Contextualizing the ideas of God as eternal and especially of “time as a creation” is a necessary project given that the current conceptual frameworks and discussions within western Christianity I feel do not capture the fullness of contemporary discussions within the studies of humanities and science.
In saying this, it limits my studies somewhat because it means I we are trying to come up to our point, not pass it. So work like Time, Eternity, and the Trinity: A Trinitarian Analogical Understanding of Time and Eternity by Eunsoo Kim while a good partner for debate is excluded. However, being on the cutting edge of this particular subject is perhaps not the most advisable.
- Very likely to change
- People are not familiar with it
- The people in Church are not using the “new” arguments but sorting out the old
So while some of my sources are contemporary, I’ve tried to keep this study familiar. Besides, time has a way of sorting out what is worth knowing, and most of what I use here has aged and mellowed a bit.
Some Introduction to the discussion of time as a creation
Most earlier debates on creation have mostly focus solely on Genesis 1:1-2:3 and typically proceed with a conception of time as absolute in a Newtonian sense.
This conception may do well in synthesizing the biblical witness. Focusing on time in a forensic fashion is not without issues.
For example the creation narrative found in John 1 that focuses on the relational aspects of time. And the 7 day configuration of even the original Genesis account is “relative” in as much as it relates to the nation of Israel’s temple calendar and notion of a Sabbath.
Given the prominence in the western conversation of Einstein’s theory of relativity, the relational aspects of especially John 1 hold promise for shifting the discussions into a relational context; even the Genesis one narrative could accommodate such. Still, for the most part I will focus on John 1 more, as that is especially conducive to a specifically Trinitarian understanding of eternity and of time.
The Genesis narrative
The creation narrative in Genesis 1:1-2:3 receives so much popular attention it cannot be overlooked. Sadly, this popularity even has a tendency to strip churches of any hermeneutical control over the passage. Other people outside the faith dictate the understanding to the church.
In the United States, a Gallup conducted a poll in 2014 that stated forty-two percent of the population held to creation by purely a divine fiat, thirty one percent that God guided evolution, and nineteen percent that humans simply evolved . To be honest, Gallup was not equipped to question what hermeneutical or exegetical methods were used to draw such responds.
However, I think you may agree that even a general survey of literature debating “Science vs. Religion” shows a common tendency (driven mainly by secularist/ literalist) to take the Hebrew term “Yom,” which can mean day or era, as strictly a 24 hour time segment.
This is an interesting case. As in part it is a popular over-contextualization of the text to fit occidental sensibilities about clocks, twenty-four hour days, and time-frames.
The Church, if you ignore the rest of this, at the very least needs to take back the liquidity of the text.
Writing in a different culture, Origen could flatly reject the 7 literal day hypothosis. He points out succinctly that:
“Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars—the first day even without a sky?” 
Nor was he alone among the Patristic fathers. Many denied that a literal reading made much sense. Augustine is another great example. Like a young-earth creationist, he still claimed that the Earth was only 6000 years old.  At the same time, he viewed the creation as spontaneous and denied that it would take 7 days. Augustine writes the narrative served only to explain, not delineate, the process. In no small part because God simply does not require any given “time-frame” in which to create.
A.D. 300 did not have today’s political issues.
Augustine points to time as a created factor opening it to manipulation. One wonders what he would think of gravity lensing where time bends around a black hole? Origen points to time as relative to the movement of heavenly bodies. I would wonder what his reaction would be to learning they stars are billions of light years away and that we are looking into the past?
Yet the surveys by news companies tell us that the normal American exegete does not take these issues into account. This is worrying because the resolution for the issue is already nascent in the American context.
The Genesis 1:1-2:3 narratives taken with “absolute-time” in a literal sense creates a tangled Gordian knot. And it is an unnecessary step intended to address “off-text” issues. The evolution/ creation or inspiration debates may or may not be important; they are anachronistic to read into the text.
Worse, it makes the text useless for teaching and I would argue preaching. Is scripture still inspired when we will not let the Spirit speak through it but rather dictate what it must say?
What God has reviled elsewhere should dictate, he is Relational in Christ.
The popular “literalist” reading focuses on a Newtonian physics of divine force active over time. Yet, the spirit of the argument says something salient about people’s view of God and his relation to Creation. God stands in one space and creation in a completely different space with only minimal mechanical contact.
Not wrong, per say. But when contrasted to the Patristic readings, especially those that predate Augustine’s linear sense of time, those where made with much more awareness of a dynamic God that relates, cares for, and becomes incarnate within Creation. There are also issues of God’s own person evident in the literalist readings that particularly Augustine was concerned with. Namely, there is a tendency to place a mechanical God into a realm of action where he is subject to time when time is a creation itself
I think if we are to develop a specifically Christian view on the issue, when we posit God as The Ruler of Time the task cannot ignore God’s relational connection with the creation. Nor, can we safely ignore the issues of “externalization” raised by Augustine (however this complex issue may not be resolved here).
Start from God’s basis of relation, the Gospel
The creation narrative of John 1:1-18 serves as a model of how this might be achieved.
John starts his Gospel by positing the relationship of the Word to God. He states that both the Word was with and was God “in the beginning.” The beginning here is not to implicate that God has a beginning, but in verse three it serves to highlight it is a beginning in so far as relationship to the creation. This narrative sets the tone of the Gospel that will focus heavily on Jesus’ relationship to the Father and in-turn the disciples’ relationships to Jesus and to one another.
Later, the writer gives a lengthy exposition in chapter seventeen. Mirroring heavily the language of John 1, there Jesus states that eternal life resides in relationship with Jesus and the Father.
So what are we relating to? Christ working over Time
Professor Oscar Cullman, who’s work on Immortality of the Soul in Relation to the Christian doctrine of Resurrection I love, in his work Christ and Time expounds further on the relational aspect of time within the wider sphere of Theology
He states that “there is only the one line of divine activity… everything from God and to God, and everything through Christ.”
Cullman has a rather Augustinian emphasizes, and sees time in the Bible as a linear progression of relationship. He makes some interesting points. For example, he takes the past, including the Old Testament and election, as proof that God already has been in relationship with us.  The present he say is experienced in our relationship with Christ currently,  and the future will likewise be based on our ongoing relational experience of Christ. Parts of Collman’s these is “realizing salvation” or finding it should be done away with.
He feels we should instead focus on it as “[over-time] completion of that which has already been decided.” 
Cullman focuses on the fact that the past, present, and future, or simply all of time, is experienced within a relationship with the God that was, and is, and is to come, or simply eternal. He does still claim the philosophical idea of timeless eternity is contrary to the biblical witness; he states that a Christian view needs to include some concept of “time” within eternity. Simply just not a time-frame bound to creation. 
Cullman is a good start, but is not without issues
Cullman’s thesis is not easily absorbed or bypassed. He uses many biblical metaphors and texts consistent with the biblical writer’s usage such as when he explores Hebrews 6:17-18. This lends him credence.At the same time, his delineation into past, present, and future appears to do some minor violence to verses. As a writer, he does not defend that God is unchanging and loses me at points where he is letting go of major theological positions for minor traction.
Most importantly, he does not adequately deal with those cases where the Bible seems to compress the salvation timeline because he wants to make it completely linear.
These occur in such places as Paul’s past tenses in Romans 8:30, or where God acts without any preemption gratuitously, such as Isaiah 65:1.
The major thing Cullman lacks is the now/ not yet tension.
Golden Chains can wrap too tight
In part, this highlights the rick of taking salvation history as “a temporal chain of events working towards a conclusion” too firmly.
Switching gears a bit, there is even a Joke about this kind of thing in the New Testament:
…this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working still, and I am working.” (John 5:16-17 RSV)
Jesus, if he is not denying the account in Genesis, is sure making an interesting point. The main focus is that God is not “resting” in the 7th day but creating a new creation in the work of Christ. Yet, John’s Jesus is well aware of the eschatological tension in such a statement.
Could he be implying the rest of Genesis 1 is somehow within the creative act similar to what is found in Augustine?
Perhaps. Jewish tradition at least held that God did not take siestas (Elijah mocks Baal of that). He could just be pointing out that the Sabbath notion of rest has to be deeper than just not working.
Either way, the “work always ongoing” presents a problem. Can any completion to the work (defined as reaching “the End” if it is only understood in linear temporal terms? There would always be a next step, a Zeno style paradox.
Non purely-linear time options
I am of the opinion some kind of hybridization of linear time and another form is perhaps the strongest contender for understanding relational time. In fact, the salvation timeline is actually collapsed in on itself in many places in the Bible.
The most concrete example I can think of is Paul’s popular “now and not yet” eschatology.
Paul collapses the past, present, and future in support of his doctrine of being “in Christ” (I’ll let you play with the Greek here, hint it’s “is” present) who as Lord of the Ages simultaneously began and completed the soteriological work.
Thus, Paul could write, “And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Romans 8:30, TNIV). He makes it all already achieved and complete
Realizing that this does not mesh with the Christian experience of the temporal “now,” Paul elsewhere also posits a reality that is both “now and not yet” in Philippians 3:12-16.
Same with the way he uses the sinner and saint duality, or maintains the election and freewill tensions in his writings.
An Eternal God
The ideas of Christ’s Lordship over time (Inclusive of time’s beginning through end) as a collapsed entity is not limited to Paul.
The Alpha and Omega of Revelation is particularly poignant; however, the New Testament’s wide samplings of versus ascribing God’s qualities to Jesus highlight this aspect of Christ. The other divine aspects of God his classification of Lord of the Ages and Alpha and Omega have sometimes not been totally brought over into a conception of Christ.
Yet, when discussing just “God” Professor Jack Cottrell contends, “Biblical teaching almost always refers to [God’s] originless (sp), unending duration.”. This focus on God lacking a particular starting and ending point, as found for example in Isaiah 43:10, makes Cullman’s model of a straight chronology difficult to maintain if we want to attribute full divinity to Jesus.
In fact, Cottrell over against Cullman posits that God’s transcendence renders God outside of created time or “timeless.” Contrell argues that in time is subjective to the creature’s understanding, and what ever ontologically exist beyond it is outside of scientific measurement. 
In so doing, Contrell stands more within the accepted mainstream western philosophical tradition about God. This means he finds ample biblical grounds from citing the text of Isaiah 46:9-11, a few other places in Isiah, and other versus . Still because he is arguing from an established position Cottrell cites less textual evidence than Cullman. This leaves unresolved if textual evidences really support only one of these two conclusions.
Seeking to combine a Relational and Transcendent God coherently
An time paradox still arises in Cottrell’s mainstream thought. He describes it in these words:
“God can no more change the past nor interact with the past than we can without violating the integrity he bestowed on it at the beginning, likewise he must wait for the future to become present before entering into it…”
It seems that Cottrell, like Cullman, is sensitive to the linear notion of salvation history and maintaining integrity of the timeline. However, that sensitivity is based in a totally different thought pattern. Cottrell makes God so transcendent, that his “outsider effect” on time means he needs some way to become analougeus to it by adjusting his “eternal clock. This has the effect in his thinking that he puts forth a doctrine of timeless eternity only to hobble it down again by again making God subject to “some-form” of time.
One questions if this vacillating thesis satisfies:
- 1. the idea of both beginning and end being present concurrently for God or
- 2. resolves the question that if there is no beginning or end with God can salvation here truly begin or end
And I wonder if we even need to accept Cotrell’s theory that God would violate a timeline by interacting with it. A God without a “time” tribute would not necessarily interject one.
I think these are two poles of a better middle way
Yet, Cullman’s thesis really shines when highlighting the relational aspect of time to God. And he is not wrong to say God inhabits our subjective time-frame by way of his incarnation. Contrell is not wrong to point to the timelessness of God either. He is not wrong in stating God is transcendent.
We seem to have found to theologians, each standing on opposite sides of the mystery of the incarnation. Is there a middle ground that does not violate the mystery or better explains the subjective human and God in one? And what does this do to the soul’s relationship to God?
What is time anyways?
It is at this impasse many feel that the “scientific wrench” needs be thrown into the theological gearing.
According to Robert Russell who holds a PhD. in both Physics and Theology, many of the issues facing contemporary discussions of God and time stem from the fact that they rely on Newtonian physics.
In Newton’s mechanics time is absolute and the “universe is infinite, static, and eternal.” 
As Russel explains, Einstein’s physics confounded the idea that temporal and spatial omnipotence can remain separate species by proving space and time are inter-related.This type of development was a paradigm change.
One ask why an accepted scientific theory for over half a century has not been taken seriously by the theological community. The matter presses harder as the science gets even further away from the systems of reference the theologians are using. There are now even some scientific studies of time on the quantum level. Some have even hinted that both past and future quantum states are determinative of the present.
That may or may not pan out; it further highlights that the base assumptions we carry regarding time and even its directional nature need to be reappraised.
The times they are a-changing
This reappraisal of the nature of time offers a rare and precious chance.
The normally dogmatic and highly systemized occidental Church theologies have an opportunity for a re-contextualization of God’s eternity.
This is not without tension however, for we must figure a way to do so while being faithful to the Church’s traditional discussion on the subject and other doctrines a change there might impact.
For Cullman time is presented as linear salvation history and time is as a factor of eternity. Balancing this tendency Cottrell focused on the “timeless” aspect of God’s eternity.
There is no clear winner between the two. And they both may indeed be losers by being polar extreames of a happy middle.
The Biblical witness of Genesis 1:1-2:3, as even the early Church pointed out, has a linear temporal narrative. Still it seems to welcome a reading that takes time in a different compacted fashion as Augustine, and maybe even Jesus himself did. The biblical witness of Paul and other writers to a “now and not yet” as hovers between a dichotomy.
The tradition may indeed best be served by making a new position.
Taking the middle ground
Einstein’s physics rest on a relational basis, in that space and time react in relation to large masses.
I feel this better than Newtons clockwork recalls the relational character of the creation narrative in John’s Gospel in which God, the Word, and creation are explained in relational terms to “the beginning.”
It seems prudent then to use the discussion of time as a relative object in order to explore God’s eternity. This avoids the monad of a philosophical god and forces the discussion away from proofs of “a god” into a discussion of a Trinitarian God who is self-relational.
God as self-relational corresponds with aspects of Cullman’s thesis. He held God is not “timeless” in a strict sense because there is some mysterious orbit at which the persons perpetually move.
This is as much as saying God is not passive or dead but living.
At the same time, the unchanging nature of God as highlighted by Cottrell. He cautions against imagining God as a super atomic clock.
This apophatic dual nature claim of both time-fullness and timelessness I feel grows similar to apoptotic limitations in other doctrinal matters, such as, multiple persons and singular essence, imminent and imminent omnipotence.
The incomprehensibility of Trinitarian time must be confessed. Only the ripples on the surface are open to us.
Placing Time into the Realm of Space. Theological moves towards systematic “Space-time”
Moreover, the separation of space and time in a relative context is falsified.
Much is gained in so doing.
Cullman and Cottrell both view God as working over a timescale but neither sees it as a spatially-bound timescale. Yet it is now possible to posit the existence of an eternal space-timeline, “spatial” separation becomes a function of “eternity.”
This is not a particularly radical notion given the separation of the heavenly and the earthly realm is a common biblical notion.
What has really been challenged is our ability to posit that an absolute timeframe runs through all dimensions.
This i strips time of its power to dictate to God. It finally correctly forces time in the realm of created entities and intra-cosmos.
It should not be surprising to a monotheist that time is mutable and effectible as Einstein found. God can thus in the incarnation accept the human time and space, and fully redeem it. It grants him the ability to save us before, during, and after without a worry of where when stand for each when.
This is interesting when we place it on the incarnation!
Opening up the floor for discussions
Genesis and Cosmology
Returning to the spirit of the contentiousness that surrounds the Genesis narrative, this relational temporal matrix also has further implications.
The creation of stars, planets, and the sun all affect whatever timeline is ongoing as they bend space and time in relationship to one another. Pure linearity is not possible because the timeframes did not start until objects are placed in opposition.
Beyond the discussions of the mechanics of creation, it should be acknowledged that the idea of viewing Genesis as a purely forensic or past tense event is shortsighted. Creation in the New Testament context involves creating the past, present, and future. Redemption involves all three as well. How this comes about subjectively is hard to speculate, but a literalist, forensic reading needs to take into account the mighty cosmic forces at work more prudently than any of the current variants do.
Outside of western context, new liquidity
The west is a major source of theologies, communication, missionaries, funds, and cultural ideas. A paradigm shift in the west is sure to affect the global discussion on a large scale. For all of its abstraction, this type of theoretical examination on the nature of God in relationship to time is a valuable process for the individual believer. We live in a world of deadlines, ticking clocks, and are each day more and more interconnected by a twenty-four hour business cycle. There is a need to separate the secular economy out of the divine economy and to take time out for God. There is a constant stress between what we do the rest of the week and what we do in our “God Time.”
Moreover, different cultures view time through different lenses. It is important to mark these differences when properly contextualizing the Gospels. Some groups are seasonal, some think in terms of generations, and some may have even more unique views. Theology dictated by the European wristwatch is not the only way of understanding how our lives play out in the historical, present, and future narrative of God’s people. The importance of time is highlighted by the narrative aspect of Christianity, because it speaks to the core plot and critical understandings. The narrative is both full of time and timeless. While the discussion of creation, time, and its modern contextualization may seem abstract and pointless, it is actually highly determinant.
Here’s a Good Visualization of the points
It is so determinative, in fact, that it is an issue every believer must work through themselves when accepting the Gospel. How does an individual’s past relate to Christ? Does the believer understand their past as one where they were being lead because God preordained and controlled our comings and goings? Or does one understand past actions as unguided and random? The answers may partially determine if the past is seen as a source of shame or of unknown grace. The determination of whether has God redeemed our future or if we may falter and fall away later is of vital importance to Paul who claims it is redeemed now (Romans 8:30); how many theologies take this message to heart?
And if time is relational, what are the implications for social units greater than individuals. The community, the church, the nations, and everything in-between possess a space-time between them. Past, histories, and futures are all going to be effected. How that time is to be structured, realized, and how we are open to God working through it all are live questions all communities and context ask.
Return to biblical witness.
The Roman system focuses so much on God working temporally that it grants final sins the ability to doom an entire life of obedience. The Orthodox system with its theosis falls into issues of incomplete diety. The biblical system tends to even be more nuanced than many protestant systems that focus on a pivotal moment in time.
The reformers claimed cautiously “Once saved, always” or perhaps better, “Always of going to have been saved.” Yet they did not do so on the state of a person at the time of death. They in fact sort of removed salvation from being a time-based process. They managed to do so by separating justification from sanctification which are collapsed in Roman thought.
At the most basic level, this reasoning fits with a cross and forgiveness achieved two thousand years ago yet still embodied in the church today. Justice occurs at a set moment. Yet, the working out of sanctification maintains an impetus and mechanism for linear growth.
Because of this, time folding back into space, does not affect protestant theology / Biblical theology in the same way it will the others.
Culturally, this may herald a new reformation from an odd source
Over to you
Finally, contextualizing the idea of time is a necessary because of ongoing discussion within the academic world.
Not only does the West export theological ideas and doctrine, but its scientific knowledge and worldview are also a driving part of the global community.
Shifting the focus from debating time in Genesis 1:1-2:3 to a serious conversation of John 1 and the self-relational nature of God may upset preconceived notions but may lead to a clearer articulation of a Trinitarian understanding of eternity.
The Church has the existing frameworks to comprehend the conclusions that would come from such a study, modern science points to a Trinitarian relational solution, and it has a vested interest in relating to the world beyond staring at its watch waiting for God.
What ways in all of this do you see things moving forward? I’d love to hear from you
Augustine. City of God (Penguin Classics) XI ,7 & 8. translated Henry Bettenson, London, Penguin, 1972. Kindle Edition
Cottrel, Jack. What the Bible Says About God, the Creator (What the Bible Says Series)Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2000.
Cullman, Oscar. Christ and Time. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1964.
Engel and Lorber, Johannes Evangelium: Verglich zwischen Bibel und verbal-inspirierten Urtext-Wiederoffenbarung, (Hagnau; Disk-Plus-Buch-Verlag), 1991.
Gallup. “Survey: Evolutionism Creationism Intelligent Design.” last accessed May 26, 2015. http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx.
Hitchcock, Nathan. Karl Barth and the Resurrection of the Flesh: The Loss of the Body in Participatory Eschatology Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2013.
Irenaeus. Against the Eunomians, Bk II, 10 in A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (eds), The Writings of Irenaeus Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1869. last accessed May 27, 2015, http://www.gnosis.org/library/advh3.htm.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.21.1 in A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (eds), The Writings of Irenaeus Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1869. last accessed May 27, 2015, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=K9UYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR5#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Moloney, Francis. Belief in the Word Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Moskowitz, Clara. “Quantum Entanglement Experiment Shows How Future Can Affect Past in Quantum World,” Huffingtonpost.com, last accessed May 26, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/quantum-entanglement-experiment-future-past_n_1465517.html.
Origen. De Principiis IV.16. in Ante-Nicene Fathers V IV. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1885.
Russell, Robert. Cosmology, Evolution, and Resurrection Hope: Theology and Science in Creative Mutual Interaction Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora Press, 2006.
Strong, James. The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, year ?.
- Gallup. “Survey: Evolutionism Creationism Intelligent Design.” last accessed May 26, 2015. http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx
- James Strong,The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, (Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1968), Strong’s # 3117.
- Origen,De Principiis IV.16. in Ante-Nicene Fathers V IV, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans 1885), 349.
- Augustine,City of God Bk XI ,7 & 8 translated Henry Bettenson, (London, Penguin, 1972) Kindle Edition.
- Ibid. loc. cit.
- Engel and Lorber,Johannes Evangelium: Verglich zwischen Bibel und verbal-inspirierten Urtext-Wiederoffenbarung,(Hagnau; >>Disk-Plus-Buch<<-Verlag, 1991), 61.
- Francis Moloney,Belief in the WORD, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 28-30.
- Oscar Cullman,Christ and Time, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1964), 178.
- Ibid, 37, 70.
- Ibid, cf. 136-139.
- Ibid, 140.
- Ibid, 62.
- Ibid, 62-65.
- Jack Cottrel,What the Bible Says About God, the Creator: The Doctrine of God V. 1, (Eugene; Wipf & Stock, 2000), 252.
- Ibid, 254.
- Ibid, 257-9.
- Ibid, 260.
- Ibid, 260-1.
- Robert Russell,Cosmology, Evolution, and Resurrection Hope: Theology and Science in Creative Mutual Interaction, (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora Press, 2006), 17.
- Ibid, 18.
- Ibid, 19-22.
- Clara Moskowitz, “Quantum Entanglement Experiment Shows How Future Can Affect Past in Quantum World” Huffingtonpost.com, last accessed May 26, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/quantum-entanglement-experiment-future-past_n_1465517.html
- Irenaeus, Against the Eunomians, Bk II, 10 in A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (eds), The Writings of Irenaeus Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1869), 110, last accessed May 27, 2015, http://www.gnosis.org/library/advh3.htm
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.21.1 in A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (eds), The Writings of Irenaeus Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1869), 110, last accessed May 27, 2015, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=K9UYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR5#v=onepage&q&f=false.
- Nathan Hitchcock, Karl Barth and the Resurrection of the Flesh: The Loss of the Body in Participatory Eschatology (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2013), 107-108.