The Incarnation occurred at a specific point in time and ended on the Cross, so I don’t believe the 2nd person of the Trinity possessed a corporeal body beyond this time. The resurrected Christ does pose a problem for my view, however.The topic says it all. Prior to His incarnation on earth, did Christ in heaven have a body?
I’ve always assumed so, since I’ve taken our creation “in the image and likeness” of God to include our bodies, modeled on Christ’s.
Any comment appreciated,
Jeremy
Hmmm. I’m not sure if I agree with that reasoning. God the Son has always existed but He did not have a body until the Incarnation. I believe “in image and likeness” could include our intellect and will rather than our bodies. God Himself has a perfect will and knowledge yet He has betowed upon us an intellect which we can use to perceive and know His Perfect Existence. How amazing is that?The topic says it all. Prior to His incarnation on earth, did Christ in heaven have a body?
I’ve always assumed so, since I’ve taken our creation “in the image and likeness” of God to include our bodies, modeled on Christ’s.
Any comment appreciated,
Jeremy
Why do you believe it “ended on the Cross”? Jesus Christ showed by many proofs to his disciples that he did have a truly physical body. It was a spiritual physical body, not a natural physical body; that is, it was glorified.The Incarnation occurred at a specific point in time and ended on the Cross, so I don’t believe the 2nd person of the Trinity possessed a corporeal body beyond this time. The resurrected Christ does pose a problem for my view, however.
No, there was never a time when Jesus did not have a physical body. The pre-incarnate Christ The Word was spiritual and did not have a physical body. When the Word became flesh He was named Jesus. Jesus from then on had a physical body, and He still has one now.Was there ever a time when Jesus did not have a body?
Yes and no. From my viewpoint, by Christ ascending into heaven, he is beyond the limits of space and time. Follow this link for another topic that I started.The topic says it all. Prior to His incarnation on earth, did Christ in heaven have a body?
I’ve always assumed so, since I’ve taken our creation “in the image and likeness” of God to include our bodies, modeled on Christ’s.
Any comment appreciated,
Jeremy
The Lutheran theologian Andreas Osiander said something like this, but in the sense that Adam and Eve were created in the image of the Christ who was to become incarnate. To have a body before becoming incarnate is a contradiction in terms. However, since God is outside time (in traditional Christian thinking), one could argue that Christ’s Ascension united human nature to the eternal Person of the Logos, so that there was never a time when the Logos was not united to human nature (complete with body and soul). So I’m not sure your suggestion is as far out as I thought at first. . . .The topic says it all. Prior to His incarnation on earth, did Christ in heaven have a body?
I’ve always assumed so, since I’ve taken our creation “in the image and likeness” of God to include our bodies, modeled on Christ’s.
That’s the heresy of anthropomorphism; “image” and “likeness” refers to our rational nature (intellect and will). But don’t feel too bad, because it’s an error that has not been uncommon in Christian history. More than you ever wanted to know here:I’ve always assumed so, since I’ve taken our creation “in the image and likeness” of God to include our bodies, modeled on Christ’s.
Aquinas says that these were angels, not God Himself. The view you note was, however, held by many of the early Fathers. That would not imply that the Son had a body, but merely that (like the angels in Aquinas’s view) He assumed a physical form temporarily for a particular purpose.Hey, I opened a thread some time ago posting a question regarding the old testament account of God and two angels appearing to Abraham, and how he could behold the Father’s face. I was told that that occurance, as any appearance of God in human form, is actually Christ. Therefore, didn’t he have a body at these times prior to his human birth to Mary?
LT
What do you make of the argument mentioned above, that since God is outside of time it is correct to say that Christ possesses a human body and soul timelessly? I’m pretty sure you will disagree strongly with this suggestion, but if what can be said of human nature can be predicated of God the Son (see the Summa Theologiae, part 3, qu. 16, art. 4), although not of the divine nature (art. 5), then I think I have some grounds for this speculation.That’s the heresy of anthropomorphism; “image” and “likeness” refers to our rational nature (intellect and will). But don’t feel too bad, because it’s an error that has not been uncommon in Christian history. More than you ever wanted to know here:
marquette.edu/maqom/morphe.html
By the example of the Fathers, I am far less concerned about anthropomorphism than other errors, because it’s an easy mistake to mkae on account of being at the core of a genuine mystery: the Incarnation. It’s one of those “how can the human nature be assumed by a divine person?” questions.I’m pretty sure you will disagree strongly with this suggestion, but if what can be said of human nature can be predicated of God the Son (see the Summa Theologiae, part 3, qu. 16, art. 4), although not of the divine nature (art. 5), then I think I have some grounds for this speculation.
Do you know where Aquinas said that? I would like to read up on what he said. Because the text in unclear. At first they are all described as “men”Aquinas says that these were angels, not God Himself. The view you note was, however, held by many of the early Fathers. That would not imply that the Son had a body, but merely that (like the angels in Aquinas’s view) He assumed a physical form temporarily for a particular purpose.
Edwin
and then two of them are called “men” and one of them is referred to as “the LORD.”(Gen 18:2)
Looking up, he saw three men standing nearby…
In the next chapter, the two “men” are referred to as “angels.”(Gen 18:22)
While the two men walked on farther toward Sodom, the LORD remained standing before Abraham.
and later the “angels” say that they were sent to destroy the city.(Gen 19:1)
The two angels reached Sodom in the evening…
and then who ends up destroying it? Does it say that the angels destroyed the city? No, it says the following:(Gen 19:13)
We are about to destroy this place, for the outcry reaching the LORD against those in the city is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.
I personally believe that it is not a coincidence that there were three visitors. I personally believe that they were all the Lord and that it hints at the triune nature of the Godhead.(Gen 19:24)
at the same time the LORD rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah (from the LORD out of heaven).