; Zech 3:5; Rev 5:4–5) or
physically interact with the council (Isa 6:6–7; Rev 4:1). Due to these
texts’ visionary nature, they are not decisive proof of humans being
spatially proximate to the Father’s heavenly manifestation. At times, the
prophet is not present in any spatial way, such as in Daniel’s prophetic
vision in a dream (Dan 7:1). At other times, the text gives no information
about the circumstances of the vision’s reception (Job 1–2; Ps 82).
Hence, these texts present not historical proof but conceptual categories
that would influence the New Testament authors’ understanding of other
texts.
Disembodied Humans’ Spatiality Implies the Spatiality

One such text is Paul’s explication of what is called the “inter-
mediate state,” the period between a saint’s death and resurrection.189
During this time, Paul describes persons as being “away from the body
and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). This implies a spatial absence
from the physical body, but a spatial presence wherever the Lord is. The
word “away (ἐκδηµέω),” a term used more frequently for geographical
188
Sight: 1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chr 22:18; Isa 6:1, 8; Zech 3:1; Rev 4:2.
Hearing: 1 Kgs 20–22; 2 Chr 19–21; Isa 6:3; Zech 3:2; Rev 4:8.
189
See John Gavin, “On the Intermediate State of the Soul,” Nova et
Vetera 15, no. 3 (2017): 925–39.
148
displacement,190 should be understood in a spatial sense as meaning
that the person is away from a physical object (the body). Paul contrasts
staying in the body with being with the Lord as walking “by faith, not by
sight,” heightening the spatial aspect (2 Cor 5:7). Paul exhorts the
Corinthians to please God since they “must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ” (2 Cor 5:10). This text foreshadows a spatial
presence to both being “with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8) and being before
Christ’s judgment seat (2 Cor 5:10), implying that the disembodied spirit
possesses a spatial relationship to the Father’s manifestation similar to
that which Christ possesses.
Resurrected Embodied Human Spatiality Necessitates the Spatiality

These texts adumbrate a spatial relationship with the Father’s
manifestation, but Revelation 21 brings such shadows into broad
daylight. When the new Jerusalem comes “down out of heaven from God”
a voice “from the throne” announces that the “dwelling place of God is
with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God
himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from
their eyes” (Rev 21:2–4). In this text, the terms “God” and “man” are not
symbols for other realities. They are representations of literal God and
literal man. The picture of God’s coming to dwell with man as a new
reality (Rev 21:1) indicates that the previous distance between God and
man has been overcome. To take this distance as merely a spiritual
190 BDAG, 300.

149
distance does not comport with the believer’s current spiritual proximity
to Christ and God (1 John 1:3). Rather, given Christ’s bodily absence, the
spatial distance between God and man will be overcome when the earthly
and heavenly realm converge into a cosmic unity, as emphasized by the
tender image of God wiping away the tears from his children’s eyes (Rev
21:4). This spatial proximity makes sense of John’s later words that “the
throne of God and of the Lamb will be in [the New Jerusalem], and his
servants will worship him” (Rev 22:3). The Father and Christ as distinct
persons are described as being with the servants of God in the same
location, one in which the servants of God “will see his face, and his
name will be on their foreheads” (Rev 22:4). Whether it is the Son or the
Father’s face, this text places God’s servants in a position to see the face
of God and simultaneously places the Son and the Father in spatial
proximity. Seeing the face of God echoes Old Testament instances of
humans physically seeing manifestations of God’s face (Gen 32:30; Jg
6:22; 13:22). The most notable among these is Job, who says that it will
be in his “flesh” that he “shall see God” (Job 19:26). This text indicates,
along with reinforcing the Son’s spatial proximity to the Father, that
John conceived of a day when the saints would be spatially proximate,
not just to Christ, but to the Father.
Objections to the Spatial Relationship of the Father’s Heavenly

Manifestation to Humans
Some may object that Revelation 21–22 is symbolic, and concerns
spiritual truths, not spatial relations. But whatever one’s hermeneutic of
Revelation 21–22 is, the main point of John’s words is that God and
150
Christ will dwell with man. If a figurative interpretation is assumed, the
question, “What do these metaphors refer to?” requires an answer. In
Revelation 21–22, the Lamb would be a symbol for Christ, God would be
a symbol for the Father, and the “man” and “people” would symbolize
mankind (Rev 21:3). In other words, the connection between the symbol
and the reality is a close one. If one assumes a symbolic understanding
of Revelation, given the narrative and discursive indications of the
Father’s spatial manifestation, interpreting the symbols as indicating the
spatiality of their referents seems judicious.191
Conclusion: Human Spatiality Necessitates Father’s Heavenly

Manifestation’s Spatiality
This section has argued the following:
Premise 1: Humans are spatial.
Premise 2: The Father’s Manifestation is spatially proximate to humans
191 For an interpretation of Revelation that does not presuppose its

contents are entirely symbolic, see Brian R. Hand, The Climax of Biblical
Prophecy: A Guide to Interpreting Revelation (Greenville, SC: BJU, 2012).
Conclusion
Angelic, Christological, and human spatial proximity to the Father

necessitates that he manifests himself spatially. From the relational view
of space, the Father’s proximity to spatial entities necessitates the
spatiality of his manifestation. From the receptacle view of space, an
entity cannot be spatially related to anything unless it resides in a spatial
receptacle. If the Father is spatially related to spatial entities, his
manifestation must be within a spatial receptacle. Since the Father’s
manifestation is spatially related to other entities, his manifestation can

rightly be called spatial.
To disprove the Father’s spatial manifestation, one must
demonstrate either that (1) angels, Christ’s body, and humans are not
spatial or that (2) none of these entities is in spatial relationship with the
Father. Chapter 1 argued that angels, Christ’s body, and humans are
spatially in heaven. This chapter has argued that the Father is truly in
heaven, being spatially related to all of these entities.
The Father’s spatial heavenly manifestation has profound
implications for several areas of theology. First, this study brings a
biblical view of cosmology into more robust detail. That both Christ and
the Father have spatial manifestations, one incarnate and the other not,
means that the unseen world may resemble the visible more than once
was thought. If the Father and Son are seated on heavenly furniture in a
heavenly sanctuary, what might heavenly topography be like? The
Scripture gives us hints of its flora, fauna, and ecosystem. Placing the
Father’s spatial manifestation in such a space means the spiritual world
151
152
is more spatial, and perhaps physical, than is often supposed. Such a
view comports with Meredith Kline’s view that heaven and earth are
inter-permeating dimensions.1 It also comports with Paul, who saw no
conflict in sticking the words “spiritual” and “body” together (1 Cor
15:44).
Second, that the Father manifests himself spatially to his angels in
heaven means that God is profoundly involved in the space of the
universe. While the Incarnation is an unparalleled manifestation of God,
God’s interaction in the cosmos from day to day is the opposite of deistic.
God rules the universe while being enthroned within it.
Third, this expands the category of theophany. The Father’s spatial
manifestation is primarily a manifestation for angels, at least at this
point in history. God’s manifestations are primarily revelatory acts. God
manifests himself for the sake of his creatures. It is an act of
communication. The Son and the Father proclaim their identity by their
enthroned manifestations.
This study presents several avenues for further research. First,
while the spatiality of the Father’s manifestation has been established,

other aspects of the manifestation have yet to be explored. Is the
manifestation temporal? Has the Father always manifested himself in
heaven? What form is he in? And of what substance is that form
composed? Answering these questions to the extent that Scripture will
allow will bring greater clarity to the subject. Second, the manifestations
1Meredith G. Kline, God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of

Cosmos and Telos (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006).
153
of the other persons of the Trinity need further exploration. Studies such
as a biblical theology of the manifestations of the Spirit or a study of how
the pre-incarnate manifestations of Christ shape the Son’s story arch
would be beneficial. A particularly fruitful study may be explaining
Jesus’ language that he has “come” to earth. This may have implications
for his pre-incarnate manifestation.
The main aim of this study has been simply to explore what it
means to say that the Father is in heaven. While erudite scholars will
rightly reflect on the transcendence and majesty implied by these words,
the instincts of many humble saints are correct: To say that the Father is
in heaven is to say that he is in a genuine place—not a metaphorical or
allegorical place, but a spatial location within the created cosmos. There
he manifests himself, seated in glory at the left hand of the Son,
surrounded by myriads of angels, awaiting the day that heaven and earth
will be consummated.
154
Selected Bibliography
Ackerman, James S. “The Rabbinic Interpretation of Psalm 82 and the
Gospel of John.” The Harvard Theological Review 59, no. 2 (April
1966): 186–191.
Albright, W. F., and Christopher Stephen Mann. Matthew. AB, vol. 26.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971.
———. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: An Historical Analysis of Two
Conflicting Faiths. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968.
Alcorn, Randy. Heaven. Carol Stream: Tyndale, 2004.
Alexander, Samuel. Space, Time, and Deity. 2 vols. London: MacMillan &
Co., 1920.
Allen, Thomas G. “Exaltation and Solidarity with Christ: Ephesians 1:20
and 2:6.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 9, no. 28
(1986): 103–20.
Alter, Robert. “How Convention Helps Us Read: The Case of the Bible’s
Annunciation Type-Scene.” Prooftexts 3, no. 2 (1983): 115–30.
Anderson, Charles. “Lukan Cosmology and the Ascension.” In Ascent into
Heaven in Luke-Acts: New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge,
eds. David K. Bryan and David W. Pao, 175–212. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2016.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica: First Complete American Edition in
Three Volumes. Vol. 1. Translated by Fathers of the English
Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947.
Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC, vol.
23. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1978.
Bandy, Alan S. “The Prophetic Lawsuit in the Book of Revelation: An

Analysis of the Lawsuit Motif in Revelation with Reference to the
Use of the Old Testament.” Ph.D. dissertation, Southeastern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007.
Barrett, C. K. On Paul: Aspects of His Life, Work and Influence in the Early
Church. London: T. & T. Clark, 2003.
———. The Acts of the Apostles. ICC. 2 vols. Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T.
Clark, 1994–1998.
Barth, Karl. Dogmatics in Outline. Translated by G. T. Thomas. New York:
Harper & Row, 1959.
155
Bates, Matthew W. The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New
Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Revised and edited by
Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Beckman, John C. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. 3rd ed. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 2007.
Bede, The Complete Works of Venerable Bede: In the Original Latin. Vol.
12. Translated by J. A. Giles. London: Whittaker and Co., 1844.
Beeke, Joel R., and Sinclair B. Ferguson, eds. Reformed Confessions
Harmonized. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust,
1958; reprint, Bath: Bath Press, 1998.
Berry, Ronald. “Death and Life in Christ: The Meaning of 2 Corinthians
5.1–10.” Scottish Journal of Theology 14, no. 1 (March 1961): 60–
76.
Black, Matthew. “Throne-Theophany Prophetic Commission and the ‘Son
of Man’: A Study in Tradition-History.” In Jews, Greeks and
Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honor of
William David Davies. Leiden: Brill, 1976.
Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert
W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Bloesch, Donald. God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love.
Chicago: InterVarsity, 1995.
Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. NAC, vol. 22. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
———. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2007.
Bock, Darrell L. Acts. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
———. Luke. BECNT, 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.
Boring, M. Eugene. “Matthew,” in NIB, vol. 8. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.
Bornkamm, Günther. The Risen Lord and the Earthly Jesus: Matt 28.16–
20. In The Future of Our Religious Past, ed. James M. Robinson.
Translated by Charles E. Carlston and Robert P. Scharlemann.
New York: Harper & Row, 1971.
156
Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds.
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Translated by
David E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Boyer, Mark G. Divine Presence: Elements of Biblical Theophanies.
Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2017.
Brannon, M. Jeff. The Heavenlies in Ephesians: A Lexical, Exegetical, and
Conceptual Analysis. Library of New Testament Studies. London: T.
& T. Clark, 2011.
Brooks, James A. Mark. NAC, vol. 23. Nashville: Broadman, 1991.
Brown, Jeannine K., and Kyle Roberts, Matthew. Two Horizons New
Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.
Bruce, F. F. The Book of Acts. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1988.
Bryan, David K., and David W. Pao, eds. Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts:
New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge. Minneapolis: Fortress,
2016.
———. “A Revised Cosmic Hierarchy Revealed.” In Ascent into Heaven in
Luke-Acts: New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge, eds. David
K. Bryan and David W. Pao, 61–82. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016.
Buckwalter, H. Douglas. The Character and Purpose of Luke’s
Christology. SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996.
Bucur, Bogdan G. “Condescension, Anticipation, Reciprocal Ecstasies:
Theological Reflections on Early Christian Readings of Isaiah 6 and
Daniel 3.” Scottish Journal of Theology 71, no. 4 (2018): 425–40.
Burn, Andrew E. The Nicene Creed. New York: Edwin S. Gorham, 1909.
Calvin, John. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians & Colossians. Translated
by T. H. L. Parker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
———. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge.
Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845.
Cameron, Ross P. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Properties.” In The Routledge
Companion to Metaphysics, eds. Robin Le Poidevin, Peter Simons,
Andrew McGonigal, and Ross P. Cameron. New York: Routledge,
2009.
Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
157
Carson, D. A. “Matthew,” in Matthew & Mark, Expositor’s Bible
Commentary: Revised Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
———. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas
Seminary Press, 1947.
Chambers, Arthur. Man and the Spiritual World: As Disclosed by the
Bible. Philadelphia: George W. Jacobs, 1900.
Chrysostom, John. On the Incomprehensible Nature of God. Translated by
Paul W. Harkins. Fathers of the Church. Washington, D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press, 1984.
Collins, John J. “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism.” New
Testament Studies 38, no. 3 (1992): 448–66.
Colyer, Elmer M. How to Read T. F. Torrance: Understanding His
Trinitarian & Scientific Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
2001.
Compton, Jared M. “Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews.” Ph.D.
dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2013.
Conzelmann, Hans. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament.
London: SCM, 1969.
Cooke, Gerald. “The Sons of (the) God(s).” ZAW 76. No. 1 (1964): 22–47.
Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to
the Romans. London: T. & T. Clark, 1975.
———. The Gospel According to Saint Mark: An Introduction and
Commentary. CGTC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1959.
Cross, Frank M. “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah.” Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 12, no. 4 (1953): 274–77.
Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke. Translated
by R. Payne Smith. Astoria, NY: Studion, 1983.
Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint
Matthew. ICC. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988.
Davis, R. Dean. “The Heavenly Court Scene of Revelation 4–5.” Ph.D.
dissertation, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1986.
158
Davis, Stephen T. “The Meaning of the Ascension for Christian Scholars.”
Perspectives 22, no. 4 (2007), 13–19.
Dawson, Gerrit Scott. Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s
Continuing Incarnation. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004.
Dickason, C. Fred. Angels: Elect & Evil. Chicago: Moody, 1975.
Draper, Jonathan A. “What Did Isaiah See?: Angelic Theophany in the
Tomb in John 20:11–18.” Neotestamentica 36, no. 1–2 (2002): 63–
76.
Duby, Steven J. Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account. London:
Bloomsbury, 2015.
Dunn, James D. G., Bruce M. Metzger, David Allen Hubbard, Glenn W.
Barker, John D. W. Watts, James W. Watts, Ralph P. Martin, and
Lynn Allan Losie. Romans 1–8. WBC, vol. 38a. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2018.
Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Mark. PNTC. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001.
Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. “Does God Have a Body? The Problem of
Metaphor and Literal Language in Biblical Interpretation.” In
Bodies, Embodiment, and Theology of the Hebrew Bible, eds. S.
Tamar Kamionkowski and Wonil Kim, 201–37. New York: T. & T.
Clark, 2010.
———. God's Phallus: And Other Problems for Men and Monotheism.
Boston: Beacon, 1994.
Einstein, Albert. “Foreword,” in Concepts of Space: The History of Theories
of Space in Physics, 3rd edition by Max Jammer. Mineola, NY:
Dover, 2012.
Elder, Nicholas A. “Of Porcine and Polluted Spirits: Reading the Gerasene
Demoniac (Mark 5:1–20) with the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1–
36).” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 78, no. 3 (January 2016): 430–
46.
Emonet, Pierre-Marie. God Seen in the Mirror of the World. New York:
Herder & Herder, 2001.
Epp, Eldon J. “The Ascensiom in the Textual Tradition in Luke-Acts.” In
Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays
1962–2004. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 116.
Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids: Baker,
2006.
159
Eskola, Timo. Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and
Early Christian Exaltation Discourse. WUNT 2. Reihe 142.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC, vol. 34b. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 2001.
———. “Obduracy and the Lord’s Servant: Some Observations on the Use
of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel.” In Early Jewish and
Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee,
eds. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring. Atlanta: Scholars,
1987. 221–36.
Farrow, Douglas B. Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the
Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999.
———. “What Is This Conversation You Are Holding?.” In Ascent into
eds. David K. Bryan and David W. Pao. 235–51. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2016.
Filtvedt, Ole Jakob. “Seeing and Hearing God: On the Relationship
between John 5:37 and Deut 4:12.” Teologisk Tidsskrift 5, no. 4
(2016): 308–23.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1998.
———. The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX). AB. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1981.
———. The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV). AB. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1985.
Fleming, David Marron. “The Divine Council as Type Scene in the

Hebrew Bible.” Ph.D. dissertation, The Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1989.
Frame, John M. The Doctrine of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002.
France, R. T., Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC, 1.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1985.
———. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
———. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Freedman, David Noel. “Who is Like Thee Among the Gods? The Religion
of Early Israel.” In Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of
160
Frank Moore Cross, eds. Patrick D. Miller, et al. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1987: 315–36.
Fritsch, Charles T. The Anti-Anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943.
Gaebelein, Arno C. The Angels of God. Greenville, SC: “Our Hope”, 1924.
Garland, David E. Mark. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Gavin, John. “On the Intermediate State of the Soul.” Nova et Vetera 15,
no. 3 (2017): 925–39.
Goldingay, John E. Daniel. WBC, vol. 30. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.
Goshen-Gottstein, Alon. “God the Father in Rabbinic Judaism and
Christianity: Transformed Background or Common Ground?”
Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38, no. 4 (2001): 470–504.
Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1997.
Greene, Judson. “Omni and Intra: God’s Personal, Temporal, Locative
Presence in the Divine Council.” A paper presented for STH792
Introduction to Theological Research, Bob Jones University,
December 2018.
Griffiths, Paul J. Christian Flesh. Stanford: Stanford University Press,
2018.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
1981.
Guthrie, George H. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis.
Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew. WBC, vol. 33a–33b. Dallas: Word Books,
1993–1995.
Hamori, Esther J. When Gods Were Men: The Embodied God in Biblical
and Near Eastern Literature. BZAW 384. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
2008.
Hand, Brian R. The Climax of Biblical Prophecy: A Guide to Interpreting
Revelation. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University, 2012.
Harris III, W. Hall. “‘The Heavenlies’ Reconsidered: Ouranos and
Επουράνιος in Ephesians.” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991): 72–89.
161
Harris, Mark. “The Comings and Goings of the Son of Man: Is Matthew’s
Risen Jesus ‘Present’ or ‘Absent’? A Narrative-Critical Response.”
Biblical Interpretation 22, no. 1 (2014): 51–70.
Hartshorne, Charles. The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948.
Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity.
Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.
Hays, R. B. “The Story of God’s Son: The Identity of Jesus in the Letters
of Paul.” In Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, eds. B. R.
Gaventa and R. B. Hays, 180–99. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Hearson, Nathanael Blake. “‘Go Now to Shiloh’: God’s Changing
Relationship with Sacred Places in the Hebrew Bible and Early
Rabbinic Literature.” Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew Union College,
2005.
Heidt, William G. Angelology of the Old Testament: A Study in Biblical
Theology. The Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred
Theology Second Series. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1949.
Heiser, Michael S. “Divine Council.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament:
Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, eds. Tremper Longman III and Peter
Enns, 112. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008.
———. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the
Bible. Bellingham: Lexham, 2015.
———. “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second
Temple Jewish Literature.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 2004.
Hettlinger, Richard Frederick. “2 Corinthians 5:1–10.” Scottish Journal of

Theology 10, no. 2 (June 1957): 174–94.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1940.
Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1979.
Hood, Jason B. “The Temple and the Thorn: 2 Corinthians 12 and Paul’s
Heavenly Ecclesiology.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 21, no. 3
(2011): 357–70.
Houtman, Cornelis. “What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel: Some
Remarks on Genesis 28:10–22.” VT 27, no. 3 (1977): 337–51.
162
Jamieson, Robert B. Jesus’ Death and Heavenly Offering in Hebrews.
SNTSMS. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
———. “When and Where Did Jesus Offer Himself?: A Taxonomy of
Recent Scholarship on Hebrews.” Currents in Biblical Research 15,
no. 3 (2017): 338–68.
Jantzen, Grace M. God’s World, God’s Body. London: Darton, Longman
and Todd, 1984.
Japhet, Sara. “Some Biblical Concepts of Sacred Space.” In Sacred
Space: Shrine, City, Land: Proceedings of the International
Conference in Memory of Joshua Prawer, eds. Benjamin Kedar and
Raphael J. Z. Werblowsky, 54–72. New York: Macmillian, 1993.
Jipp, Joshua W. “‘For David Did Not Ascend into Heaven...’ (Acts 2:34a):
Reprogramming Royal Psalms to Proclaim the Enthroned-in-
Heaven King.” In Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts: New Explorations
of Luke’s Narrative Hinge, eds. David K. Bryan and David W. Pao,
41–59. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016.
Johnson, Ronn A. “The Old Testament Background for Paul’s Use of
‘Principalities and Powers.’” Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological
Seminary, 2004.
Johnson, Andy. “Our God Reigns: The Body of the Risen Lord in Luke
24.” Word & World 22, no. 2 (2002): 133–43.
Jordan, James B. Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the
World. Brentwood: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988.
Kee, Min Suc. “A Study of the Heavenly Council in the Ancient Near
Eastern Texts, and its Employment as a Type-Scene in the Hebrew
Bible.” Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Manchester,
Department of Religions and Theology, 2003.
Kee, Min Suc. “The Heavenly Council and Its Type-Scene.” Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament, no. 3 (2007): 259–273.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Vol. 2. Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2003.
———. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
———. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd
edition. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014.
Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC, 1.
163
Kilgallen, John J. “The Parable(s) of the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, and of
the Resurrected Son in Luke 15.” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical
Association 32 (2009): 60–73.
Kim, Sunhee. “The Concepts of Sacred Space in the Hebrew Bible:
Meanings, Significance, and Functions.” Ph.D. dissertation, Boston
University, School of Theology, 2014.
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story. 2nd edition. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988.
Kingsbury, Edwin C. “The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh.” JBL 83
(1964): 279–86.
Kline, Meredith G. Glory in Our Midst: A Biblical-Theological Reading of
Zechariah’s Night Visions. Overland Park: Two Age, 2001.
———. God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and
Telos. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
———. Images of the Spirit. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999.
———. “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 34, no. 2 (1991): 179–93.
Knafl, Anne Katherine. “Forms of God, Forming God: A Typology of
Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch.” Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Chicago Press, 2011.
Knox, John. Jesus, Lord and Christ. New York: Harper, 1958.
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited by M. E. J.
Richardon. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Laansma, Jon. “The Cosmology of Hebrews.” In Cosmology and New

Testament Theology, eds. Sean M. McDonough and Jonathan T.
Pennington, 125–143. T. & T. Clark Library of Biblical Studies.
London: T. & T. Clark, 2008.
Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark. NICNT. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974.
———. Hebrews. WBC, vols. 47a–b. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.
Lane, Anthony N. S. ed. The Unseen World: Christian Reflections on
Angels, Demons, and the Heavenly Realm. Grand Rapids: Tyndale
House, 1996.
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillian, 1960.
164
Lincoln, A. T. Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the
Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His
Eschatology. SNTSMS 43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991.
Litwa, M. David. We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s
Soteriology. BZNW 187. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012.
Longman III, Tremper. Daniel. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
Longman III, Tremper, Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J. I.
Packer, eds. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1988.
Longman III, Tremper, and Peter Enns, eds. Dictionary of the Old
Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2008.
Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd edition. New
York: United Bible Societies, 1989.
Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. American edition. 55 vols. Jaroslav
Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds. Philadelphia: Muehlenberg
and Fortress; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955–86.
Mackie, Scott D. Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. WUNT 2. Reihe 223. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2007.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek
Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
———. Acts: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 5. TNTC. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 1980.
Mason, Eric F. “‘Sit at My Right Hand’: Enthronement and the Heavenly

Sanctuary in Hebrews.” In A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in
Honor of James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Eds. Eric F. Mason, Kelley
Coblentz Bautch, Angela Kim Harkins, and Daniel A. Machiela,
901–16. JSJSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Mathewson, David. “The Apocalyptic Vision of Jesus According to the
Gospel of Matthew: Reading Matthew 3:16–4:11 Intertextually.”
Tyndale Bulletin 62, no. 1 (2011): 89–108.
Matthews, Shelly. “Elijah, Ezekiel and Romulus: Luke’s Flesh and Bones
(Luke 24:39) in Light of Ancient Narratives of Ascent, Resurrection,
and Apotheosis.” In On Prophets, Warriors and Kings: Former
Prophets through the Eyes of their Interpreters, eds. Ariel Feldman
and George Brook, 161–82. BZAW 470. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016.
165
Mazaheri, John H. “Calvin and Augustine’s Interpretations of ‘The Father
in Heaven.’” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 106, no. 3–4 (2011):
440–51.
McClean, John. “A Search for the Body: Is There Space for Christ’s Body
in Pannenberg’s Eschatology?” International Journal of Systematic
Theology 14, no.1 (2012): 91–108.
McDonough, Sean M., and Jonathan T. Pennington, eds. Cosmology and
New Testament Theology. T. & T. Clark Library of Biblical Studies.
McGrath, James F., and Jerry Truex. “‘Two Powers’ and Early Jewish
and Christian Monotheism.” Journal of Biblical Studies 4.1 (2004):
43–71.
Mihoc, Justin A. “The Ascension of Jesus Christ: A Critical and
Exegetical Study of the Ascension in Luke-Acts and in the Jewish
and Christian Contexts.” Ph.D. dissertation, Durham University,
2010.
Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. NAC, vol. 18. Nashville: Broadman and
Holman, 1994.
Miller, Patrick D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1973.
———. “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine
Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol.” Horizons in Biblical Theology
9, no. 2 (1987): 53–78.
———. “The Divine Council and the Prophetic Call to War.” VT 18 (1968):
100–07.
Moffitt, David M. “A New and Living Way: Atonement and the Logic of
Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Ph.D. dissertation,
Graduate Program in Religion Duke University, 2010.
Moore, Stephen D. “Gigantic God: Yahweh’s Body.” Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament 21, no. 70 (June 1996): 87–115.
Moore, Nicholas J. “Jesus as ‘The One Who Entered His Rest’: The
Christological Reading of Hebrews 4.10.” Journal for the Study of
the New Testament 36, no. 4 (June 2014): 383–400.
Moreland, James Porter. Universals, Qualities, and Quality-Instances: A
Defense of Realism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
1985.
Morgenstern, Julian. “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82.” HUCA
14 (1939): 29–126.
166
Morris, Leon. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary.
TNTC 13. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984.
———. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. 2nd edition. TNTC 3.
———. The Gospel According to Matthew. PNTC. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1992.
———. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.
Moule, C. F. D. “The Christology of Acts.” In Studies in LukeActs: Essays
Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert, eds. Leander E. Keck and J.
Louis Martyn, 159–85. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.
Mullins, Ryan T. The End of the Timeless God. New York: Oxford
Murray, David. Jesus on Every Page. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2013.
Naselli, Andrew David. “Do Not Love the World: Breaking the Evil
Enchantment of Worldliness (A Sermon on 1 John 2:15–17).” The
Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 22, no. 1 (2018): 111–25.
Neihaus, Jeffrey. Ancient Near East Themes in Biblical Theology. Grand
Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2008.
Nelson, Richard D. “‘He Offered Himself’: Sacrifice in Hebrews”
Interpretation 57 (2003): 251–65.
Nolland, John. Luke. WBC, vols. 35a–35c. Dallas: Word Books, 1989–
1993.
———. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
———. “Genealogical Annotation in Genesis as Background for the
Matthean Genealogy of Jesus.” Tyndale Bulletin 47, no. 1 (1996):
115–22.
Norman, Ralph V. “Beyond the Ultimate Sphere: The Ascension and
Eschatology.” Modern Believing 42, no. 2 (2001): 3–15.
Odeberg, Hugo. The View of the Universe in the Epistle to the Ephesians.
Lund: Gleerup, 1934.
Orr, Peter. Exalted Above the Heavens: The Risen and Ascended Christ.
New Studies in Biblical Theology. London: IVP Academic, 2018.
———. “The Bodily Absence of Christ in Paul.” Journal for the Study of
Paul and His Letters 3, no. 1 (2013): 111–21.
167
Osborne, Grant R. Matthew. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
Owen, Paul L., and Carl A. Mosser, “Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E.
Robinson,How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in
Conversation.” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011
11, no. 2 (1999): 1–102
Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2009.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Vol 1. Translated by Geoffrey
W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Pao, David W. “Jesus’s Ascension and the Lukan Account of the
Restoration of Israel.” In Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts: New
Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge, eds. David K. Bryan and
David W. Pao, 137–55. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016.
Park, Chan Ho. “Transcendence and Spatiality of the Triune Creator.”
Ph.D. dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2003.
Pennington, Jonathan T. Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Plevnik, Joseph. “Son of Man Seated at the Right Hand of God: Luke
22:69 in Lucan Christology.” Biblica 72, no. 3 (1991): 331–347.
Pohill, John B. Acts. NAB, vol. 26. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
Poidevin, Robin Le. “Time Without Change (In Three Steps).” American
Philosophical Quarterly 47 (2010).
Polley, Max E. “Hebrew Prophecy Within the Council of Yahweh,
Examined in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting.” In Scripture in
Context: Essays on the Comparative Method, ed. Dikran Y.
Hadidian, 141–55. Pittsburg: Pickwick, 1980.
Porter, Daniel. “God Among the Gods: An Analysis of the Function of
Yahweh in the Divine Council of Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82.”
MA Thesis, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, May 2010.
Porter, Stanley E. “The Unity of Luke-Acts and the Ascension Narratives.”
In Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts: New Explorations of Luke’s
Narrative Hinge, eds. David K. Bryan and David W. Pao, 111–36.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016.
Poythress, Vern S. Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and
Understanding Genesis 1–3. Wheaton: Crossway, 2019.
———. Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s Appearing. Wheaton:
Crossway, 2018.
168
———. “Territorial Spirits: Some Biblical Perspectives.” Urban Mission 13
(December 1995): 37–49.
Prinsloo, W. S. “Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?” Biblica 76, no. 2
(1995): 219–28.
Rabens, Volker. The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and
Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life. WUNT 2. Reihe 323.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Ristau, Harold. “Ubiquity and Epiphany: Luther’s Doctrine of the Lord’s
Presence in Space and Time.” Logia 22, no. 4 (2013): 25–31.
Robinson, J. Armitage. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. 2nd edition.
London: MacMillan & Co., 1907.
Robinson, John A. T. The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology. Studies in
Biblical Theology 5. London: SCM, 1952.
Robinson, H. Wheeler. “The Council of Yahweh.” JTS 45, no. 179–80
(1944): 151–57.
———. “The Psychology and Metaphysic of ‘Thus Saith Yahweh’: A Paper
Read before the Society for Old Testament Study, Meeting in
London, January 3rd, 1923.” ZAW 41 (1923): 1–15.
Rowland, Christopher. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in
Judaism and Early Christianity. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002.
———. “The Visions of God in Apocalyptic Literature.” Journal for the
Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 10,
no. 2 (December 1979): 137–54.
Sampson, Francis Smith. A Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Ed. Robert L. Dabney. New York: Robert Carter &
Brothers, 1856.
Savran, George W. Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical
Narrative. London: T. & T. Clark International, 2005.
Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about
Christianity and Gnosticism. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
25. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Setzer, Claudia. “‘This Voice Has Come for Your Sake’: Seeing and
Hearing in John’s Gospel.” Journal for Religion, Film and Media 2,
no. 1 (January 2016): 35–47.
Simonetti, Manlio, ed. Matthew 14–28. Ancient Christian Commentary on
Scripture, vol. 1b. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002.
169
Sleeman, Matthew. “The Ascension and Spatial Theory.” In Ascent into
eds. David K. Bryan and David W. Pao, 157–73. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2016.
———. Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts. SNTSMS.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Small, Brian C. The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews.
Biblical Interpretation Series. Boston: Brill, 2014.
Smart, Ninian. “God’s Body.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 37, no. 1–
2 (Fall 1981): 51–59.
Smick, Elmer B. “Mythopoetic Language in the Psalms.” The Westminster
Theological Journal 44, no. 1 (1982): 88–98.
Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in
Ancient Israel. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
———. Where the Gods Are: Spatial Dimensions of Anthropomorphism in
the Biblical World. New Haven: Yale University, 2016.
Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. “Daniel.” In NIB, vol. 7. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1995.
Stein, Robert H. Luke. NAC, vol. 24. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
———. Mark. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
Stein, Roger B. “Searching for Jacob’s Ladder.” Colby Quarterly 39, no.1
(2003): 34–54.
Stempvoort, Pieter Aalbertus van. “Interpretation of the Ascension in
Luke and Acts.” New Testament Studies 5, no. 1 (1958): 30–42.
Stern, David. “Imitatio Hominis: Anthropomorphism and the Character(s)
of God in Rabbinic Literature.” Prooftexts 12, no. 2 (May 1992),
151–74.
Strelan, Rick. Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of Acts of the
Apostles. BZNW 126. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.
Tait, Arthur J. The Heavenly Session of Our Lord. London: Robert Scott
Roxburghe House, 1912.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary
on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Tilling, Chris. Paul’s Divine Christology. WUNT 2. Reihe 323. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
170
Torrance, Thomas F. Space, Time and Incarnation. Oxford: Oxford
———. Space, Time and Resurrection. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Trotter, James M. “Death of the ‫ אלהים‬in Psalm.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 131, no. 2 (2012): 221–39.
Tsevat, Matitiahu. “God and the Gods in Assembly.” HUCA 40 (1969):
123–37.
Turner, David L. Matthew. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2008.
VanGemeren, Willem. “Abba in the Old Testament?” JETS 31, no. 4
(1988), 390–98.
von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. Vol 1. Translated by D. M. G.
Stalker. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.
Wallace, Daniel B. The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate
Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
Walton, Steve. “‘The Heavens Opened’: Cosmological and Theological
Transformation in Luke and Acts.” In Cosmology and New
Testament Theology, eds. Sean M. McDonough and Jonathan T.
Pennington, 60–73. T. & T. Clark Library of Biblical Studies.
Ward, Graham. “Bodies: The Displaced Body of Jesus Christ.” In Radical
Orthodoxy: A New Theology, eds. John Milbank, Catherine
Pickstock, and Graham Ward, 163–81. London: Routledge, 1999.
Webb, Stephen. Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the
Metaphysics of Matter. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Wheaton, David. “What in Heaven Is Jesus Doing?” Churchman 119, no.
4 (2005): 343–56.
White, Marylyn Ellen. “The Council of Yahweh: Its Structure and
Membership.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of St. Michael’s
College, 2012.
Whyte, Alexander. The Nature of Angels. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1976; reprint, Ann Arbor: Cushing Malloy, 1976.
Williams, Catrin H. “Isaiah in John’s Gospel.” In Isaiah in the New
Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel, eds. M.
J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise. London: T. & T. Clark, 2005.
Williams, Rodman. Renewal Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.
171
Williamson, H. G. M. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–
27. ICC, vol. 2. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006.
Willis, Amy C. Merrill. “Heavenly Bodies: God and the Body in the Visions
of Daniel.” In Bodies, embodiment, and theology of the Hebrew
Bible, eds. S. Tamar Kamionkowski and Wonil Kim, 13–37. New
York: T. & T. Clark, 2010.
Willis, Timothy. “Yahweh’s Elders (Isa 24:23): Senior Officials of the
Divine Court.” ZAW 103, no. 3 (1991): 375–85.
Wright, J. Edward. The Early History of Heaven. New York: Oxford, 2000.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress,
2003.
Younker, Randall W, and Richard M Davidson. “The Myth of the Solid
Heavenly Dome: Another Look at the Hebrew Raḳiyaʻ (Rāqîaʻ).”
Andrews University Seminary Studies 49, no. 1 (January 2011):
125–47.
Zell, Paul E. “How Has the Son of God Been ‘Made Perfect’? (Hebrews
2:9–11; 5:9; 7:28).” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 106, no. 4
(2009): 292–95.
Zwiep, Arie W. “The Ascension of the Messiah: An Inquiry into the
Ascension and Exaltation of Jesus in Lukan Christology.” Ph.D.
dissertation, Durham University, 1996.
———. Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God: Essays on the Acts of
the Apostles. WUNT 2. Reihe 293. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
———. The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology. Leiden: Brill,
1997.

God the Father's Spatial Presence in Heaven

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

God the Father's Spatial Presence in Heaven

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

At the Left Hand of the Son:

God the Father’s Spatial Manifestation in Heaven

Greenville, South Carolina

April 30, 202

List of Abbreviations vii

Need for the Study 4

Angels Spatially Dwell in Heaven 21

Angels are Spatial 21

Angels Dwell in Heaven 27

Objections to Angelic Spatiality in Heaven 30

Conclusion: Angelic Spatiality Necessitates

Christ’s Resurrected Body is Spatially in Heaven 32

Christ’s Resurrected Body is Spatial 32

Objections to Christ’s Resurrected Body’s

Christ’s Resurrected Body is in Heaven 39

Christ’s Resurrected Body is Absent from

Objections to Christ’s Absence from Earth 43

Christ’s Resurrected Body Ascended into

Objections to the Ascension of Christ’s

Heaven is Christ’s Stated Location 59

Heaven is Christ’s Location in Visions 63

Heaven is the Location Wherefrom Christ

Objections to Christ’s Bodily Presence in

Humans Spatially Dwell in Heaven 68

Human Bodily Ascent into Heaven is a

Disembodied Humans are Spatially in Heaven 71

Redeemed Humanity Will Bodily Dwell in Heaven 72

Objections to Human Spatially Dwelling in

Conclusion: Human Spatiality Implies Heavenly

CHAPTER 2: Our Father, Who Art in Heaven 77

God the Father’s Manifestation is Spatially Proximate

Angels Assemble in the Divine Council 78

The Biblical Authors Considered God the Father

Objections to the Father’s Manifestation’s

Conclusion: Angelic Spatiality Necessitates the

God the Father’s Manifestation is Spatially Proximate

Objections to Christ’s Pre-Ascension

Post-Ascension, God the Father’s Manifestation

Christ’s Human Offering Implies a Spatial

Heaven Contains a Spatial Sanctuary 111

Christ Offered Himself in the Heavenly

Christ’s Offering was Spatial Proximate to

Christ’s Human Enthronement Implies a

The Heavenly Sanctuary Contains a

In His Humanity, Jesus Sits on the

Christ’s “Single Sacrificial Script” Implies

Visions of Christ’s Session Imply He is

Jesus’ Human Enthronement is Spatially

Objections to the Son’s Post-Ascension

God the Father’s Manifestation is Spatially Proximate

The Prophetic Presence in the Divine Council

Disembodied Humans' Spatiality Implies the

Resurrected Embodied Human Spatiality

Objections to the Spatial Relationship of the

Conclusion: Human Spatiality Necessitates

Selected Bibliography 154

AB The Anchor Bible

ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

This morning, Christians from many different theological traditions

“our Father in heaven” (Matt 6:8).

1 Tremper Longman III et al., eds., New Dictionary of Theology (Downers

2 John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, trans. Paul