Where is Jesus or a Problem of the Naïve Metaphysics of Wayne Grudem?

Wayne Grudem, thought of by many as one of the best evangelical theologians, makes the assertion in his Systematic Theology that the ascension means that Jesus is “somewhere” or in a “place.” Grudem then goes on to chastise evangelicals who say that this is simply metaphorical language in speaking about Jesus’ Ascension.
I have multiple problems with Grudem in this case, but I think his biggest problem in this passage is his metaphysic. Grudem wants the reader to believe that God is outside of time, incorporeal, etc. yet he wants this being to be in a “place”. I think Grudem is having trouble with language in this regard. He seems to forget that human language is designed to only deal with sense data, which makes it difficult to define realities outside of our sense experience. A good example of this language problem is when we speak of God “seeing” into the future. If we think about this we know that God does not have eyes to see. This is a metaphorical way of speaking about God. I would submit that what the disciples saw at Jesus Ascension was on a plane that they had to empty out their linguistic cupboard to describe. I think the language of an “upward ascension” is the language of theophony which does indeed represent a real event, but one that does not happen everyday. Grudem is trying to get scripture to explain something in univocal fashion, that probably can only be explained analogically. More on this distinction later.
I think Grudem commits the same fallacy, or error in thinking that Frederick Copleston pointed out in his A History of Philosophy when he was discussing Plato’s theory of the forms and the misguided critique of the “forms” spatial position. He says, “In the case of that which transcends space and time, we cannot even legitimately raise the question, where it is. It is nowhere, as far as local presence is concerned (though it is not nowhere in the sense of being unreal). The separation would thus seem to imply, in the case of the Platonic essence, a reality beyond the subjective reality of the abstract concept- a subsistent reality, but not a local separation. It is, therefore, just as true to say that the essence is immanent, as that it is transcendent: the great point is that it is real and independent of particulars, unchanged and abiding. It is foolish to remark that if the Platonic Essense is real, it must be somewhere. Absolute Being, for instance, does not exist outside us in the sense in which a flower exists outside us—for it might just as well be said to exist inside us, in as much as spatial categories simply do not apply to it. On the other hand, it cannot be said to be inside us in the sense that it is purely subjective, is confined to us, comes into being with us, and perishes through our agency or with us. It is both transcendent and immanent, inaccessible to the senses, apprehensible only by the intellect.”
Did the disciples sense something with their senses? I believe that they did, but I do not think that it implies that Jesus is floating around somewhere in the space-time universe. Grudem did not deal with the nature of the resurrection body, which could very well exist in an incorporeal way (it passes through walls), and be eternal, as well in some sense being physical. Grudem has hit the wall of human language like a Mack truck, and has not realized the multiple problems his position has for his doctrine of God. It is clear from the gospels that the resurrection body was Jesus’ body transformed. What is the extent of this transformation? I do not think we know very well. The only thing we know is that it is eternal and physical in someway. Grudem has made it restrained to our time-space universe, which I think is a mistake.

Dealing with Delay, or An Integral Tension Within Biblical Thought?

This topic has been one to cause much cognitive disonance within Christian circles, and a deadly threat to the Christian faith. I know from personal experience, after having dealt with this subject for quite sometime. I do not claim that what I am going to say resolves the problem indefinitely, but I think it may make the issue a little bit more clear to believers and unbelievers alike.
When coming to the topic of what New Testament Critics have called the “delay of the Parousia”, it is assumed out of hand that this causes a insurmountable problem for the Christian faith, or worse, totally invalidates it and shows that it is in fact a false worldview. There is no getting around the fact that there is imminence language in the New Testament, as Ben Witherington has shown quite clearly in his book Jesus, Paul, and The End of the World. The problem stated in a very general fashion is: Jesus and the rest of the New Testament characters believed that Christ’s return would happen with in the lifetime of Jesus’ disciples, and when this belief was proven wrong when Christ did not return after the fall of Jerusalem the early Church then reverted to doing theology.
I think that most of the explanations that have arisen to tackle this very thorny problem in believing scholarship has failed. I also believe that this is the most significant objection to the Christian faith, quite possibly rivaling the problem of evil for the truth or falsity of the Christian faith.
In this paper I will attempt to, first show that the traditional approaches to this topic have failed. I will show that first the most recent attempt to answer this problem by scholars like N.T. Wright have failed, because they try and squeeze biblical language to fit a certain mold across the board that I do no think the New Testament, History, nor scholarship will uphold. Second, I will attempt to show that the traditional position of critical scholarship is off target on this topic. I think that they plaster the early Christians with too much naivety. Finally, I will attempt to show that there is something more profound going on in the OT and NT, and even the rabbis when they use the language of imminence for the coming of God. This paper will depend much upon the work of C.E.B Cranfield, Ben Witherington, Albert Schweitzer, Dale C. Allison, and Richard Bauckham and his article “The Delay of the Parousia” in the Tyndale Bulletein. I have never seen his position critiqued other than to say it is just “a way around the problem”. Bauckham in his examination of the Rabbinical literature and select passages from the OT shows that “nearness” was a way of speaking about the coming of YHWH, and it was more for ethical imperative than any form of date setting.
Series I. HIstory of the Problem in New Testament Studies
A. Remairus and Wrede
B. Schweitzer
C. Others?

Series II. An Old Testament Problem?

Series III A Rabbinical Problem?

Series IV. A New Testament Problem?

A) Jesus
B) Paul
C) Peter
D) Jude
E) John (emphasis on Revelation)
F) Conclusion

Series V. The Problem Critically scrutinized. In...
A) Jesus
B) Paul
C) Peter
D) Jude
E) John
F) Conclusion
Series VI. Summary and Conclusions from Study

I am sure this outline will change, this is how I think I will proceed.