Daniel J. Grace
Independent Researcher, Australia
ORCID: 0000-0002-9259-8032
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22079093
Research Article
Abstract
Christian theology confesses simultaneously that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, remains fully human, and is eternally the divine Son. Yet these affirmations generate a question that is often acknowledged only indirectly: where, and in what sense, is the glorified human body of Christ now? If the incarnation was not reversed at the Ascension, then the humanity assumed by the Logos remains permanently united to the divine person of the Son. The ascended Christ cannot therefore be reduced to pure spirit without compromising the continuity of incarnation and resurrection. Yet if His glorified humanity remains bodily, some account must be given of its relation to place, extension, created space, and the material cosmos. This article calls this tension the permanent incarnation problem. It examines New Testament testimony concerning resurrection and Ascension, classical accounts of Christ’s bodily locality, modern treatments of spatiality, and the implications of permanent incarnation for heaven, creation, eschatology, and cosmic Christology. It argues that Christian theology should resist both crude spatial localization of heaven within ordinary astronomical space and the opposite tendency to dematerialize the ascended Christ. The glorified humanity of Christ is genuinely embodied and therefore creaturely, yet its mode of spatiality belongs to the transformed order inaugurated in resurrection. Christ’s ascended body should consequently be understood not as an anomalous object somewhere within present cosmological coordinates, but as the embodied beginning of creation’s eschatological future. The article concludes by considering whether this framework has implications for extraterrestrial rational life and the uniqueness of the incarnation.
Keywords: Ascension; incarnation; resurrection body; Christology; heaven; space; cosmology; eschatology; material creation; extraterrestrial life.
1. Introduction: Where Is the Body of Jesus Christ?
Christian theology is accustomed to asking who Jesus Christ is.
A more unusual question is disarmingly simple:
Where is He?
The question can sound almost childish. Christian confession provides an immediate answer: Christ has ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. The New Testament repeatedly speaks this way. Luke concludes his Gospel with Jesus being carried into heaven (Luke 24:50–53). Acts describes Him being lifted up before the disciples until a cloud receives Him from their sight (Acts 1:9–11). Hebrews depicts Christ entering the heavenly sanctuary and appearing before God on humanity’s behalf (Heb. 9:24). Colossians speaks of the risen Christ seated above, while 1 Peter declares Him to have gone into heaven and to be at God’s right hand (Col. 3:1; 1 Pet. 3:22).
Yet the familiar answer conceals a significant metaphysical difficulty.
The one who ascends is not a disembodied divine spirit temporarily finished with humanity. Christian orthodoxy confesses that the Word truly became flesh (John 1:14), that Jesus truly died, that He rose bodily, and that His humanity was not discarded after resurrection. The Ascension therefore does not undo the incarnation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, speaks of Christ’s glorified body and of the irreversible entry of His humanity into divine glory. Reformed theology has likewise traditionally insisted upon the continuing reality and locality of Christ’s human nature. Berkhof describes the Ascension as a movement of the Mediator according to His human nature from earth to heaven and explicitly understands this as a transition involving place.
The problem can therefore be stated in a sequence of propositions:
The eternal Son truly assumed human nature.
Jesus Christ rose bodily rather than merely surviving spiritually.
The risen Christ ascended.
The Ascension did not terminate His humanity.
Christ therefore remains the incarnate Son.
His glorified humanity includes genuine embodiment.
Bodies bear some relation to spatiality.
Consequently, Christ’s glorified humanity must bear some real relation to place.
The seventh proposition is where the difficulty becomes acute.
What does place mean when speaking about a glorified body?
Is Christ’s body presently located somewhere within the physical universe?
If not, is heaven a distinct created spatial order?
If heaven is described merely as a state rather than a place, can bodily existence still be meaningfully affirmed?
Can a body be genuinely bodily while having no spatial relation whatsoever?
And if the incarnation is permanent, what does the permanent presence of created human nature within the person of the Son mean for material creation itself?
These questions constitute what this article calls the permanent incarnation problem.
The phrase does not suggest a second incarnation. Quite the opposite. Its argument begins from the classical Christian claim that there is only one incarnation and that it is not subsequently reversed. The question is what follows from taking that permanence with full ontological seriousness.
2. The Ascension Did Not Undo the Incarnation
The foundation must be Christological.
John’s declaration that “the Word became flesh” cannot be interpreted as though flesh were a temporary costume adopted for approximately three decades and discarded after the resurrection.
The Chalcedonian Definition confesses one and the same Christ acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The significance of that confession extends beyond the earthly ministry. The hypostatic union is not ordinarily understood as terminating when Jesus ascends.
This matters enormously.
If the humanity of Christ disappeared at Ascension, then the resurrection would become strangely temporary. Jesus would rise bodily only to abandon embodiment shortly afterward.
The New Testament points in the opposite direction.
Luke emphasises the corporeal character of the risen Christ. Jesus invites His disciples to touch Him and contrasts Himself with a spirit, saying that a spirit does not have flesh and bones as they see Him having (Luke 24:39). He eats before them (Luke 24:42–43). John’s Gospel similarly preserves bodily continuity through the wounds of crucifixion (John 20:24–29).
Paul’s language of a spiritual body in 1 Corinthians 15 does not require the abandonment of embodiment. The contrast is between the present mortal condition and a body transformed by resurrection. Continuity and transformation coexist.
This point prevents one easy solution to the spatial problem.
One cannot simply say:
Christ ascended and therefore ceased to possess a body.
That solution purchases metaphysical simplicity at an unacceptable Christological cost.
Nor can one reduce resurrection to the persistence of Jesus’ influence, memory, or spirit among His followers. Whatever else the resurrection narratives communicate, they deliberately insist that the crucified Jesus is the risen Jesus.
The scars matter.
The body matters.
The incarnation remains.
The Ascension must therefore be interpreted as the exaltation of embodied humanity rather than its elimination.
Modern theological treatments have increasingly recovered this point. Recent research on Thomas F. Torrance’s theology of Ascension, for example, explicitly describes the ontology of the ascended Jesus in terms of continuing body-soul humanity and treats His spatiality as a serious theological question.
The question therefore cannot be escaped:
If Christ remains embodied, what does embodiment mean in heaven?
3. Must a Glorified Body Be Somewhere?
The difficulty is older than modern cosmology.
Thomas Aquinas addresses an objection remarkably close to the problem under discussion. If every body must occupy a place, the objection asks, how could Christ’s body ascend above the heavens if there is no place beyond them?
Aquinas’ answer is revealing. He does not solve the problem by denying Christ’s body. Instead, he distinguishes ordinary corporeal containment from the condition of the glorified body. Christ’s body does not depend upon heavenly bodies for its location in the manner of ordinary natural bodies.
Whatever one makes of the Aristotelian cosmology underlying the discussion, the theological instinct remains important.
Glorification changes the mode of embodiment without abolishing embodiment.
This provides a useful distinction for contemporary theology.
A body may be genuinely spatial without being subject to every condition governing present fallen embodiment.
The resurrection narratives themselves suggest this combination of continuity and discontinuity. Jesus can be touched and can eat. Yet He also appears under conditions that exceed ordinary bodily expectation. Resurrection is therefore neither simple resuscitation nor disembodied survival.
The spatial question should consequently not be framed as a crude choice between:
ordinary three-dimensional location
and
no location whatsoever.
A third possibility is required: transformed creaturely spatiality.
The difficulty is that Christian theology has comparatively little ordinary language for such a category.
We know bodies through present experience.
Length.
Width.
Height.
Distance.
Movement.
Containment.
Location.
But resurrection theology claims that embodiment has a future form not reducible to present biological conditions.
This does not permit theologians to say anything whatsoever. Mystery is not conceptual anarchy.
It does, however, warn against treating current physics as though it already provides exhaustive categories for resurrection existence.
4. Heaven: Place, State, or Created Spatiality?
The permanent incarnation problem inevitably becomes a doctrine-of-heaven problem.
If Christ is bodily present in heaven, then heaven must somehow be hospitable to bodily existence.
Older Christian theology was frequently comfortable speaking of heaven as a place. Berkhof explicitly argues that Christ’s Ascension involves local transition and therefore implies heaven’s placial character.
Yet modern cosmology has made simplistic spatial pictures increasingly difficult.
The disciples watched Jesus ascend upward.
But “up” from Jerusalem points in a different astronomical direction from “up” on the opposite side of Earth.
No serious contemporary theology therefore needs to imagine Christ continuing vertically through planetary atmospheres, passing the Moon, crossing the solar system, and eventually arriving at a coordinate beyond a sufficiently distant galaxy.
That would mistake the phenomenological language of Ascension for an astronomical travel log.
Yet abandoning that crude picture does not require abandoning spatial reality altogether.
David Fergusson’s treatment of the Ascension, drawing especially upon Torrance, offers a more fruitful route. Heaven need not be imagined as an empty container waiting for Jesus to enter it. Instead, theological spatiality may be conceived relationally, with the ascended Christ Himself helping define what “place” in relation to God means.
This suggests that the question “Where is heaven?” may contain assumptions requiring revision.
Ordinary locations exist within measurable spatial relations.
Sydney is a determinate distance from London.
Earth is a determinate distance from the Sun.
The Andromeda Galaxy stands in measurable relation to the Milky Way.
But if heaven belongs to a transformed created order, asking for its astronomical coordinates may constitute a category error.
This does not make heaven unreal.
A courtroom is not reducible to its architecture, but it nevertheless occurs somewhere.
Likewise, relational or ontological accounts of heaven need not imply placeless abstraction.
The more defensible proposal is that heaven constitutes a created mode of spatiality not presently accessible through ordinary cosmological measurement.
This formulation retains several things simultaneously:
Christ’s body remains real.
Heaven remains real.
Creation remains distinct from God.
The divine nature remains omnipresent.
Christ’s human nature remains genuinely creaturely.
And glorified embodiment need not be imprisoned within the current physical conditions of mortal existence.
5. One Person, Two Natures, and Two Modes of Presence
At this point Christological precision becomes indispensable.
The question “Where is Christ?” cannot be answered identically according to both natures.
According to His divinity, the Son is not spatially confined.
God is not one object among others within the universe.
Christian classical theism does not imagine God occupying an enormous region of space. Divine omnipresence concerns God’s immediate relation to all creation without spatial limitation.
According to His humanity, however, Christ is genuinely embodied.
This distinction historically became especially significant in controversies surrounding the Eucharist and Christ’s bodily presence.
One danger is to allow divine omnipresence to swallow Christ’s humanity so thoroughly that bodily locality loses meaning.
The opposite danger is to spatially contain the divine Son as though His divine nature were trapped wherever His human body is.
Neither follows Chalcedonian Christology.
A nineteenth- and twentieth-century Reformed formulation states the point straightforwardly: Christ may be ubiquitous according to His divine nature while genuinely localized according to His humanity. Boyce, for example, argues that the spatial location of Christ’s human body does not compromise His divine omnipresence.
This distinction is particularly important for the present argument.
The ascended Christ need not choose between being:
bodily somewhere
and
divinely present everywhere.
The one person of Christ exists according to two natures without those natures becoming interchangeable.
Thus one may affirm:
Christ’s human body possesses a glorified spatiality.
The eternal Son remains omnipresent according to His divinity.
The hypostatic union means that the one whose humanity is spatially related to creation is none other than the eternal Son.
And that final proposition creates the most profound implication.
Created matter has been permanently assumed into personal union with God the Son.
6. Has Matter Entered God?
The wording must be handled carefully.
Christianity does not teach that the divine essence has become material.
Nor does incarnation mean that matter has been absorbed into divinity.
Chalcedon’s prohibition against confusion remains crucial.
Yet something astonishing has happened.
The eternal Son has assumed a complete human nature.
That human nature includes embodiment.
And the union is permanent.
Therefore created material existence now belongs eternally to the human nature of the person of the Son.
This does not mean that the universe itself becomes divine.
Nor does Christ’s contact with matter automatically deify all surrounding matter.
Such a conclusion would confuse hypostatic union with physical proximity.
A stone touched by Jesus did not thereby become hypostatically united to the Logos.
The soil beneath His feet did not become divine.
The air entering His lungs did not become a fourth member of the Trinity.
The uniqueness of incarnation must be preserved.
Yet incarnation nevertheless establishes an unprecedented relation between Creator and creation.
The Creator does not merely act upon matter.
In the incarnation, the Son assumes creaturely existence personally.
This provides a basis for understanding the resurrection not merely as the rescue of one individual but as an eschatological event concerning creation’s destiny.
7. The Ascended Body as Creation’s Future
Paul’s description of Christ as the “firstfruits” of those who have died is particularly significant (1 Cor. 15:20).
Firstfruits are not merely exceptional.
They anticipate what follows.
Christ’s resurrection body therefore represents not simply an isolated miracle but the beginning of resurrection existence.
This may provide the best way of interpreting the ascended body’s relationship to cosmology.
The question is not merely:
Where has Jesus gone within the present universe?
It may be:
What form of creation has begun in Jesus that the present universe has not yet become?
This reframes the problem.
The ascended Christ is not simply a glorified object requiring coordinates on a cosmic map.
His humanity is eschatological humanity.
His body belongs to the new creation while maintaining continuity with the old.
Hannah Malcolm has recently argued that biological and ecological reflection can illuminate the eschatological promise contained in Christ’s resurrected and ascended body. The broader implication is that Christ’s body can be understood as materially continuous with creation while simultaneously transformed toward creation’s promised future.
Romans 8 provides an important canonical context. Creation itself groans and awaits liberation from corruption (Rom. 8:19–23).
Revelation similarly culminates not in the abandonment of creation but in new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21:1).
Christian eschatology is therefore not fundamentally evacuation from material existence.
It is transformation.
The risen Christ embodies that transformation beforehand.
In this sense, one might describe Christ’s ascended humanity as an eschatological anchor within creation—not because His body occupies a privileged astronomical coordinate, but because created human nature has already reached in Him the destiny toward which redeemed creation moves.
The phrase must remain analogical.
Yet it captures something important.
The future of matter already exists.
It exists in Christ.
8. Does the Incarnation Leave an Ontological Scar?
The language of an “ontological scar” is intentionally provocative.
A scar indicates continuity after rupture.
Christ’s risen body itself retains wounds.
The resurrection does not erase crucifixion from His embodied identity.
This raises an intriguing possibility for theological reflection.
Has incarnation permanently changed the Creator-creation relation?
The divine nature has not changed.
Classical theology rightly protects divine immutability.
Yet creation’s relation to God has changed because created humanity has been assumed into permanent union with the Son.
There was a state of creation in which no created human nature was hypostatically united to the Logos.
There is now a state in which one is.
That difference is permanent.
One should therefore speak not of an ontological alteration in God but of a permanent Christological transformation in creation’s relation to God.
“Scar” may consequently be too negative.
“Anchor” may be better.
Or perhaps eschatological incorporation.
Human nature has been taken into a relation with God that it did not previously possess.
The Ascension does not reverse this.
It enthrones it.
This helps explain why the Ascension matters rather than functioning merely as a narrative mechanism for removing Jesus from the visible scene.
Humanity has entered heaven in Christ.
Research on Torrance’s ascension theology similarly emphasises the continuing ontology, spatiality, and ministry of Jesus’ ascended humanity rather than treating Ascension as disappearance
6. Ascension, Heaven, and the Problem of “Where”
The Ascension intensifies rather than resolves the problem of Christ’s embodied presence. The New Testament does not present the Ascension as the abandonment of the humanity assumed in the incarnation. The one who rises is the one who ascends, and the one who ascends is the one Christians confess will return. The continuity is personal and bodily. Luke’s resurrection narratives stress that the risen Christ is not merely a spirit: he can be seen, touched, and identified by the wounds of crucifixion (Luke 24:39–43). Acts then narrates his departure from the disciples in explicitly embodied terms (Acts 1:9–11). Philippians anticipates his return and the transformation of believers’ bodies according to the pattern of his “glorious body” (Phil. 3:20–21).
The theological tradition has therefore generally resisted the proposition that the Ascension reverses the incarnation. Catholic teaching, for example, speaks of the irreversible entrance of Christ’s humanity into divine glory and explicitly confesses that the incarnate Son is seated “bodily” at the Father’s right hand.
This produces an unusual question:
Where is the body of Jesus Christ now?
The question may initially sound naïve. Yet it becomes difficult to dismiss without simultaneously weakening the reality of Christ’s continuing humanity.
If Christ remains genuinely human, and if embodiment is constitutive rather than incidental to human existence, then his glorified humanity must bear some relation to what Christians call place. The difficulty lies in determining what sort of spatial predicate may legitimately be applied to glorified embodiment.
One possible response is straightforward localization. Christ’s human body is in heaven and therefore is not bodily present elsewhere. Some Reformed accounts have historically emphasized precisely this point, particularly in debates over Eucharistic presence. The finite humanity of Christ remains a genuine humanity and therefore is not converted into an omnipresent body. Historical disputes between Lutheran and Reformed Christology demonstrate that the spatial question is far from novel: the Eucharistic controversies forced theologians to ask whether Christ’s humanity is locally contained in heaven or participates, through the hypostatic union and communication of attributes, in a mode of presence not reducible to ordinary corporeal location.
The question raised here therefore does not emerge from a theological vacuum. What may require renewed examination is what those older disputes mean when placed alongside contemporary cosmological categories.
“Heaven is above us” is no longer a cosmography.
One cannot travel sufficiently far from Earth and expect eventually to encounter the ascended Christ occupying an astronomical coordinate beyond a distant galaxy. “Up” from a spherical planet is directionally relative. Nor does Scripture require such a primitive cosmological interpretation. Ascension language communicates departure, exaltation, enthronement, and entry into the divine presence. Yet reducing all of this to metaphor creates the opposite difficulty: the embodied Christ must not disappear into an abstract state called “heaven.”
Contemporary theology therefore confronts two affirmations that must be held together:
Christ really has a body.
And:
the location of that body cannot simply be plotted on an astronomical map.
The tension is real. Contemporary treatments of heaven themselves acknowledge that resurrection creates difficulty for purely non-spatial conceptions of heaven, since embodied existence appears to require some form of spatiality.
The mistake may therefore be assuming that the only possibilities are ordinary location within observable spacetime or complete non-spatiality.
Christian theology may require a richer category of created spatiality.
Heaven could be understood as a created order genuinely capable of embodied existence while not being straightforwardly continuous with the dimensions accessible to present human observation. Such a proposal must remain speculative. Theology should resist dressing metaphysical conjecture in scientific terminology merely to make it appear contemporary. Referring to heaven as “another dimension,” for example, does not explain heaven unless one can establish what dimension means in that claim. It may merely replace one mystery with modern vocabulary.
Nevertheless, the underlying problem remains legitimate.
The risen Christ is not nowhere.
7. The Permanent Incarnation and Material Creation
The question becomes still more significant when considered through the doctrine of the hypostatic union.
The incarnation is not merely an event that happened to the Son for approximately thirty years and was subsequently discarded. The eternal Word assumed human nature. Chalcedonian Christology insists that divine and human natures remain united without confusion, change, division, or separation in the one person of Christ.
The Ascension therefore does not mean that the Son returns to a pre-incarnate condition.
There is no theological movement:
Word → flesh → death → resurrection → no longer flesh.
Rather:
Word → flesh → death → glorified embodied life.
The humanity remains.
This yields a proposition whose familiarity can hide its extraordinary character:
Created human nature is permanently united to the eternal Son.
The implications are profound.
Christianity does not merely claim that God once touched matter. It claims that the divine Son permanently assumed a created nature.
Yet care is required here. It would be unwarranted to conclude that because Christ’s human nature consists of created materiality, all matter has thereby entered the hypostatic union. The incarnation is uniquely the union of divine and human natures in the person of the Son. The surrounding material universe does not become hypostatically united to God simply through physical continuity with Christ’s humanity.
Still, neither can the incarnation be treated as irrelevant to the destiny of material creation.
Paul’s cosmic Christology refuses such isolation:
“For by him all things were created…”
and subsequently:
“by him to reconcile all things unto himself” (Col. 1:16, 20).
Creation and reconciliation are placed within the same Christological horizon.
The one through whom creation came into being has entered creation bodily.
The one who entered creation bodily has risen bodily.
The one who rose bodily remains embodied.
The incarnation therefore establishes a permanent relationship between the Creator and created material existence that Christian cosmology cannot treat as incidental.
The question is not whether the entire cosmos becomes divine.
It does not.
The more interesting question is whether the glorified humanity of Christ represents the first realized state of material creation’s eschatological future.
Paul’s language of Christ as “firstfruits” is crucial (1 Cor. 15:20). Firstfruits are not an isolated anomaly. They are the beginning of a harvest.
Christ’s resurrection body is therefore not merely proof that one dead individual returned to life. It is anticipatory.
Philippians 3:21 similarly promises that believers’ bodies will be transformed according to the pattern of Christ’s glorious body.
The risen body may therefore be understood as eschatological matter: material creaturely existence already transformed into the condition toward which redeemed embodiment is moving.
This changes the spatial question.
Perhaps asking, “Where in our present cosmos is Jesus?” is insufficient because it assumes that Christ’s glorified embodiment belongs entirely to the present order of material existence.
The risen Christ belongs to the present creation because he remains human.
Yet he simultaneously embodies the future of creation.
He is not merely a traveller who has moved from one coordinate to another.
He is the firstfruits of new creation.
8. An Ontological Anchor in Creation?
This permits consideration of a more provocative proposal.
Could the permanent humanity of the Son be described as an ontological anchor between creation and its eschatological destiny?
The term must be used cautiously. It is not intended to suggest that Christ functions as a physical mechanism holding universes together, nor that the incarnation creates a measurable distortion in spacetime. Such language would improperly convert Christology into speculative physics.
Rather, “anchor” describes a theological asymmetry introduced by the incarnation.
Before the incarnation, no created human nature was personally united to the divine Son.
After the incarnation, one is.
And because that union is permanent, creation can never again be described exactly as it could have been described before the incarnation.
Something irreversible has occurred.
The Son has not merely visited creation.
He belongs to it according to his humanity.
And creation belongs to him in a radically intensified sense because its own material history now exists within his personal identity.
One might call this an ontological “scar,” provided the metaphor is not misunderstood negatively. The wounds of the risen Christ provide an intriguing biblical analogy. Resurrection does not erase crucifixion. The risen body bears transformed continuity with the history through which it passed.
Likewise, incarnation may be understood as leaving creation permanently marked by divine assumption.
The Word became flesh.
Christian theology cannot subsequently speak as though flesh were merely a temporary costume.
9. The Ascended Christ and the New Creation
This perspective may illuminate the relationship between Ascension and eschatology.
Christian eschatology does not ultimately anticipate permanent escape from material creation. It anticipates resurrection and renewed creation.
Revelation concludes not with humanity abandoning creation for an immaterial heaven but with new heaven and new earth and the dwelling of God with humanity (Rev. 21:1–4).
Romans 8 similarly portrays creation itself awaiting liberation from corruption (Rom. 8:19–23).
The body of Christ may therefore constitute a bridge between resurrection Christology and cosmic eschatology.
What has already occurred in Christ anticipates what will happen to redeemed humanity and, analogically, to creation.
This prevents two errors.
The first is material reductionism, in which resurrection means simply the restoration of ordinary biological life.
Christ is not Lazarus.
The resurrection body is transformed.
The second is spiritual reductionism, in which resurrection becomes another name for survival of an immaterial soul.
Christ’s tomb is empty.
Christian hope is bodily.
The ascended Christ therefore stands at the intersection of these affirmations:
material continuity and radical transformation.
His body is continuous enough with the crucified body to bear wounds and identity.
It is transformed enough to belong to resurrection existence.
If Christian eschatology expects believers to become like him bodily, then Christ’s present embodiment is not a theological curiosity.
It is the prototype of redeemed human materiality.
10. Heaven Reconsidered
The argument also requires reconsideration of heaven.
Christian speech often oscillates between two inadequate pictures.
The first imagines heaven as a distant physical location somewhere above the stars.
The second turns heaven almost entirely into a metaphor for divine presence.
The embodied Ascension makes both difficult.
A merely astronomical heaven cannot account adequately for the transcendence associated with God’s presence.
A completely non-spatial heaven has difficulty accommodating a genuinely embodied Christ.
Theological accounts of heaven have long wrestled with precisely this problem, especially because resurrection implies continuing embodied reality.
Perhaps heaven should instead be understood as a created mode of reality fully open to divine glory, possessing whatever spatiality glorified creaturely embodiment requires while not being reducible to the spacetime relations presently available to empirical investigation.
This remains metaphysical rather than scientific language.
It does not identify a hidden fifth dimension.
It does not locate heaven behind a particular galaxy.
It simply refuses the false choice between naïve astronomical localization and disembodied abstraction.
Christ is bodily present in heaven.
What bodily and in entail under glorified conditions remains incompletely understood.
Christian theology should be comfortable admitting this.
Mystery is not contradiction.
11. Eucharistic Echoes: Localization and Presence
Any discussion of the spatiality of Christ’s body inevitably touches Eucharistic controversy.
The sixteenth-century disputes between Lutheran and Reformed theologians were partly disputes about Christology and space. Reformed theology generally resisted the ubiquity of Christ’s human body, whereas Lutheran accounts developed more expansive understandings of the communication of attributes and Christ’s bodily presence. Historical sources explicitly frame the dispute in terms of whether Christ’s body is spatially contained in heaven or participates in another mode of presence.
The present argument does not attempt to resolve Eucharistic controversies.
It does, however, suggest that those debates anticipated a question that contemporary cosmology makes newly interesting:
What does locality mean when predicated of glorified humanity united personally to the divine Son?
Classical theology had categories such as circumscriptive, definitive, and repletive presence. Modern theology may need to revisit rather than simply discard such distinctions.
The mistake would be assuming that contemporary physics has already answered the metaphysical question.
It has not.
Physics describes relations within empirically accessible physical reality.
Christology asks what kind of embodied existence belongs to resurrection and new creation.
These domains can converse.
They cannot simply be collapsed.
12. Extraterrestrial Life and the Uniqueness of the Incarnation
The argument becomes still more provocative when expanded beyond Earth.
Suppose intelligent corporeal life exists elsewhere in the cosmos.
Nothing in established Christian doctrine requires its existence.
Nor does Christian doctrine obviously require its impossibility.
The discovery of extraterrestrial rational creatures would therefore generate an immediate Christological question:
What relationship would such creatures have to the incarnation of the Word as a human being on Earth?
This question has already appeared in modern theological discussion. Some theologians have considered whether Christ’s work possesses universal cosmic efficacy, while others have entertained—at least speculatively—the possibility of multiple incarnations. Contemporary Christological literature explicitly recognises this as a legitimate speculative problem rather than an entirely new question.
The permanent-incarnation thesis sharpens the difficulty.
If the Son remains permanently human, then incarnation is not simply a temporary missionary strategy suited to one species.
Humanity belongs permanently to the personal identity of the incarnate Son.
Would another incarnation require the same divine person simultaneously to possess another created nature?
Classical Christology does not immediately provide a simple answer.
One must distinguish logical possibility from revealed actuality.
Christian revelation identifies one incarnation:
the Word became flesh in Jesus Christ.
It does not provide a developed theology of extraterrestrial rational life.
Speculation must therefore remain speculation.
Nevertheless, the question reveals something important about the uniqueness of Earth.
If Christ’s incarnation is singular and cosmically efficacious, Earth possesses theological significance radically disproportionate to its physical size.
Astronomically, Earth is unremarkable.
Christologically, it would be the location at which the Creator permanently entered created embodied existence.
That does not make Earth physically central to the universe.
It makes Earth historically central to the incarnation.
These are very different claims.
13. Does the Incarnation Make Earth Cosmically Unique?
Modern cosmology displaced Earth from the geometric centre of the universe.
Christian theology should not resist that discovery.
The Bible does not require geocentric astronomy.
But physical non-centrality does not entail theological insignificance.
A hospital room can be physically insignificant within a city and nevertheless be the location where someone’s entire life changes.
Likewise, incarnation could make a tiny planet extraordinarily significant without requiring that planet to occupy a privileged astronomical coordinate.
This distinction is essential.
Christian theology does not need Earth to be physically central.
It claims something stranger:
God became human here.
If the incarnation is permanent, the event is not simply an episode in Earth’s religious history. Human nature has been carried into the eternal identity of the incarnate Son.
The theological significance of Earth therefore arises not from planetary geometry but from Christological history.
This could have implications for Christian responses to extraterrestrial discovery.
Rather than threatening Christianity by demonstrating that Earth is “not special,” extraterrestrial life would force theology to distinguish more carefully between cosmological specialness and covenantal or Christological particularity.
Christianity already makes this sort of claim.
Bethlehem is not geographically the largest city.
Nazareth was not the centre of imperial power.
The cross occurred outside the centre of Roman political significance.
Christian theology repeatedly locates universal significance within apparent particularity.
A universe containing billions of inhabited worlds would enlarge the paradox.
It would not necessarily abolish it.
14. Could There Be Multiple Incarnations?
This is the most speculative question in the present study and should therefore be approached with restraint.
Could the eternal Son assume more than one created nature?
One answer might be immediately negative: the incarnation is unique because Scripture presents Christ’s assumption of humanity as definitive and permanent.
Another possibility distinguishes uniqueness from numerical singularity. The Son’s permanent humanity might not logically preclude another assumption, although Christian revelation gives no warrant for asserting that such an event has occurred.
A third approach could maintain that no additional incarnation would be necessary because the one incarnation has cosmic scope.
Colossians provides considerable resources for this position. The Christ through whom “all things” were created is also the one through whom God reconciles “all things” (Col. 1:16–20).
The scope is strikingly cosmic.
Likewise, Ephesians presents God’s purpose as gathering all things in Christ (Eph. 1:10).
These passages do not answer questions about extraterrestrial salvation directly.
They do, however, resist reducing Christ’s significance to one ethnic group, one civilization, or even merely one planetary history.
The incarnation occurs locally.
Its significance is universal.
This may provide the more fruitful model.
The particular body of Jesus does not need to be physically ubiquitous for the person of Christ to exercise universal lordship.
Likewise, the historical localization of incarnation on Earth need not limit its cosmic efficacy.
15. The Difference Between Presence and Extension
A crucial distinction therefore emerges.
Christ’s humanity need not be physically extended throughout the cosmos for the incarnate Son to be universally present according to his divinity.
Classical Christology distinguishes the natures without separating the person.
The divine nature does not become finite because the Son assumes humanity.
Nor does the human nature automatically become infinite simply because it is personally united to the divine Son.
This protects both sides of Chalcedon.
The provocative claim that “the God-man is physically somewhere” must therefore not become the stronger and less defensible claim that divine omnipresence means Christ’s human tissue is physically distributed throughout creation.
The hypostatic union is not a cosmic diffusion of flesh.
Rather, the same person who is omnipresent according to divinity is genuinely embodied according to humanity.
This produces precisely the mystery under consideration.
The person is universally Lord.
The humanity remains real.
How those affirmations relate under glorification is where theological work remains.
16. Is “Glorified Embodiment” a Distinct Metaphysical Category?
Perhaps the central constructive proposal of this article can now be stated.
Christian theology should treat glorified embodiment as a metaphysical category in its own right.
It should not be reduced either to:
ordinary biological embodiment under present conditions, or
disembodied spiritual existence.
The New Testament itself encourages such a distinction.
Paul’s language of a sōma pneumatikon in 1 Corinthians 15:44 is particularly significant. “Spiritual body” cannot mean “non-body” without
16. Is “Glorified Embodiment” a Distinct Metaphysical Category? — continued
Paul’s language of a sōma pneumatikon in 1 Corinthians 15:44 is particularly significant. “Spiritual body” cannot mean “non-body” without making Paul’s terminology internally incoherent. The noun remains sōma: body. The adjective pneumatikon qualifies the body’s condition and orientation rather than cancelling embodiment itself.
Paul’s contrast is therefore not between matter and non-matter in a straightforward Platonic sense. It is between the present body, subject to corruption and mortality, and the resurrected body transformed through the life-giving power of God.
This distinction allows Christian theology to avoid two reductions.
The first reduction treats resurrection as technologically unimaginable resuscitation: the same biological organism restored indefinitely under essentially present physical conditions.
The second reduction moves in the opposite direction and treats resurrection language as symbolic clothing for the survival of an immaterial self.
Neither adequately accounts for Paul’s insistence upon bodily resurrection combined with radical transformation.
The category of glorified embodiment therefore deserves greater metaphysical attention.
Such embodiment would retain genuine creatureliness, identity, continuity, relationality, and whatever spatiality is intrinsic to embodied existence, while no longer being subject to corruption, mortality, and perhaps some of the physical constraints governing present biological bodies.
This proposal does not claim knowledge of resurrection physics.
There is no resurrection physics available to contemporary empirical investigation.
It is instead a theological category derived from the conjunction of claims Christianity already makes.
Christ is bodily risen.
Christ is glorified.
Christ remains human.
Christ is ascended.
Christ will return.
Believers will be bodily transformed according to His risen condition.
Taken together, these affirmations suggest that Christian ontology contains a form of embodiment for which ordinary mortal experience provides only incomplete analogies.
The ascended Christ is therefore not an embarrassment to Christian cosmology.
He is its most radical datum.
17. The Intermediate State and the Asymmetry of Christ
The permanent incarnation problem also illuminates an important distinction between Christ and deceased human beings prior to the general resurrection.
Traditional Christian theology has frequently spoken of an intermediate state in which the faithful dead await bodily resurrection. Whatever account one gives of that state, it is not identical with the condition of the risen Christ.
Christ has already undergone resurrection.
The faithful dead await it.
This creates an eschatological asymmetry.
Christ is not merely a disembodied soul in heaven awaiting the restoration of His body.
His tomb is empty.
His resurrection has occurred.
His glorified embodiment is already real.
This strengthens the argument that heaven cannot be conceived exclusively as a non-spatial realm populated by immaterial souls. Whatever may be said of the intermediate state of ordinary human beings, heaven presently contains—or is related to—the glorified embodied humanity of Christ.
The question of spatiality therefore cannot simply be postponed until the general resurrection.
It already exists in Christology.
Moreover, this asymmetry reinforces Paul’s language of firstfruits. Christ’s present condition is temporally ahead of the general human condition. The resurrection expected at the eschaton has already occurred in one human being.
The future has entered history.
This is one reason the risen Christ may be described as creation’s eschatological anchor. The claim is not merely that Jesus survived death earlier than everyone else. It is that the mode of embodied existence promised to redeemed humanity has already appeared within created history.
Christian eschatology therefore contains a remarkable temporal structure:
the future already exists in a person.
18. Does the Ascended Christ Occupy Volume?
The most uncomfortable version of the question should not be avoided.
Does the glorified body of Jesus possess volume?
If the answer is simply no, theologians must explain what remains of the ordinary meaning of body.
If the answer is yes, further questions immediately arise concerning dimensionality, extension, boundaries, and relation to place.
Yet the question may again be importing assumptions from present embodiment into glorified embodiment too quickly.
Volume, as ordinarily understood, describes the extension of physical objects within measurable three-dimensional space. Christian theology has no empirical access to the dimensional properties of resurrection existence.
The New Testament provides identity claims, not measurements.
Jesus is recognisably Jesus.
He can be touched.
He bears wounds.
He eats.
He speaks.
He is not a ghost.
Yet His resurrection existence is also transformed.
Consequently, theology can affirm real embodied extension without claiming that Christ’s glorified body must be measurable using the metric properties of presently observable spacetime.
This distinction may appear frustratingly cautious.
It should.
The alternative would be false precision.
Christian theology knows considerably more about who the risen Christ is than about the physical mechanics of how glorified embodiment operates.
The appropriate answer is therefore neither an unqualified yes nor an evasive no.
Christ’s body possesses whatever extension genuinely belongs to glorified human embodiment.
What that extension would mean under the conditions of new creation remains unrevealed.
19. Does the God-Man Make the Cosmos No Longer “Empty” of God?
A provocative formulation of the permanent incarnation problem asks whether the physical cosmos is now, in some sense, no longer empty of the God-man.
The formulation requires qualification.
Creation was never empty of God according to classical Christian theology. Divine omnipresence means that every creature already exists in immediate dependence upon God’s sustaining presence.
Yet divine omnipresence is not incarnation.
God’s presence to a galaxy does not mean that the galaxy is hypostatically united to God.
The incarnation introduces something categorically different.
The eternal Son is not merely present to created humanity as Creator.
He is human.
The distinction between the statements is enormous.
Therefore, if by “the cosmos contains the God-man” one means that created reality now includes a human nature permanently united to the eternal Son, the proposition can be defended with appropriate Christological qualifications.
If, however, the statement means that divinity has become physically diffused throughout cosmic matter, it should be rejected.
The incarnation is local in its historical occurrence and particular in its assumed nature while universal in the identity of the person who assumes it.
This combination of locality and universality may be one of Christianity’s most striking metaphysical claims.
Jesus of Nazareth occupies a particular history.
The Son through whom all things exist is universally Lord.
Christianity does not resolve the tension by sacrificing either proposition.
20. Science, Cosmology, and Theological Restraint
The permanent incarnation problem naturally invites dialogue with contemporary cosmology.
It also invites bad theology.
Terms such as dimension, multiverse, quantum, spacetime, and higher-dimensional reality can easily become theological decorations rather than explanations.
One should resist that temptation.
There is presently no scientific evidence locating heaven.
There is no empirical model of resurrection embodiment.
There is no physical theory describing Ascension.
And there is no experiment capable of determining the dimensional relation of Christ’s glorified humanity to the observable universe.
Christian theology should say so plainly.
This does not make the questions meaningless.
It identifies their disciplinary location.
Cosmology can tell theology that naïve pictures of a vertically arranged universe are physically inadequate.
Physics can refine concepts of space, time, matter, causality, and dimensionality.
Philosophy can interrogate assumptions concerning embodiment, identity, location, and persistence.
But revelation and Christology provide the specific claims generating the permanent incarnation problem.
The disciplines therefore meet without becoming interchangeable.
The theologian should not claim that modern physics has discovered heaven.
The physicist, conversely, cannot conclude from the absence of Christ at an astronomical coordinate that bodily Ascension is therefore meaningless. Such a conclusion would already assume that every possible form of created spatiality must be accessible to present physical measurement.
That assumption exceeds what science itself can establish.
Epistemic humility is required on both sides.
21. The Permanent Incarnation and Sacramental Theology
The argument also carries implications for sacramental theology.
Christian sacramental traditions differ significantly concerning the manner of Christ’s presence in Eucharist. Those disagreements cannot be resolved here.
Nevertheless, permanent incarnation establishes a common Christological boundary.
Whatever Eucharistic presence means, it concerns the same Christ whose humanity remains real.
Sacramental theology therefore cannot solve the problem of presence by dissolving the humanity into divine omnipresence.
Nor need bodily locality imply divine absence.
The Eucharistic controversies become especially interesting when viewed through the distinction developed throughout this study:
presence is not identical with extension.
A person may be present according to one mode without the person’s physical body being spatially distributed in the ordinary manner.
Christian traditions formulate this differently, but the Ascension question demonstrates why simplistic spatial categories have repeatedly proven inadequate.
The permanent incarnation therefore invites renewed ecumenical attention to the grammar by which Christians speak of presence.
The issue is larger than Eucharistic mechanism.
It concerns whether Christian theology has adequate categories for speaking about a glorified human body personally united to the omnipresent Son.
22. Theological Consequences of Taking the Body Seriously
Several consequences follow from the argument.
First, Christian theology should speak of Ascension as a continuation of incarnation rather than an escape from it.
The Son does not become less human by entering glory.
Second, heaven should not be reduced either to astronomical geography or to non-spatial metaphor.
The continuing embodied existence of Christ requires some genuine account of created spatiality, even if its precise nature remains unknown.
Third, Christ’s glorified humanity should be understood eschatologically.
The risen body is not an isolated exception to creation.
It is firstfruits.
Fourth, material creation possesses profound theological dignity.
The final Christian hope is not the abandonment of materiality but its redemption.
Fifth, the incarnation creates an irreversible Christological relation between Creator and creation.
The Son permanently possesses the human nature He assumed.
Sixth, the spatial particularity of Christ’s humanity does not limit the universal efficacy or lordship of the divine Son.
The incarnation may be historically local while cosmically universal.
Seventh, extraterrestrial rational life, if discovered, would create genuine theological questions but would not automatically invalidate incarnation.
Indeed, such discovery might make the cosmic scope of Christology more rather than less important.
Finally, Christian theology may need to recover glorified embodiment as a serious ontological category rather than treating resurrection bodies as either ordinary biological bodies with supernatural enhancements or immaterial spirits described metaphorically as bodies.
23. Conclusion: Somewhere, the Word Is Still Flesh
Christian theology makes an extraordinary confession whose familiarity can conceal its metaphysical force:
the Word became flesh.
The permanent incarnation problem begins by refusing to add an unspoken final clause:
and eventually ceased to be flesh.
The New Testament provides no warrant for such a conclusion.
The Jesus who rises is the Jesus who was crucified.
The Jesus who ascends is the Jesus who rose.
The Jesus who reigns is the incarnate Son.
And the Christ who will return is the same Christ who departed from the disciples’ sight.
The Ascension did not undo Christmas.
It did not reverse Bethlehem.
It did not cancel the empty tomb.
It did not remove humanity from the Son.
The Christian confession is therefore stranger than the common language of “Jesus went to heaven” sometimes allows us to notice.
Somewhere—or, more carefully, in some genuine mode of created spatiality—the humanity of Jesus Christ remains bodily real.
Christian theology need not pretend to know the coordinates.
It should resist pretending that coordinates are the only possible meaning of place.
The glorified Christ does not need to be imagined travelling beyond successive galaxies until He reaches a hidden astronomical heaven.
Neither should He be dissolved into a purely spiritual symbol of divine presence.
Between these reductions stands the confession of resurrection.
Body.
Continuity.
Transformation.
Glory.
The category proposed here—glorified embodiment—allows those affirmations to remain together.
Christ’s risen body belongs genuinely to creation because His humanity is created.
Yet it belongs simultaneously to creation’s future because resurrection has transformed that humanity beyond corruption and death.
The ascended body is therefore not merely a theological anomaly requiring a location.
It is an eschatological sign.
In Christ, material human existence has already become what Christian hope says redeemed embodiment will become.
The future of the body already exists.
The future of humanity already exists.
And in a qualified but profound sense, the future of material creation already exists.
It exists in the risen Christ.
This also changes the way the uniqueness of Earth should be discussed. Christianity has no need to recover an obsolete geocentric universe. Earth need not occupy the physical centre of anything.
Its significance, if Christian confession is true, is historical and Christological rather than geometric.
On one small world within an unimaginably large creation, the eternal Word assumed human nature.
If intelligent beings exist beneath other suns, their discovery would enlarge the scale upon which this claim must be understood. It would not by itself make the claim incoherent.
Indeed, the larger the cosmos becomes, the more extraordinary the incarnation appears.
A universe containing hundreds of billions of galaxies would not make Bethlehem smaller theologically.
It would make the particularity more astonishing.
The Creator of all things did not become “creation in general.”
He became someone.
A particular human being.
At a particular time.
In a particular place.
And according to historic Christian confession, He remains that human being.
The final question raised by this study is therefore not primarily astronomical:
Where in the universe is Jesus?
The deeper question is Christological:
What kind of universe is this, if its Creator has permanently become part of its creaturely history?
Christian theology’s answer cannot yet provide a map.
It can provide a confession.
The Word became flesh.
The flesh was raised.
The risen Christ ascended.
And the incarnation remains..
Somewhere, beyond the reach of our present measurements but not beyond the reality of creation, the Word is still flesh.
Bibliography
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. III, q. 57; Supplement, discussions concerning resurrection and glorified bodies.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1938.
Boyce, James Petigru. Abstract of Systematic Theology. Louisville, KY: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1887.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 2 vols. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.
Council of Chalcedon. “Definition of Faith.” 451.
Davis, Stephen T. Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.
Fergusson, David. “The Ascension of Christ: Its Significance in the Theology of T. F. Torrance.” Scottish Journal of Theology.
Grace, Daniel J. “The Permanent Incarnation Problem: Does the Ascended Christ Still Have a Body That Occupies Space, and What Does That Mean for the Rest of Creation?” Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22079093.
Malcolm, Hannah. Work on Christ’s resurrected and ascended body, creaturely materiality, and ecological eschatology.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
O’Collins, Gerald. Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Polkinghorne, John. The God of Hope and the End of the World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.
Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity. Translated by William V. Dych. New York: Crossroad, 1978.
Torrance, Thomas F. Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ. Edited by Robert T. Walker. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008.
Torrance, Thomas F. Space, Time and Incarnation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969.
Torrance, Thomas F. Space, Time and Resurrection. Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1976.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982.