Ascent Into Heaven in Luke-Acts: New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge 978-1451496444

Table of contents :
Contributors vii
Abbreviations ix
David K. Bryan and David W. Pao
Introduction 1
1. Ascension Scholarship
Past, Present, and Future
Arie W. Zwiep
7
Part I. Lukan Ascension Narratives in their
Ancient Contexts
2. Jesus’s Ascension through Old Testament Narrative
Traditions
Steve Walton
29
3. “For David Did Not Ascend into Heaven . . .” (Acts
2:34a)
Reprogramming Royal Psalms to Proclaim the
Enthroned-in-Heaven King
Joshua W. Jipp
41
4. A Revised Cosmic Hierarchy Revealed
Apocalyptic Literature and Jesus’s Ascent in Luke’s
Gospel
David K. Bryan
61
5. Benefactor and Paradigm
Viewing Jesus’s Ascension in Luke-Acts through
Greco-Roman Ascension Traditions
James Buchanan Wallace
83
Part II. Lukan Ascension Narratives within Luke’s
Literary Program
6. The Unity of Luke-Acts and the Ascension
Narratives
Stanley E. Porter
111
7. Jesus’s Ascension and the Lukan Account of the
Restoration of Israel
David W. Pao
137
8. The Ascension and Spatial Theory
Matthew Sleeman
157
9. Lukan Cosmology and the Ascension
Charles Anderson
175
10. The Ascension as a Cultic Experience in Acts
Rick Strelan
213
Part III. A Theologian’s Postscript
11. What Is This Conversation You Are Holding?
Douglas Farrow
235
Selected Bibliography on the Ascension in Luke-Acts
(1995–2015)
253
Ancient Sources Index 263

Citation preview

Bryan Pao

Luke’s two-volume work contains the only narrative depictions of Jesus’ ascent into heaven in the New Testament. The significance of the events at the end of the Gospel and the beginning of Acts have long been recognized. While select studies have focused on particular aspects of these accounts, the importance of the ascension to Luke-Acts calls for renewed attention to its narratological and theological significance. Here, leading scholars discuss the ancient, literary, and theological contexts of the ascent-into-heaven accounts for the next generation of interpreters.



Ascent into Heaven in

Luke-Acts

Contents

Luke’s Literary Program 6. The Unity of Luke–Acts and the Ascension Narratives—Stanley E. Porter 7. Jesus’ Ascension and the Lukan Account of the Restoration of Israel—David W. Pao 8. The Ascension and Spatial Theory—Matthew Sleeman 9. Lukan Cosmology and the Ascension—Charles Anderson 10. The Ascension as a Cultic Experience in Acts—Rick Strelan

David K. Bryan is an adjunct instructor and doctoral candidate at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has published on the parables of Jesus, and his other research interests include authority in the ancient world, apocalyptic literature, and the kingdom of God. David W. Pao is professor of New Testament and chair of the New Testament Department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and the author of Colossians and Philemon (2012), Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (2008), Thanksgiving: An Investigation of a Pauline Theme (2002), and Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (2000).

Religion / New Testament

Luke-Acts

Ancient Contexts 2. Jesus’ Ascension through Old Testament Narrative Traditions—Steve Walton 3. “For David Did Not Ascend into Heaven . . .”—Joshua W. Jipp 4. A Revised Cosmic Hierarchy Revealed—David K. Bryan 5. Benefactor and Paradigm—James Buchanan Wallace

Ascent into Heaven in

Introduction—David K. Bryan and David W. Pao 1. Ascension Scholarship—Arie W. Zwiep

New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge

David K. Bryan David W. Pao editors

Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts

Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts New Explorations of Luke's Narrative Hinge

David K. Bryan and David W. Pao, editors

Fortress Press Minneapolis

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge Copyright © 2016 Fortress Press. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Visit http://www.augsburgfortress.org/copyrights/ or write to Permissions, Augsburg Fortress, Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440. Cover image: Giotto di Bondone (1266-1336), The Ascension. Scala / Art Resource, NY. Grunge Paper Background with space for text or image. Thinkstock/iStock/Zakharova_Natalia Cover design: Tory Hermann Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Print ISBN: 978-1-4514-9644-4 eBook ISBN: 978-1-5064-1896-4 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z329.48-1984. Manufactured in the U.S.A. This book was produced using Pressbooks.com, and PDF rendering was done by PrinceXML.

Contents

1.

Contributors

vii

Abbreviations

ix

Introduction David K. Bryan and David W. Pao

1

Ascension Scholarship

7

Past, Present, and Future Arie W. Zwiep

Part I. Lukan Ascension Narratives in their Ancient Contexts 2.

Jesus’s Ascension through Old Testament Narrative Traditions

29

Steve Walton

3.

“For David Did Not Ascend into Heaven . . .” (Acts 2:34a)

41

Reprogramming Royal Psalms to Proclaim the Enthroned-in-Heaven King Joshua W. Jipp

4.

A Revised Cosmic Hierarchy Revealed Apocalyptic Literature and Jesus’s Ascent in Luke’s Gospel David K. Bryan

61

5.

Benefactor and Paradigm Viewing Jesus’s Ascension in Luke-Acts through Greco-Roman Ascension Traditions James Buchanan Wallace

83

Part II. Lukan Ascension Narratives within Luke’s Literary Program 6.

The Unity of Luke-Acts and the Ascension Narratives

111

Stanley E. Porter

7.

Jesus’s Ascension and the Lukan Account of the Restoration of Israel

137

David W. Pao

8.

The Ascension and Spatial Theory Matthew Sleeman

9.

Lukan Cosmology and the Ascension Charles Anderson

10.

The Ascension as a Cultic Experience in Acts Rick Strelan

157 175 213

Part III. A Theologian’s Postscript 11.

What Is This Conversation You Are Holding? Douglas Farrow

235

Selected Bibliography on the Ascension in Luke-Acts (1995–2015)

253

Ancient Sources Index

263

Contributors

Charles Anderson was formerly lecturer in New Testament and Greek at Oak Hill College, London, and is currently a teaching pastor at The Crossing, Columbia, MO. David K. Bryan is a PhD candidate and adjunct instructor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL. Douglas Farrow is professor of Christian Thought at McGill University in Montreal and holder of the Kennedy Smith Chair in Catholic Studies. Joshua W. Jipp is assistant professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL. David W. Pao is professor of New Testament and chair of the New Testament Department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL. Stanley E. Porter is president, dean, and professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario. Matthew Sleeman is lecturer in New Testament and Greek at Oak Hill College, London. Rick Strelan is an honorary associate professor at the University of Queensland.

vii

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

James Buchanan Wallace is associate professor of Religion at Christian Brothers University in Memphis, TN. Steve Walton is professorial research fellow in New Testament at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, London. Arie W. Zwiep is assistant professor of New Testament and Hermeneutics at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

viii

Abbreviations

1 Apol.

Apologia i, Justin

1QH

Hodayot or Thanksgiving Hymns

1QS

Serek Hayaḥad or Rule of the Community

1QSa

Rule of the Congregation

4Q285

Sefer Hamilḥamah

4QFlor

Florilegium text from Qumran Cave 4

11QBer. Sefer ha-Milḥamah AB

Anchor Bible

Abr.

De Abrahamo, Philo

AGJU

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums

Ag. Phys.

Against the Physicists

Anab.

Anabasis, Arrian

AnBib

Analecta Biblica

ANQ

Andover Newton Quarterly

ANRW

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms in Spiegel der nueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat

Ant.

Jewish Antiquities, Josephus

Ant. rom.

Antiquitates romanae, Dionysius of Halicarnassus

ix

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Apol.

Apologeticus, Tertullian

AR

Archiv für Religionswissenschaft

AT

Author’s Translation

Aug.

Divus Augustus, Suetonius

AYBRL

Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library

BBB

Bonner biblische Beiträge

BECNT

Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BETL

Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium

BGPhMA

Beiträge zur Geschicte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters

b. Hag.

Babylonian Ḥagigah

Bib

Biblica

BibInt

Biblical Interpretation Series

BTB

Biblical Theology Bulletin

BTS

Biblical Tools and Studies

BZNW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Cael.

De caelo, Aristotle

CBOT

Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBR

Currents in Biblical Research

ChrCent

Christian Century

CNT

Commentaire du Nouveau Testament

Com(US)

Communio (USA)

CRINT

Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum

DCLY

Deuterocanoncial and Cognate Literature Yearbook

Decal.

De decalogo, Philo

Deus

Quod Deus sit immutabilis, Philo

Diod. Sic.

Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica

EFN

Estudios de filología neotestamentaria

Ebr.

De ebrietate, Philo

Ep. Mor.

Epistulae morales, Seneca

EPRO

Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain

x

ABBREVIATIONS

Eth. eud.

Ethica eudemia, Aristotle

ETS

Erfurter theologische Studien

EvQ

Evangelical Quarterly

ExpTim

Expository Times

Fin.

De finibus, Cicero

FOC

Fathers of the Church

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

Gen. Socr.

De genio Socratis, Plutarch

Gorg.

Gorgias, Plato

HBT

Horizons in Biblical Theology

Her.

Quis rerum divinarum heres sit, Philo

Hist.

History of Rome, Livy

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

ICC

International Critical Commentary

Ign. Eph.

Ignatius, To the Ephesians

IJST

International Journal of Systematic Theology

Int

Interpretation

Is. Os.

De Iside et Osiride, Plutarch

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JPTSup

Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplements

JSJSup

Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements

JSNT

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

JSS

Journal of Semitic Studies

JTS

Journal for Theological Studies

Jul.

Divus Julius, Suetonius

KEK

Kritish-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

Leg.

Legum allegoriae, Philo

Let. Aris.

Letter of Aristeas

Libr.

The Library, Apollodorus

xi

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

LNTS

Library of New Testament Studies

LXX

Septuagint

Math.

Adversus mathematicos, Sextus Empiricus

Memorab.

Facta et dicta Memorabilia, Valerius Maximus

Metam.

Metamorphōseōn synagōge, Antoninus Liberalis

Metaph.

Metaphysica, Aristotle

Mos.

De vita Mosis, Philo

MT

Masoretic Text

Mund.

De Mundo, Pseudo-Aristotle

Mut.

De mutatione nominum, Philo

NA28

Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 28th ed.

NAB

New American Bible

NAC

New American Commentary

Nat.

Naturalis historia, Pliny the Elder

Nat. d.

De natura deorum, Cicero

Neot

Neotestamentica

NETS

A New English Translation of the Septuagint

NHS

Nag Hammadi Studies

NICNT

New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIGTC

New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV

New International Version

NJB

New Jerusalem Bible

NovT

Novum Testamentum

NovTSup

Supplements to Novum Testamentum

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version

NSBT

New Studies in Biblical Theology

NT

New Testament

NTL

New Testament Library

NTOA

Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus

NTS

New Testament Studies

NTTS

New Testament Tools and Studies

xii

ABBREVIATIONS

NZSTh

Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie

OG

Old Greek

Op.

Opera et dies, Hesiod

Opif.

De opificio mundi, Philo

OT

Old Testament

PBM

Paternoster Biblical Monographs

Phileb.

Philebus, Plato

Phys.

Physica, Aristotle

Plant.

De plantatione, Philo

PNTC

Pelican New Testament Commentaries

Pol.

Politicus, Plato

PRSt

Perspectives in Religious Studies

PTMS

Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series

RAC

Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum

RB

Revue biblique

REB

Revised English Bible

Resp.

Respublica, Plato

RGG

Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart

Rom.

Romulus, Plutarch

Rom. Hist.

Roman History, Cassius Dio

RThPh

Revue de théologie et de philosophie

SANT

Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments

SBG

Studies in Biblical Greek

SBL

Society of Biblical Literature

SBLDS

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLGNT

Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament

SBLMS

Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBLSymS

Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series

Sera

De sera numinis vindicta, Plutarch

SJT

Scottish Journal of Theology

SNTSMS

Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

xiii

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

SNTSU

Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt

SNTW

Studies of the New Testament and Its World

Somn.

De somniis, Philo

SP

Sacra Pagina

Spec.

De specialibus legibus, Philo

SPIB

Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici

STAC

Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum

Strom.

Stromateis, Clement of Alexandria

SUNT

Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments

SVF

Stoicorum veterum Fragmenta

SZNT

Studien zum Neuen Testament

TDNT

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

ThBl

Theologische Blätter

ThTo

Theology Today

Tim.

Timaeus, Plato

TLG

Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works

TS

Theological Studies

TSAJ

Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum

Tusc.

Tusculanae disputationes, Cicero

TynBul UBSGNT

Tyndale Bulletin 5

United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, 5th ed.

UTB.WGR Universaltaschenbücher für Wissenschaft: Grosse Reihe Vita Apoll.

Vita Apollonii, Philostratus

VT

Vetus Testamentum

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

WTJ

Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

WW

Word and World

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZECNT

Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

xiv

ABBREVIATIONS

ZNW

Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

ZTK

Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

xv

Introduction

David K. Bryan and David W. Pao

Despite the voluminous amount of scholarship devoted to Luke-Acts in general, and Lukan Christology and theology in particular, one of the few areas that has received far less attention in the last fifty years is Luke’s dual narration of Jesus’s ascent into heaven in Luke 24 and Acts 1. Prior to the 1980s, ascension scholarship was heavily indebted to two key works. Victoriano Larrañaga, L’ascension de Notre-Seigneur dans le Nouveau Testament (1938, original thesis written in Spanish in 1934 and published in Spanish in 1943), focused heavily on the text of the ascension narratives in the Lukan accounts. Gerhard Lohfink’s Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas (1971) form-critically compared the heavenly journey of the soul (Himmelsreise der Seele) and rapture (Entrückung) accounts in the Greco-Roman world with similar concepts in the Old Testament. Several monographs in the past few decades have further attended to the significance of the ascension in Luke-Acts. Mikeal Parsons’s monograph The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context (1987) proposed a diachronic-synchronic approach to the ascension narratives and narrative-critically examined how the ascension narratives functioned as a closing and opening for Luke’s

1

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

two works. Arie Zwiep built upon the diachronic developments of both Parsons and Lohfink in The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology (1997), arguing that Jewish rapture accounts—for example, of Enoch and Elijah—were the most appropriate framework within which to read the Lukan accounts. Most recently, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts (2009), by Matthew Sleeman, situated the ascension and the book of Acts within recent advances in human and social geography. Luke’s two-volume work contains the only narrative depictions of the ascent into heaven of Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament. However, a study of the Lukan ascent-into-heaven narratives by various scholars from various perspectives compiled in one volume has yet to be undertaken. The present work attempts to meet this deficit and is organized around two chief endeavors: (1) evaluation of the ancient contexts that may or may not have influenced Luke’s unique narrations of Jesus’s ascent and (2) assessment of the importance of the ascension narratives within Luke’s larger narratological and theological purposes. The overall focus here is on the importance of the ascension for Luke and his audience as opposed to the NT as a whole. For this reason, exploration of other ascension texts in the NT outside of Luke and Acts will not be the focus of this volume. Our overall hope is that this volume serves as a helpful resource for scholars and students alike and renews appreciation for and attention to the narrative, historical, and theological import of the ascent-intoheaven accounts for Luke and his audience. The present volume begins with Arie Zwiep’s assessment of ascension scholarship in the past, present and future. Beginning with his 1997 monograph as a terminus a quo, Zwiep synthesizes the state of scholarship on the ascension in the past twenty years into seven areas that have proved most influential and/or debatable. He then proposes a few avenues that require further attention—in particular, the Wirkungsgeschichte of the ascension narratives. In the first of four chapters on various ancient contexts related to Luke’s portrayal of the ascension, Steve Walton (“Jesus’s Ascension

2

INTRODUCTION

through Old Testament Narrative Traditions”) contends that while Enoch and Elijah are two of the most prominent ascension narratives in the OT, it is the ascent of Elijah that is more pertinent for Luke’s Doppelwerk. Not only are there linguistic and verbal parallels between the ascent of Elijah and that of Jesus, but Luke also includes the bestowal of the Spirit and other elements that, when presented in concert with the larger parallels between Jesus and Elijah throughout the gospel, depict Jesus as both similar to and far greater than Elijah. Joshua Jipp (“‘For David did not ascend into heaven . . .’ (Acts 2:34a): Reprogramming Royal Psalms to Proclaim the Enthroned-inHeaven King”) argues that Luke’s programmatic use of the Psalms functions both to depict Jesus’s messianic enthronement in the heavens and exercise continuing royal influence over the remainder of Acts. Peter’s Pentecost sermon and Paul’s address at Pisidian Antioch employ royal psalms to “interpret Jesus’s resurrection and ascension as the installation of his Davidic Messiah as powerful king” (46), an emphasis maintained in Acts via Luke’s use of the Psalms to proclaim the heavenly Messiah’s continued rule and enacting of the kingdom. The paucity of ascension narratives in the OT is replaced by an abundance in Second Temple Jewish and Greco-Roman literature. David Bryan (“A Revised Cosmic Hierarchy Revealed: Apocalyptic Literature and Jesus’s Ascent in Luke’s Gospel”) claims that many of the cosmological and hierarchical emphases found in Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic literature can also be seen in Luke’s narrative of Jesus’s ascent in Luke’s Gospel. Throughout the Gospel, Luke presents Jesus as the supreme authority in the cosmos, and the incorporation of the ascension at the Gospel’s conclusion affirms, for Luke’s audience, Jesus’s status at the apex of a revised cosmic hierarchy. The expansive ascension tradition in the Greco-Roman world calls for an assessment of “the significance of ascent within religious communities” (86). In particular, James Buchanan Wallace (“Benefactor and Paradigm: Viewing Jesus’s Ascension in Luke-Acts Through Greco-Roman Ascension Traditions”) demonstrates that Jesus’s ascent is less about his status and more about the benefits such

3

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

status offered to his followers, just as the various ascents of Herakles, Romulus, and Roman Emperors served their constituents. Turning to the ascension within Luke’s own literary program, Stanley Porter (“The Unity of Luke-Acts and the Ascension Narratives”) surveys the textual and conceptual discrepancies that have sometimes led scholars to argue for a lack of unity within the ascension narratives themselves. He concludes that there is an inherent unity between the two accounts of Jesus’s ascent that, thus, argues for the unity of Luke’s two volumes, with the ascension narratives functioning “as a hinge that connects two accounts with their own purposes and integrity” (135). In light of increased attention to “prophetic promises of the restoration of Israel” (138) in Acts, David Pao (“Jesus’s Ascension and the Lukan Account of the Restoration of Israel”) asks how the ascension fits within such a theological program in Luke’s second volume. After briefly exploring the significance of the ascension and the restoration of Israel in Acts 1, Pao explains that the bestowal of the Spirit (Acts 2:33–36), the parousia (3:19–21), and the mission to the Gentiles (10:34–36) are all significant implications of the ascension that correspond with Luke’s wider theological program to proclaim the restoration of Israel in Acts. Building off of his recent monograph, Matthew Sleeman (“The Ascension and Spatial Theory”) reexamines the importance of spatial theory for study of the ascension. Indebted to the work of Soja and Lefebvre on thirdspace, Sleeman demonstrates how “Jesus’s ascension is foundational and pivotal for reading space more widely across the Lukan narratives” and how such an analysis can provide insight into the “wider human productions of space” (173). Moving from spatial theory to the world, Charles Anderson (“Lukan Cosmology and Jesus’s Ascension”) explores the centrality of the ascension in light of a Lukan cosmology that depicts the inhabited world as disordered and under the dominion of Satan. The ascension is the “crux of the theo-cosmological vision of Luke-Acts . . . and it paradigmatically expresses the process of restoration of right order by

4

INTRODUCTION

means of the reversal of the current order” (207), thus remapping the world for Luke and his audience. Rather than understand the ascension as determining early Christian practice, Rick Strelan (“The Ascension as a Cultic Experience in Acts”) counters that it is the cultic practices of the first century that determined Luke’s narrative presentation of Jesus’s ascension. The liturgical experience of the Lord’s Supper and other Christian gatherings is reflected in Luke’s association of angelic presence, experience of the Spirit, teaching, and, ultimately, the heavenly status of Jesus with the ascension. In the concluding chapter, Douglas Farrow (“What Is This Conversation You Are Holding?”) provides a response from a theologian to the other essays in the volume. He challenges biblical scholars to remember Luke as a theologian while weighing in on the debates about context (whether Jewish or Greek) and the “resurrection-exaltation complex.” He is suspicious of the premise that Luke’s narrative should be seen primarily, let alone exclusively, as an expression of historical currents in his day. Farrow provides one possible voice within the spectrum of biblical and theological positions pertaining to both the ascension and the relationship between history and theology, and his chapter serves as a continued encouragement for further dialogue between biblical scholars and theologians, especially with regard to Jesus’s ascent into heaven. *** Many people have made the present volume possible. We would like to thank Fortress Press for their willingness to take on this project and the work of the editors and staff who have brought it to fruition, especially Neil Elliott, Esther Diley, and Alicia Ehlers. Thanks must also be extended to all of the contributors to this project for their timely and quality work on this important subject. Finally, we are very thankful for the assistance of Sam Freney in the formatting of the volume.

5

1

Ascension Scholarship

Past, Present, and Future Arie W. Zwiep

Introduction In this contribution, I will review recent biblical scholarship on the Lukan ascension narratives, outline points of agreement and areas of ongoing debate, and briefly outline a possible agenda for future research.1 I roughly take the work of Mikeal Parsons2 and myself3 as 1. Surveys of recent scholarship (Forschungsberichte) can be found in François Bovon, Luc le théologien, Le Monde de la Bible 5 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2006), 178–86; François Bovon, L’évangile selon saint Luc (19,28–24,53), CNT 3rd ed. (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2009), 477–98, esp. 490ff.; Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts, SNTSMS 215 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 3–21; Justin Alexandru Mihoc, “The Ascension of Jesus Christ: A Critical and Exegetical Study of the Ascension in Luke-Acts and in the Jewish and Christian Contexts” (MA thesis, Durham University, 2010), 2–16; Mario Bracci, Nel seno della Trinità: Il misterio dell’Ascensione di Gesù, Theologica 2 (Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2011), 27–55, summarized in Ascese al cielo: Per un eccesso del dono che va oltre la misura dell’amore (Assissi: Citadella Editrice, 2013), 7–48. A survey of older scholarship can be found in Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, NovTSup 87 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1–35. 2. Mikeal C. Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context, JSNTSup 21 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). 3. Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah.

7

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

termini a quo. First, I will map some recent developments in textual criticism and their potential repercussions on the reconstruction of the initial text (Ausgangstext) of the ascension narratives. Second, since the study of Parsons, narrative criticism and literary approaches have become increasingly popular in Lukan studies, including the study of the ascension narratives. What are the issues that have emerged since Parsons? Third, both the ascension and the postmortem/ postresurrection appearances can be (and have been) interpreted in the context of Greco-Roman assumption and apotheosis traditions as well as in the light of Jewish rapture traditions and eschatological expectations. On what grounds do recent interpreters decide on the proper context? Fourth, defining the function of the ascension in the wider complex of resurrection, exaltation, and appearances has led to widely divergent christological assessments. Debates about firstcentury monotheism, the interconnectedness (or not) of the resurrection, exaltation, and ascension, the appropriateness (or not) of the term “absentee Christology,” and adoptionist tendencies have yielded a rich harvest of variegated, if not conflicting, reconstructions of Lukan Christology. Fifth, the problem of the chronology of the forty days has recently led to a new proposal that needs to be addressed. Sixth, from a literary perspective, new proposals have been advanced to establish the function of the ascension as integral to the narrative plot of Acts. Finally, an increasing number of scholars in the tradition of “theological exegesis of Scripture” attempt to describe the dogmatic or even ontological implications (or, perhaps more cautiously, claims) of the Lukan ascension narratives. The Text of the Ascension Narratives— the Debate Continued? The status of the words καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν (“and he was carried up into heaven,” Luke 24:51) and προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν (“worshipping him,” Luke 24:52),4 and hence, whether Luke’s finale 4. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (The New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. 2: Introduction. Appendix [Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881; Graz: Akademische, 1974], 73) took the words

8

ASCENSION SCHOLARSHIP

describes the same event as in Acts 1 (and whether it recounts an ascension at all), is still a matter of dispute.5 The defense by Parsons and Ehrman of the Western non-interpolations (nine places in which the Western text had allegedly preserved the original text) on the basis of an alleged scribal tendency—a reversal of the thesis defended by Eldon Jay Epp on a tendency of the Bezan scribe—has been taken up by Michael Wade Martin. While Parsons argued that the longer texts were added by the scribe of 𝔓75 (the oldest known textual witness of Luke, now renamed Papyrus Hanna 1)6 in order to heighten Luke’s Christology in response to gnostic influences,7 and Ehrman, in a similar vein, explained the additions over against docetic voices,8 Martin explains them as a response to separationist influences, that is, to the belief that “the divine, spiritual Christ departed from the human, fleshly Jesus before Jesus suffered and died,” leading to the belief by some that Jesus had only been raised spiritually.9 In general, however, text editors10 and commentators continue to as Western non-interpolations, “inserted from an assumption that a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospel must be the Ascension. The Ascension apparently did not lie within the proper scope of the Gospels, as seen in their genuine texts.” 5. Helpful tools (in addition to new editions): Reuben J. Swanson, ed., The New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus: Luke (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 419–20; Reuben J. Swanson, ed., The New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus: The Acts of the Apostles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 1–6; Wieland Willker, An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, last modified 2015, http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/index.html (3: Luke: nos. 424 and 425). 6. 𝔓75, the former Bodmer papyrus XIV–XV, has been in the possession of the Vatican Apostolic Library since 2007 and renamed Papyrus Hanna 1 (Mater Verbi). The most up-to-date and definitive study on 𝔓75 is James R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri, NTTS 36 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 615–704. 7. Mikeal C. Parsons, “A Christological Tendency in 𝔓75,” JBL 105 (1986): 463–79; Parsons, Departure of Jesus, 29–52 (Luke 24:50–33), 117–135 (Acts 1:1–11); Mikeal C. Parsons, “The Text of Acts 1.2 Reconsidered,” CBQ 50 (1988): 58–71. 8. Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 181–261, esp. 227–33. 9. Michael Wade Martin, “Defending the ‘Western Non-Interpolations’: The Case for an AntiSeparationist Tendenz in the Longer Alexandrian Readings,” JBL 124 (2005): 269–94, quotation from 289. Unfortunately, Martin fails to interact with my argument that the ascension texts deserve a separate treatment because of their interrelationship with Acts 1. 10. Among recent Greek NT editions, only the SBLGNT is ambivalent. The running text reads [καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν] (v. 51) and [προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν] (v. 52), where brackets indicate that “the enclosed text is doubtful” (xiv). The accompanying footnote 16 (at pp. xiv–xv) is instructive if not suggestive, though it is stated that “brackets have been employed in this edition sparingly . . . only six times in the SBLGNT (at Luke 22:19–20; 24:40; 24:51; 24:52; Eph 1:1; Col 1:20).” That our two disputed texts are two out of six in the entire New Testament may well give them an

9

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

regard the longer ending of Luke 24:50–53 and Acts 1:2, 9–11 as original and the Western text as secondary.11 In The Living Text of the Gospels, textual expert David Parker devotes a brief paragraph to the issue, and, himself having a slight favor for the shorter readings, concludes that “the debate [between Ehrman, Epp, and Zwiep] illustrates how seriously theological issues must be taken in studying the history of the text.”12 In a 2004 reprint of his 1981 article, Epp—who started the debate about tendency criticism in Acts—simply noted in response to Parsons that he had “found no reason to modify the position taken in this essay.”13 The Narrative of the Ascension Narrative criticism—the study of the dynamics of how a story is told—was a relative newcomer to NT studies when Mikeal Parsons published his work on the narrative function of the ascension narratives in 1987.14 Today, almost three decades later, narrative analysis and literary approaches have become part and parcel of the exegete’s toolbox.15 Literary approaches to Luke-Acts are flourishing and have enriched our understanding of the author’s literary strategy undue weight. NA28 and UBS5 are more neutral. Apart from differences in layout and additional attestation of K, Γ, Δ, and some other minor witnesses in vv. 50–53, the attestation in NA28 of (the omission of) καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν (v. 51) and προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν (v. 52) has been left unchanged compared with its forerunner (καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν is absent in ‫ *א‬D it sys; προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν is absent in D it sys). The longer reading continues to be rated {B} in UBS5; the attestation is the same as that of UBS4, except that REB (Revised English Bible 1989) has been added twice as adopting the shorter reading (REB follows NA27 with occasional parallels, as here, with the Bezan text). Unsurprisingly, the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform adopts the longer readings. 11. So (defending the longer text in Luke 24:50–53): Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 859n1 (he simply notes that “this final scene is plagued by numerous text-critical problems” and then refers to my article); Hans Klein, Das Lukasevangelium, KEK I/ 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 69–70 (but leaning on older literature), 741–42; Bovon, Luc, 4:483–84; Daniel A. Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Early History of Easter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 115–18. 12. David C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 171. 13. Eldon Jay Epp, “The Ascension in the Textual Tradition of Luke-Acts,” in Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, NovTSup 116 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 225. See also Arie W. Zwiep, “The Text of the Ascension Narratives (Luke 24.50–3; Acts 1.1–2, 9–11),” NTS 42 (1996): 219–44; revised and reprinted in Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles, WUNT 2/293 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 7–37. 14. Parsons, Departure of Jesus. 15. E.g., Green, Luke; Paul Borgman, The Way According to Luke: Hearing the Whole Story of Luke-Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

10

ASCENSION SCHOLARSHIP

and ideology, the genre of Luke and Acts and its implications, their unity (or not)16 and so forth. Two more immediate insights gained by a literary approach to the ascension stories are the recognition that (1) Luke 24 and Acts 1 have different narrative functions which need to be acknowledged as such (so Parsons) and that (2) the theme or motif of ascension in the opening chapter of Acts is subordinate to a broader concern of the implied author. This had already been observed by Charles Talbert, who claimed that Acts 1 was really about the legitimacy of the apostolate,17 but it was reemphasized by Nelson Estrada. Working from a socialscientific perspective, he argued that the main focus of Acts 1–2 is on the apostles, not on Jesus, the Spirit, or other groups or individuals mentioned.18 As a promoter of the apostles, Luke intended to show how they had been transformed from followers of Jesus to respected leaders of the Christian community, a change that, in terms of socialscientific theory, can be described as a ritual of status transformation. Acts 1:3–11, in Estrada’s model, marks the separation stage of the ritual: “In this stage, the initiands are ushered by the ritual elder into seclusion and training” (233). Jesus’s leadership role as a broker between God and the people is being transferred to the apostles and the apostles are being initiated into their new role, as in the ElijahElisha narrative. The ascension marks the “complete separation” of the apostles from their leader very much like Jesus was separated from John the Baptist (his ritual elder) in Luke 4:1–3. As Estrada understands it, the forty days, often associated with trials and testing, recall Jesus’s wilderness experience.19 In the past two or three decades, the study of intertextuality has

16. Mikeal C. Parsons and Richard I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); Joseph Verheyden, ed., The Unity of Luke-Acts, BETL 142 (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1999). 17. Charles H. Talbert, Luke and the Gnostics: An Examination of the Lucan Purpose (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 17–32. 18. Nelson P. Estrada, From Followers to Leaders: The Apostles in the Ritual of Status Transformation in Acts 1–2, LNTS 255 (London: Bloomsbury, 2004). 19. Estrada’s work (a 2001 Sheffield PhD dissertation) was published in 2004, just after the publication of my Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study on Context and Concern of Acts 1:15-26, WUNT 2/187 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004).

11

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

taken different directions.20 Literary interpreters have always been alert to the influence of other texts upon Luke’s narrative presentation. That the Elijah-Elisha narratives have been constitutive for Luke-Acts and the ascension narratives has been argued, time and again, by Thomas Brodie.21 Other scholars argue for a background in the prophetic traditions of the OT and the Book of Psalms.22 An allusion to the finale of Sirach (Sir 50:20–22) in Luke 24:50–53, “portraying Jesus as the culmination of Israel’s life and worship,”23 has also long been recognized.24 On closer scrutiny, once we are on the track of Sirach 50, the parallel may even be stronger when the immediate context is taken into account, as the reviser of the apparatus in the outer margin of NA28 seems to have done.25 While not completely ruling out the impact of Sirach 50, Kelly Kapic investigated the connection between benediction and ascension and argued that Luke portrays the ascending Christ as the fulfillment (or, in

20. Cf. Arie W. Zwiep, Tussen tekst en lezer: een historische inleiding in de bijbelse hermeneutiek, vol. 2 (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2013), 343–45. 21. Thomas L. Brodie, Luke the Literary Interpreter: Luke-Acts as a Systematic Rewriting and Updating of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative in 1 and 2 Kings (PhD diss., Pontifical University of St. Thomas, 1981); Thomas L. Brodie, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012). 22. E.g., Rick Strelan, Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of the Acts of the Apostles, BZNW 126 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 36–39 (Psalm 8). See also the relevant chapters in this volume. 23. Dennis Hamm, “The Tamid Service in Luke-Acts: The Cultic Background Behind Luke’s Theology of Worship (Luke 1:5–25; 18:9–14; 24:50–53; Acts 3:1; 10:3, 30),” CBQ 65 (2003): 215–31, esp. 217–20, arguing that the service referred to in Sir 50 is not that of the Day of Atonement, but “the regular, twice-a-day whole offering that is part of the Tamid service as described in Exod 29:38–43; Num 28:1–10, and the Mishna tractate Tamid” (219). In this, he follows the interpretation of Fearghas Ó Fearghail, “Sir 50:5–21: Yom Kippur or the Daily Whole-Offering,” Biblica 59 (1978): 301–16, accepted by Patrick W. Shekan and Alexander A. di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 550–51. 24. Pieter Aalbertus van Stempvoort, “The Interpretation of the Ascension in Luke and Acts,” NTS 5 (1958): 34–35; Gerhard Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas, SANT 26 (Munich: Kösel, 1971), 168–69; Richard J. Dillon, From EyeWitnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24, AnBib 82 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978), 220–24; Michael Dömer, Das Heil Gottes: Studien zur Theologie des lukanischen Doppelwerkes, BBB 51 (Köln: Hanstein, 1978), 108; Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 87–88; Bovon, Luc, 4:485. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 742n11 is more cautious: not an immediate allusion to Sir 50:20–22 but simply “eine Beschreibung des Priesterhandelns.” 25. At v. 52, a reference to Sir 50:17 has now been added: “Then all the people together quickly fell to the ground on their faces to worship their Lord (προσκυνῆσαι τῷ κυρίῳ αὐτῶν), the Almighty, God Most High,” an addition that may well shed light on the question whether the act of worship (προσκύνησις) stems from a Greco-Roman apotheosis context (exclusively or not) or may be accounted for in terms of (early) Jewish religiosity. Sirach 50 seems to tip the scale in favor of the latter (see further below).

12

ASCENSION SCHOLARSHIP

Kapic’s terms, the personification) of Aaron’s benediction (Lev 9:22–23; Num 6:24–26).26 Since “whenever the theological idea of blessing shows up in Luke, the suggestion of God’s particular presence always seems to be implied,” she concluded that, paradoxically, the ascension is affirming both the presence and absence of Christ.27 A Greco-Roman and/or Jewish Context of Understanding? What were the literary models that shaped Luke’s narrative presentation? Given the overwhelming number of stories of gods, heroes, emperors, and wise men ascending to heaven in the Hellenistic (Greco-Roman) world, it is not surprising to see that scholars such as Sjef van Tilborg, Peter Pilhofer, Dieter Zeller, John van Eck, Gary Gilbert, Deborah Thompson Prince, and others argue most emphatically for a Greco-Roman context.28 Prince, for example, sets out to disentangle the various conceptions of postmortem apparitions in Greco-Roman literature as a context for Jesus’s appearances in Luke 24.29 How is it that Jesus is described in both somatic and spiritual 26. Kelly M. Kapic, “Receiving Christ’s Priestly Benediction: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Exploration of Luke 24:50–53,” WTJ 67 (2005): 247–60. 27. Kapic, “Receiving Christ’s Priestly Benediction,” 255, referring to Farrow, quoted text from 248. She seems to work (inadvertently?) from the English Standard Version (ESV) (a shorter text) but still takes the scene as an ascension not a mere departure. 28. Sjef van Tilborg, Jesus’ Appearances and Disappearances in Luke 24, ed. Patrick J. E. Chatelion Counet, BibInt 45 (Leiden: Brill, 2000); Peter Pilhofer, “Livius, Lukas und Lukian: Drei Himmelfahrten,” in Die frühen Christen und ihre Welt: Greifswalder Aufsätze 1996–2001, ed. Peter Pilhofer, WUNT 145 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 166–82, esp. 177; Dieter Zeller, “Himmelfahrt/Himmelfahrt Jesu Christi I: Religionswissenschaftlich,” RGG 4 (2000), 3:1747: “Die szenische Gestaltung [of the Lukan ascension narratives] kann jüd. wie griech.-röm. Vorbildern folgen”; Dieter Zeller, “Erscheinungen verstorbener im griechisch-römischen Bereich,” in Resurrection in the New Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht, ed. Reimund Bieringer, Veronica Koperski, and Bianca Lataire, BETL 165 (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002), 1–19; John van Eck, Handelingen: de wereld in het geding, CNT derde serie (Kampen: Kok, 2003), 32–45 (with not a single reference to the OT or early Jewish rapture traditions); Gary Gilbert, “Roman Propaganda and Christian Identity in the Worldview of Luke-Acts,” in Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse, ed. Todd Penner and Caroline VanderStichele (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 242–47; Deborah Thompson Prince, “The ‘Ghost’ of Jesus: Luke 24 in Light of Ancient Narratives of PostMortem Apparitions,” JSNT 29 (2007): 287–301. So recently also, Richard C. Miller, Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity (New York: Routledge, 2015), 177, 190n50 (not Hebrew but Hellenistic and Greek). See also Richard C. Miller, “Mark’s Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Antiquity,” JBL 129 (2010): 759–76. Miller rejects the validity of the “monotheistic principle” but seems to miss the subtlety of the “more Jewish [not: Hebrew] than Greek” argument (see below) and underestimates the impact of Luke’s “biblical” mindset. 29. Prince, “‘Ghost’ of Jesus.”

13

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

terms? She distinguishes four categories of postmortem appearances in Greco-Roman literature—disembodied spirits, revenants (people coming back to life), heroes, and translated mortals—and compares them with Luke 24, concluding that the picture of Jesus that emerges in Luke 24 “surpasses all expected modes of post-mortem apparitions by virtue of the fact that it draws upon them all and distinguishes itself from them all.”30 The ascension (Luke 24:51) was inconsistent with traditions of disembodied souls, heroes, and revenants, but consistent with translation and apotheosis traditions.31 The possible impact of Jewish rapture traditions, however, she does not consider. Craig McMahan, to give a second example of a Greco-Roman understanding, compares the three recognition scenes in Luke 24 (Luke 24:1–12, 13–35, 36–53) with similar scenes in Homer’s Odyssey and demonstrates how the literary motifs of testing, deception, foretelling, and recognition in both cases move the plot forward from ignorance and deception to recognition.32 The full recognition of Jesus’s true identity occurred at the end of the Gospel with Jesus’s ascension into heaven: “Such a climactic disappearance would have been regarded in the Greco-Roman world as a sure sign of divinity. In fact, the ascension is quite possibly the ultimate recognition token, evidenced by the fact that immediately after Jesus disappears, the disciples worship (προσκυνήσαντες) him.”33 While not denying that Luke’s readers would have appreciated the comparison with Greek heroes and Roman emperors ascending to heaven—unquestionably, they would have understood these stories to press home the message that “more than Heracles is here”—another group of scholars looks into biblical and early Jewish rapture stories as a possible background for interpreting the ascension.34 In practice, 30. Ibid., 289–95, esp. 289. 31. Ibid., 297, 299. 32. Craig T. McMahan, “More Than Meets the ‘I’: Recognition Scenes in the Odyssey and Luke 24,” PRSt 35 (2008): 87–107. McMahan does not argue for literary dependency: “Conformity to this pattern may be as simple as unconscious deference to prevailing literary conventions. Or, it may be a carefully nuanced borrowing of a familiar genre that best suits the epistemological aims of the narrative” (107). 33. McMahan, “More than Meets the ‘I’,” 106. But note that the notion of προσκύνησις also occurs in Sirach 50.

14

ASCENSION SCHOLARSHIP

most of these scholars hold that Luke was inspired by both GrecoRoman and biblical-early Jewish ascension stories.35 In my own work on the ascension narratives, I have argued for a “more Jewish than GrecoRoman” background, that is, Jewish rapture traditions provide a more adequate context of understanding than Greco-Roman assumption stories (while not denying the formative impact of the latter)—the ascension corresponds with the biblical and early Jewish rapture traditions on a more structural level, especially with respect to what I have called the “rapture-preservation paradigm”: 36 The large contours of this narration scheme are as follows. The rapture is usually announced in advance in some revelatory experience, either as a divine word of instruction or as a remark by the author. In preparation of the event to come, the rapture candidate is commanded to instruct those that stay behind to ensure that his teachings will not perish. This period of final instructions is not infrequently a period of forty days (forty being a quite conventional biblical number of course). The highly standardized description of the rapture is usually conjoined with a remark about the local and temporal termini ad quem of the raptured person’s preservation in heaven and his envisaged role in the endtime drama, not infrequently with an eschatological return implied.37

This narration model is attested by early Jewish traditions about Elijah, Enoch, Ezra, Baruch, Moses, Melchizedek, and some more Jewish saints.38 If a Jewish rather than a Greco-Roman context is in view, the element of worship (προσκύνησις) is likely to carry a somewhat different connotation than is the case in the apotheosis tradition, in which this element is more straightforwardly indicative of divinization/deification (see below). In a Jewish-monotheistic context,

34. So, e.g., Klaus Berger, Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums, UTB.WGR (Tübingen: Francke, 1995), 284–85; Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 67 (with no references to Greco-Roman ascension stories, except indirectly at 68n8). 35. Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 108n18: “For what it is worth, among these texts [concerning gods and semidivine figures transported back into the heavens] Luke’s account seems the most like the account about the god in Dionysius, but its theophanic qualities are equally reminiscent of contemporary accounts of ascensions indebted to the biblical tradition” (my emphasis). 36. Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 195; Zwiep, “Assumptus est in caelum: Rapture and Heavenly Exaltation in Early Judaism and Luke-Acts,” in Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God, 38–67. 37. Zwiep, “Assumptus est,” 55. 38. Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 36–79.

15

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

human beings such as Enoch and Elijah were believed to have been translated to heaven, but this evidently did not entail belief in a divine status, at least not in the period relevant to Luke-Acts: the monotheistic principle would strongly discourage such speculations. This line of interpretation has been picked up by various recent Lukan scholars39 and has now also found its way into the revised apparatus of textual references in the outer margin of NA28. In Acts 1:2, the apparatus makes reference to 2 Baruch 76:4, where Baruch is promised to be taken up to heaven “after forty days”40 (a notion completely absent in Greco-Roman ascension texts). At verse 9, apart from a (new) reference to Mark 16:19, references to the OT and early Jewish rapture traditions have been added: 2 Kings 2:11 (Elijah); Sirach 48:9 (Elijah); 1 Enoch 70:1s (Enoch); 2 Baruch 76 (Baruch).41 Surprisingly, references to 4 Ezra 14 (Ezra) have not been adopted. At any rate, knowledge of the Jewish rapture stories is likely to deepen the reader’s understanding of Luke’s underlying narrative strategy and give more immediate access to his theological concerns. N. T. Wright has voiced a different opinion.42 The ascension story, he maintains, is not “to be assimilated to the strange story of Elijah in the Old Testament,” but is to be related to Daniel 7, the vision of the exaltation of “one like a son of man” to “the ancient of days”: The ascension is not a mere solution to a problem about what happens to a body of this new sort. It is, for Luke as much as for Paul, the vindication of Jesus as Israel’s representative, and the divine giving of judgment, at least implicitly, in his favour and against the pagan nations who have oppressed Israel and the current rulers who have corrupted her. 43 39. Pervo, Acts, 45: “For Luke, the most cogent parallel or model was the story of Elijah’s ascension in 2 Kgs 2:1–14, for this story, which also appears near the beginning of a book, deals with succession” (first italics mine, last italics original); Keener, Acts 1:713: “the Elijah-Elisha succession is by far the most relevant as background for Acts 1:9–11,” 717: “the closest background for Luke’s is the early biblical account of Elijah’s ascension” (my italics). For Luke-Acts in general, also Samson Uytanlet, Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography: A Study on the Theology, Literature and Ideology of Luke-Acts, WUNT 2/366 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), esp. 91–157. 40. 2 Bar. 76:4; trans. A. Frederik J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch: A New Translation and Introduction,” in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 646. 41. On these, see Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 36–79; Zwiep, “Assumptus est.” 42. Nicholas Thomas Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Quest of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 649–56. 43. Wright, Resurrection, 655. Wright seems to have little or no appreciation for the impact of OT and

16

ASCENSION SCHOLARSHIP

It may be objected that, while there is undisputable linguistic evidence that the Elijah tradition rings through in Luke-Acts, there is no clear evidence of the role of Daniel 7 in the ascension narratives, in contrast with, for example, the commission scene at Matthew 28:16–20 (which is, to be sure, not an ascension text). And there are good reasons to deny that the ascension of Jesus marks his exaltation (sessio ad dexteram) in the first place (see below). The Geography of the Ascension In his doctoral dissertation on the “geography” of the ascension, Matthew Sleeman seeks to establish the function of the ascension for the rest of Acts by focusing on notions of space and place.44 What are the implications of the fact that Jesus has gone to heaven? Does that make him absent and inactive? Does Luke advocate an “absentee Christology”?45 Building on the work of human geographer Edward Soja, Sleeman attempts to define the role of spatiality in the narrative’s theology in terms of the Sojan category of thirdspace as an integral part of the book.46 Thirdspace stands for a creative reconfiguration of first space (empirical space, physical spatiality) and second space (perceived space, how space and place are articulated), which leads to a new vision of (social) reality—a new perspective or worldview, so to speak. Applied to the ascension, Sleeman contends, “the ascension is the moment of spatial realignment in Acts (cf. 1:1–2a), and Acts as a narrative cannot be understood without ongoing reference to the heavenly Christ.”47 From the ascension onwards, the followers of Jesus “have been positioned under heaven-as-Christ’s-place, that is, under a Christological heaven.”48 Jesus’s presence in heaven—whether early Jewish rapture traditions as a plausible context of understanding Luke-Acts: it is all (Greco-) Roman imperial critique. 44. Sleeman, Geography. Originally a PhD thesis of the University of London (2007) supervised by Richard J. Burridge. 45. Note that “absentee Christology” seems to have become almost as incriminatory a term as “delay of the parousia” (Parusieverzögerung) and “early Catholicism” (Frühkatholizismus) were a generation ago. 46. Sleeman, Geography, 44–46. 47. Ibid., 80; his italics. 48. Ibid., 78.

17

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

conceived of as a located space or not—gives the narrative of Acts “a distinctive thirdspatial orientation. . . . That Jesus is no longer physically present on earth means that they become necessary witnesses. There is no means by which to access Jesus other than through their testimony.”49 In response to Sleeman’s criticism of my claim that Luke’s rapture Christology almost automatically implies an “absentee Christology,”50 I would argue that the case for the (undeniable) present activity of Jesus in Acts should not rest on the (act of) ascension as such (in my view, a more careful definition of terms is needed), but on the ascended and exalted status of the risen Lord by virtue of the resurrection-exaltation. The notion of (third)space already plays its part from day one, so to speak. In Luke-Acts as a whole, it is perfectly clear that Luke counterbalances the “risks” or disadvantages of an absentee Christology by his firm affirmation that Jesus is now seated “at the right hand of God” (i.e., in a position of authority) and from there exercises his power over history in various ways. To Luke, Jesus is absent but not inactive.51 That most of the divine interventions in Acts are christological (effected by Christ) has been persuasively argued by Sleeman, although his interpretation of Paul’s Damascus Road experience52 is open to criticism. Luke seems to make a clear qualitative distinction between the (visionary) experience of Paul and the post-resurrection appearances to the apostolic witnesses—he calls Paul’s experience a “heavenly vision” (οὐρανιος ὀπτασία, Acts 26:19), that is, an event of a different order than the crudely materialistic apostolic Christophanies in Acts 1, even though it is the same Lord who appears.53

49. Ibid., 77; his italics. 50. Sleeman, Geography, 15–17 (cf. a similar critique by Strelan, Strange Acts, 47). See Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 182, following Charles F. D. Moule, “The Christology of Acts,” in Studies in LukeActs: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert, ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn (London: SPCK, 1966; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 179–80; George W. MacRae, “‘Whom Heaven Must Receive Until the Time’: Reflections on the Christology of Acts,” Int 27 (1973): 151–65. 51. See further Zwiep, “Assumptus est,” 65–67 (Postscript). 52. Sleeman, Geography, 16, 197–217. 53. See esp. Arie W. Zwiep, “Putting Paul in Place with a Trojan Horse: Luke’s Rhetorical Strategy in the Acts of the Apostles in Defence of the Pauline Gospel,” in Christ, the Spirit and the Community of

18

ASCENSION SCHOLARSHIP

The Christology of the Ascension Although the uniqueness of Luke’s ascension story is generally acknowledged, there is no unanimity on its christological implications. Is the ascension an expression of Christ’s heavenly exaltation (traditionally called his sessio ad dexteram Dei)?54 Does it mark his divine identification with the God of Israel?55 Does it constitute the climax of Luke’s Jesus story at the expense of the resurrection?56 If so, how does Luke relate to the early Christian resurrection kerygma, which marked the resurrection as the point of transition? Did Luke extend Christ’s exaltation over a period of forty days? Although most biblical scholars today would no longer see the ascension as a part of the states of exaltation of classical reformed theology,57 the continued use of exaltation language for the ascension without proper qualification is bound to create confusion. According to Kevin Anderson, for instance, resurrection, ascension, and exaltation need to be taken together: “Luke has portrayed both the resurrection and ascension of Jesus within a continuum of exaltation” (though the resurrection being the primary focus), with a conscious blurring of the distinctions.58 But this seems to be reading a Johannine conceptualization into Luke-Acts (John speaks of Jesus’s glorification in terms of a process, as part of the descent-ascent scheme) and is not easily matched with ascension and exaltation imagery in first-century Jewish texts. Lohfink especially has argued that the proper form-critical distinctions should be made: ascension, rapture, ascent, and heavenly journey, to mention only a

God, 157–75. An alternative view is given by Strelan (Strange Acts, 134) who thinks this distinction reflects the view of “a hard-nosed positivist.” 54. So Lohfink, Himmelfahrt Jesu. 55. So David K. Bryan, “The Heavenly Lord Over All: A Comparison of Second Temple Jewish Ascents Into Heaven and Acts 1:9–14,” unpublished paper presented to the Book of Acts Section (SBL Annual Meeting, Chicago, 2012). 56. So Eric Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (London: SPCK, 1975). 57. A notable exception is William J. Larkin Jr., “Ascension,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 95. 58. Kevin L. Anderson, “But God Raised Him from the Dead”: The Theology of Jesus’ Resurrection in Luke-Acts, PBM (Bletchley, Milton Keynes; Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2006), esp. 30–47 (quotation from 42).

19

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

few.59 The notions of ascension and exaltation especially need to be distinguished, or at least clearly defined.60 Also contested is how and to what extent the ascension and/or exaltation of Jesus compromises early Jewish and Christian belief in monotheism.61 David Litwa has argued that the notion of deification draws from a Hellenistic (read: not solely Jewish) context.62 When the early Christians ascribed divinity to Jesus, they depicted him with the traits of Mediterranean deities such as Heracles and Romulus. This entailed notions of corporeal immortalization, worship, and heavenly ascent. The problem, however, lies in the definition of what such notions as ascension and worship mean and imply.63 Elijah, in OT and early Judaism, does ascend to heaven but is never treated as a deity. Litwa expressly ignores the form-critical distinctions made by Lohfink, myself, and others when he speaks of the ascension of Jesus in relation to the exaltation imagery of Psalm 110:1.64 This is what Luke (different from the later ending of Mark [16:19]) expressly does not do. If the early Christian authors (including Luke) apply deification language to Jesus, it is in the context of his resurrection and heavenly exaltation, not in relation to his ascension. A related question about Luke’s Christology concerns the issue of adoptionism, especially how the ascension relates to Acts 2:36 (or vice versa): “Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty 59. Lohfink, Himmelfahrt Jesu; Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah; “Assumptus est.” 60. So also, Ferdinand Hahn, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1 of Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments. Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 150. 61. In this regard, I am particularly indebted to Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 3rd ed. (London: SCM, 2015); Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). 62. M. David Litwa, Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014). 63. Cf. the study of Ilze Kezbere, Umstrittener Monotheismus: wahre und falsche Apotheose im lukanischen Doppelwerk, NTOA 60 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), esp. 112–29. 64. Liwa, Iesus Deus, 177–78. When Litwa argues “Ultimately Zwiep wants to maintain a strict boundary between the Greco-Roman world and ‘Jewish apocalyptic tradition,’” this is only partially true. Rather than “a sophisticated reinstantation of the Judaism/Hellenism divide,” I do argue for a full recognition of the differences (the “otherness”) of Jewish and Greco-Roman theo-logy: a Greek god is clearly not a Jewish god—even though the language seems to be used indiscriminately.

20

ASCENSION SCHOLARSHIP

that God has made him both Lord and Messiah (ὅτι καὶ κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ χριστὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός), this Jesus whom you crucified.” Is this a flashback to Acts 1? And does verse 32 (τῇ δεξιᾷ οὖν τοῦ θεοῦ ὑψωθείς) suggest that the ascension is identified with the session at the right hand? Is this verse perhaps a relic of an adoptionist perspective? According to C. Kavin Rowe, Acts 2:36 fits Luke’s conviction that Jesus had been Lord from the beginning (“from the womb”), given that Luke applies the Κύριος title to all stages of Jesus’s career.65 The present author has disputed this: In Acts, it is crystal clear that the resurrection-exaltation complex acts as a catalyst for christological reflection, and this seems to be in line with the early Christian belief that Jesus was exalted to God’s right hand at or immediately after his resurrection from the dead. Although it would be inaccurate or patently wrong to say that, in early Christology, Jesus’ preEaster career was considered to be non-messianic, it is a historical fact that the early Christian community marked his death and resurrection as a dividing line, a point of no return, the apocalyptic turn of the ages. In the tradition of the early church, Luke rewrites his story (history) in the light of its (well-known) finale. For him, to say that God “made” Jesus both Lord and Christ is materially identical with saying that Jesus was “exalted” by God in/at his resurrection. The meaning of κύριος gets its shape and contours through the narrative, through the completed narrative, that is.66

To explain why Luke speaks about Jesus as Lord (κύριος) from the very start, in the said article, recourse is taken to Paul Ricoeur’s notion of “retroactive realignment of the past” (réalignement rétroactif du passé), a rewriting of the past by hindsight.67 Apart from the question whether the Lukan ascension texts demand a Greco-Roman or an early Jewish context of understanding (or both), scholarly opinion continues to be divided on the nature of the postresurrection appearances in Luke-Acts. Scholars who separate the 65. C. Kavin Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke, BZNW 139 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009); C. Kavin Rowe, “Acts 2.36 and the Continuity of Lukan Christology,” NTS 53 (2007): 37–56. 66. Arie W. Zwiep, “Jesus Made Both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36): Some Reflections on the Altitude of Lukan Christology,” in Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God, 139–56 (quotation from 155). 67. Zwiep, “Jesus Made Both,” 150–55, with reference to Paul Ricoeur, Temps et récit 1: L’intrigue et le récit historique, Points 227 (Paris: Seuil, 1983), 260–62.

21

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

exaltation from the resurrection and mark the ascension as the occasion of Jesus’s heavenly exaltation often interpret the appearances of the risen Lord as appearances “on the road,” appearances in some quasi-earthbound state in which Jesus was risen but not yet exalted.68 If, as other scholars hold, the exaltation is to be located at, or is at least closely associated with, the resurrection at Easter Sunday, the appearances are more likely to be understood as appearances of the already exalted Lord from heaven, the ascension simply concluding the last of a series of departures to heaven.69 The Chronology of the Ascension According to Acts 1:3, the appearances took place “during forty days,”70 and according to the conventional reading, this special period closes with the ascension. However, Henk Jan de Jonge has recently challenged the communis opinio.71 He argued that the forty days of appearances were viewed by Luke as having taken place after the ascension and, therefore, do not conflict with Luke’s timetable at the end of his gospel, where Jesus makes three appearances on the day of the resurrection itself. He notes that the chronology of Acts 1 itself is problematic: if verses 2–3 and verse 9 are dated on the same day, the command not to leave Jerusalem but to wait for the coming of the Spirit must have been spoken at the end of the forty days, but that does not make sense: “If the risen Jesus wanted the apostles to 68. Cf. (against my position) Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb, 99–118, esp. 117–18. Smith prefers to understand the appearances and disappearances of Jesus in relation to the concept of “polymorphism,” see Paul Foster, “Polymorphic Christology: Its Origins and Development in Early Christianity,” JTS 58 (2007): 66–99, for the idea that the appearance on the road to Emmaus “can be seen as embryonic in the development of [second-century] polymorphic conceptions” (68). 69. So (after Zwiep): Andy Johnson, “Our God Reigns: The Body of the Risen Lord in Luke 24,” WW 22 (2002): 136–37: “all the appearances in Luke 24 are appearances of a risen human being who has been transformed into his end-time state and has already been exalted to the right hand of God as Lord and begun to reign.” Also in Andy Johnson, “Resurrection, Ascension and the Developing Portrait of the God of Israel in Acts,” SJT 57 (2004): 151, 156n46. 70. In his newly discovered commentary on Acts, J. B. Lightfoot comments: “δι’ ἡμερῶν τεσσεράκοντα ‘during 40 days’ not ‘for 40 days continually,’” with reference to John Chrysostom, ap. Aeg. (= Hom. Act. 1.4): ἐφίστατο γὰρ, καὶ ἀφὶστατο πὰλιν (TLG). See Joseph Barber Lightfoot, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Commentary, ed. Ben Witherington III and Todd D. Still, vol. 1 of The Lightfoot Legacy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 76. 71. Henk Jan de Jonge, “The Chronology of the Ascension Stories in Luke and Acts,” NTS 59 (2013): 151–71.

22

ASCENSION SCHOLARSHIP

stay in Jerusalem, why did he not tell them so on the very day of his resurrection? Why did he wait forty days to tell them this, thereby running the risk that they would leave Jerusalem weeks before the Spirit descended?”72 After a review of previous attempted solutions,73 de Jonge turns to the chronological difficulties within Acts 1:1–11 itself and argues that, according to verses 2–3, Jesus was first “taken up” (ἀνελήμφθη, v. 2) and then “appeared” (παρέστησεν ἑαυτόν, v. 3) to the apostles during forty days. But since the ascension mentioned in verse 2 is identical with that mentioned in Luke 24:50–53, and the ascension mentioned in verses 9–11 supposedly takes place after forty days, “the result is that Luke in his prologue to Acts makes Jesus ascend twice to heaven: first in v. 2 (ἀνελήμφθη) and then once again in vv. 9–11 (ἐπήρθη, v. 9; ἀναλημφθεὶς . . . εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, v. 11).”74 According to de Jonge, all problems are solved when the forty days in Acts 1:3 are seen as a flash forward, that is, as the introduction of new information that was still yet to happen in the narrative of Acts, a literary technique that Luke also employed in Luke 3:19–20; Acts 11:28, and Luke 6:16.75 Noting that the forty days are appropriate at the beginning of Acts rather than at the end of the gospel—the forty days serve to authenticate the apostles with a view to their mission—Luke employs the literary device of flash forward, not to fix the date of the ascension, but to encourage the apostles (or rather the readers) to sustain belief in the second coming of Jesus, announced in the angelic words in verse 11. The ascension, according to de Jonge, is not a corollary to the resurrection and exaltation, nor a climactic closure of the period of appearances, but “the end of a subsequent story, namely that of Jesus’ third appearance.”76

72. Ibid., 154. 73. Ibid., 154–58. To which can be added the proposal of Jörg Michael Bonnet that the plural in Luke 9:51 (τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήμψεως αὐτοῦ) suggests that Luke 24 and Acts 1 describe two different ascensions (in Kezbere, Umstrittener Monotheismus, 121–23). 74. De Jonge, “Chronology of the Ascension,” 158, his italics. 75. Ibid., 163. 76. Ibid., 170.

23

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

A Doctrine of the Ascension? From an exegetical and biblical-theological viewpoint, it does not seem difficult to define the meaning of the ascension in general terms: on the level of Luke-Acts, it has somehow to do with Christology, with salvation history and the parousia, the role of mission and the interim status of the Christian community. So much is clear. But connecting the specific Lukan viewpoint to other NT writers, defining the significance of the ascension in the biblical witness as a whole, or even construing a full-blown “doctrine of the Ascension,” are more complicated matters. The dogmatic reception of the ascension is beyond the scope of this article: it would bring us in a world very different from the Lukan narratives.77 Kelly Kapic sees the ascension as “a springboard for trinitarian reflection,”78 while Andy Johnson—in the tradition of theological exegesis79—in various articles claims that Luke is moving toward “an incipiently triune portrait of Yahweh.”80 At present, Douglas Farrow is probably the most authoritative voice in this field.81 His Ascension and Ecclesia and, on a more popular level, his Ascension Theology are courageous attempts to delineate the doctrinal implications of Christ’s ascension—with a good deal of emphasis on its bodily nature—for cosmology, the identity of the Christian church, the Eucharist, and the atonement.82 In general, such theological reflections 77. Giorgio Buccellati, “Ascension, Parousia, and the Sacred Heart: Structural Correlations,” Com(US) 25 (1998): 69–103; Douglas B. Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999); Peter Atkins, Ascension Now: Implications of Christ’s Ascension for Today’s Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001); Andrew R. Burgess, The Ascension in Karl Barth, Barth Studies (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004); cf. Douglas Farrow, review of The Ascension in Karl Barth, by Andrew Burgess, IJST 7 (2005): 205–8; Gerrit Scott Dawson, Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation (London: T&T Clark, 2004); Kelly M. Kapic and Wesley Vander Lugt. “The Ascension of Jesus and the Descent of the Holy Spirit in Patristic Perspective: A Theological Reading,” EvQ 79 (2007): 23–33; Lukas Ohly, “Kontrast-Harmonie: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Himmelfahrt Christi,” NZSTh 49 (2007): 484–98; Bracci, Nel seno della Trinità; Douglas B. Farrow, Ascension Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2011); Stephen A. Seamands, Give Them Christ: Preaching his Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, and Return (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2012); Bracci, Ascese al cielo; Anthony J. Kelly, Upward: Faith, Church, and the Ascension of Christ (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2014). 78. Kapic and Vander Lugt, “Ascension of Jesus,” 31. 79. See Zwiep, Tussen tekst en lezer, 2:82–121. 80. Johnson, “Our God Reigns,” 133–143; Andy Johnson, “Ripples of the Resurrection in the Triune Life of God: Reading Luke 24 with Eschatological and Trinitarian Eyes,” HBT 24 (2002): 87–110; Andy Johnson, “Resurrection,” 146–62. 81. See his contribution in this volume.

24

ASCENSION SCHOLARSHIP

are—unavoidably so—part and parcel of a larger biblical-theological and dogmatic approach that treats the Lukan ascension narrative as an integrated element of a larger unified meta-narrative. Usually, the more systematic treatments ignore form-critical categories and distinctions between theological perspectives of the NT witnesses, and they are more focused on the ascended (or exalted) status than on the act of ascension. That there is still a long way to go to bring biblical scholarship and Christian doctrine together, then, is obvious. Where Do We Go from Here? In earlier days, interpolation theories, questions about demythologization and myth development, and form- and redaction-critical issues dominated ascension research.83 In the past few decades, these issues have made room for narrative analysis, historico-cultural approaches, and theological interpretation. A few articles excepted,84 the study of the Wirkungsgeschichte (not only Auslegungsgeschichte) of the ascension narratives is largely unstudied. An important landmark in the scholarly study of the ascension narratives of recent times may well turn out to be the publication in 2009 of an entry entitled “Ascension of Christ” in the Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception.85 For the first time in history, scholars from a variety of academic disciplines and religious traditions worked together to document the wide-ranging reception history of the ascension of Jesus: from the NT and the early church through the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and modern (European and American) history to representations of the ascension in Islamic tradition and in literature, visual arts, music, and film.86 82. Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia; Farrow, Ascension Theology. 83. Cf. the older studies of Victorien Larrañaga, L'Ascension de Notre-Seigneur dans le Nouveau Testament, SPIB 50 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1938); Lohfink, Himmelfahrt Jesu. 84. E.g., Alex Stock, “Himmelfahrt/Himmelfahrt Christi V: Kunstgeschichtlich,” RGG 4 (2000), 3:1750–51. 85. “Ascension of Christ,” in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, ed. Dale C. Allison et al. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 908–30: New Testament (James D. G. Dunn), Christianity: Greek and Latin Patristics (Wolfram Kinzig), Medieval Times and Reformation Era (Stefan Michel), Modern Europe and America (Roger Haight), American History of Modern Times (Robert Britt-Mills); Islam (Gordon Nickel); Literature (Anthony Swindell); Visual Arts (Christian Heck); Music (Andreas Bücker); Film (Marek Lis). 86. Incited by the work of Gadamer, the field of reception studies has been explored in particular in

25

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

The significance of such a comprehensive approach—even if it is still to be considered “work in progress”—can hardly be overestimated. It raises fundamental questions about the nature of texts and their meaning, the effect of historical consciousness, the role of interpretive communities and reader responses, and it opens up (sometimes unsettling) perspectives that otherwise are easily overlooked. Although the aim of the present survey has been more modest, these wider hermeneutical issues should be constantly considered in future ascension research.

the work of Hans Robert Jauss, Wolfgang Iser, and, in biblical studies, Ulrich Luz. See Zwiep, Tussen tekst en lezer, vol. 2, especially the chapters on Gadamer (ch. 5) and Reader Response Criticism (ch. 10).

26

PART I

Lukan Ascension Narratives in their Ancient Contexts

2

Jesus’s Ascension through Old Testament Narrative Traditions

Steve Walton

Jesus is not the first to travel to heaven in the Jewish scriptures, nor in the wider Jewish tradition,1 to say nothing of Graeco-Roman traditions.2 The question that naturally arises is to what extent, if at all, these earlier traditions have influenced Luke’s telling of the ascension of Jesus. This essay focuses on two key narrative traditions from the Old Testament (OT) of people travelling to heaven, namely, Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1–18) and, much more briefly, Enoch (Gen 5:24). We shall review these traditions and consider how far their language and themes are echoed in Luke’s accounts of Jesus’s ascension (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:9–11) and other possible mentions of the ascension proposed in 1. See David Bryan’s essay in this volume. 2. See James Buchanan Wallace’s essay in this volume.

29

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

scholarship (Luke 9:51; Acts 3:19–21).3 We shall also consider significant differences between the OT traditions and Luke’s ascension material, in order to reflect on the extent and ways in which Luke’s presentation “uses” the OT traditions. Enoch We have but the briefest mention of Enoch’s departure in Genesis 5:24: ‫ויתהלך חנוך את־האלהים ואיננו כי־לקח אתו אלהים‬ Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him. (NRSV) αὶ εὐηρέστησεν Ενωχ τῷ θεῷ καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο, ὅτι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός (LXX) And Henoch was well pleasing to God, and he was not found, because God transferred him. (NETS)

There is no explicit statement here that Enoch did not die, but firstcentury CE readers of this passage seem to have universally understood the text to mean that.4 Certainly, the pointers are that we should so understand the text:5 (1) The usual phrase “and he died” is absent (cf. Gen 5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31);6 (2) the description of Enoch’s absence is similar to that of Elijah (cf. 2 Kgs 2:17); (3) if (as Zwiep and others suggest) the Enoch tradition in Genesis is written in dialogue with a version of the Utnapishtim myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh, it would be surprising if Enoch suffered death when Utnapishtim did not (Gilgamesh 11.196).7 Enoch’s outstanding piety, for “he walked with God”—reported twice, in verses 22, 24—seems to be the basis of his being taken by God. 3. Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, NovTSup 87 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 80–86, 109–15. 4. Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 41. Zwiep also there notes that some later rabbinic traditions did suggest that Enoch died. 5. For what follows, see Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 41–42. 6. ‫ ;וימת‬Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 128. 7. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 128 suggests that the restraint of the description here, by contrast with later extra-biblical traditions, may be “trying to counteract . . . ancient speculations about great men of the past.”

30

JESUS’S ASCENSION THROUGH OLD TESTAMENT

The Greek OT translators render the Hebrew ‫ויתהלך חנוך את־האלהים‬ as εὐηρέστησεν . . . Ενωχ τῷ θεῷ, “Enoch was well-pleasing to God,” making the point explicit. There is no suggestion here, by contrast with, for example, Roman traditions of apotheosis, that Enoch achieved divinization; he remains a human—unsurprisingly, within Jewish monotheistic traditions. In later writings, notably the composite 1 Enoch, there are considerable descriptions of Enoch’s heavenly journeys of revelation, although he returns to earth after these journeys to pass on messages he has received.8 All that said, there is little reason to see an echo of the canonical Enoch in the Lukan ascension stories. Zwiep (for example) points to a number of fascinating potential parallels between the Lukan ascension narratives and the later Enochide literature (especially 2 Enoch 67, which closes that book), but finds no echoes of the biblical Enoch in Luke-Acts other than the (necessary) mention of Enoch in Jesus’s genealogy (Luke 3:37).9 Indeed, only Hebrews 11:5 and Jude 14 among the NT writings mention Enoch, Hebrews as an example of faith, and Jude echoing a prophecy attributed to Enoch from 1 Enoch 1:9. 10 Elijah and Jesus’s ascension Elijah’s departure, by contrast with Enoch, receives much more fulsome treatment in the OT (2 Kgs 2:1–18). Elijah and his putative successor, Elisha, are together, and Elijah three times seeks to throw off Elisha (vv. 2, 4, 6); each time, Elisha refuses to leave Elijah. On the first two occasions, the “sons of the prophets” tell Elisha that Elijah is about to be taken by YHWH, and Elisha confirms that he knows this (vv. 3, 5). As readers, we know this already, for the author has made it explicit at the beginning of the story (v. 1), thus ramping up the narrative tension—how will this happen? Elisha’s reward for his persistence is that Elijah offers to do something for him, and Elisha asks for “a double share of your spirit 8. See Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 45–57. 9. Ibid., 45–51. 10. See discussion in Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 96.

31

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

(‫( ”)רוח‬v. 9). Elijah promises Elisha that if Elisha sees him depart, then Elisha will have this wish granted (v. 10). A chariot and horses of fire appear and Elijah ascends (‫ )עלה‬in a whirlwind into heaven (v. 11). Elisha then picks up Elijah’s cloak and finds that he has the “spirit of Elijah” resting on him, for he can divide the river Jordan as Elijah had done, using the cloak (vv. 14, 8).11 The “sons of the prophets,” who act rather like a Greek chorus offering divine commentary on events,12 recognize what has happened (vv. 15–16a), although they mistakenly wish to search for Elijah (v. 16b) and convince Elisha that they should do that (v. 17). Unsurprisingly to the reader, who knows Elijah has been taken to heaven (v. 11), they do not find him after three days of searching (v. 18). As with Enoch, there is no suggestion that Elijah is divinized. Later traditions, notably Malachi 4:4–6 (MT 3:23–24), offer an expectation of Elijah’s return to be the Messiah’s forerunner.13 Sirach 48:1–11 praises Elijah as a prophet and echoes the expectation of his return (v. 10b, echoing Mal 4:6 [MT 3:24]). First Maccabees 2:58 says that Elijah was taken up to heaven because of “great zeal for the law,” as one in a list of faithful ancestors who were faithful to the Torah, even in the face of threats and danger (vv. 51–60). Unlike Enoch, there is relatively little mention of Elijah’s ascension to heaven in the Pseudepigrapha, and what is there is less speculative than that concerning Enoch. 14 It is the Elijah biblical traditions which form the closest parallel to Luke’s ascension narratives. We shall sketch the key parallels cited before listening more widely in Luke-Acts for Elijah echoes. These parallels are seen in the Greek OT, which is to be expected, for Luke regularly cites scripture from the Greek translation. 15 First, Luke twice uses the verb ἀναλαμβάνω, “I take up,” in the passive voice to describe Jesus’s ascension (Acts 1:2, 11), with the 11. The wording of the two verses is “almost identical” (T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, WBC 13 [Waco, TX: Word, 1985], 17–18). 12. On the “sons of the prophets,” see Hobbs, 2 Kings, 24–27. 13. See Mark 9:11–13 with the description of John the Baptist in the style of Elijah in Mark 1:2–8. 14. Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 62. 15. For this reason, I shall cite the OT texts from the Greek 4 Kingdoms rather than the Hebrew 2 Kings. On Luke’s use of the OT in Greek, see, e.g., Peter Mallen, The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts, LNTS 367 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 4–5.

32

JESUS’S ASCENSION THROUGH OLD TESTAMENT

passive voice signifying divine action (see also Acts 1:22). This echoes the Greek OT’s threefold use of this verb in the account of Elijah’s departure (4 Kgdms 2:9–11). It is not merely the repetition of a common word, however: it is the repetition of a word in an uncommon sense for the same phenomenon (removal to heaven), a phenomenon which is rare in both the OT and NT scripture.16 Second, there are other verbal echoes which are significant in the light of the repeated use of ἀναλαμβάνω. This verb is collocated with ἀπό “from” in each of the stories (4 Kgdms 2:9, 10; Acts 1:11). In 4 Kingdoms, Elijah is being taken “from you (singular)” (sc. Elisha); in Acts, Jesus is taken from his disciples. The destination in both cases is εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, “into heaven” (Acts 1:10, 11 [thrice]; 4 Kgdms 2:1, 11; cf. Luke 24:51). There are compounds of στρέφω in the two stories to describe the response of the followers after the departure: ὑπέστρεψαν “they returned” (Acts 1:12) and ἐπέστρεψεν “he [Elisha] went back” (4 Kgdms 2:13).17 Third, the story is told through earthbound eyes in both cases.18 After Elijah’s departure, we learn next of Elisha’s actions (4 Kgdms 2:13–14), for the story functions as a succession narrative.19 Jesus’s final departure (and thus, his journey to heaven) is hidden from the disciples’ eyes by the cloud (Acts 1:10–11), and their focus is to be on waiting, in obedience to Jesus’s command, for the Spirit’s power (Acts 1:4–5). They are not the successors of Jesus in the same sense as Elisha is of Elijah, for they are witnesses to Jesus, proclaiming what Jesus has accomplished, whereas Elisha continues the prophetic ministry of Elijah.20 (That said, the disciple band will heal the sick and raise the

16. With Kenneth D. Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually, JSNTSup 282 (London: T&T Clark International, 2005), 149–50. His discussion of echoes of scripture in the ascension narratives (146–55) is illuminating. 17. Mikeal C. Parsons (The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context, JSNTSup 21 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1987], 139) notes many of these parallels, although he inaccurately reports the last as using the same verb in the two texts, ἐπιστρέφω. 18. So also, Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 29. 19. Zwiep calls it a “prophetic calling story” (Ascension of the Messiah, 59), but this misses the element of succession in the story. 20. Pace Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts, SBLMS 20 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974), esp. ch. 8.

33

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

dead, as Jesus, Elijah, and Elisha had done.21) In neither case is there a description of a heavenly journey of the kind found in later writings. Fourth, there is interchange about the s/Spirit between the departing one and the one(s) left behind about what is to happen after the departure. Elijah asks Elisha what he desires and gives the condition for Elisha receiving his spirit (4 Kgdms 2:9). Jesus speaks with his disciples and tells them that the Spirit’s power will equip them for their task of witness (Luke 24:48–49; Acts 1:4–5, 7–8). This interchange becomes action by the s/Spirit in both cases, for Elisha receives the spirit of Elijah (4 Kgdms 2:15), and the Spirit falls on the believing community at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Fifth, at a later point (Acts 3:21), Jesus’s presence in heaven—based on his ascension—may provide a conceptual parallel to Elijah’s presence in heaven following his departure (4 Kgdms 2:1).22 The “restoration of all things” (ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων), which the returning Jesus will accomplish, was expected by first-century Jews to be accomplished by the returning Elijah (Mal 4:5–6 [MT 3:22–23]; cf. Sir 48:10; Mark 9:12; Matt 17:11, the latter two using the same verb ἀποκαθίστημι, “I restore”).23 These five arguments make a good cumulative case that Luke is using the Elijah narrative to shape his telling of the ascension story in both the Gospel and (especially) Acts. This is not at all to say that Luke is simply using Elijah’s ascension as a template for his telling of Jesus’s ascension: Luke’s story lacks the fiery chariot and horses and the whirlwind, and Jesus continues to be the authoritative figure in the story which follows (by contrast with Elijah, whose successor Elisha takes over his role).24 There are differences as well as these significant similarities.

21. e.g., Acts 3:1–10. 22. Litwak, Echoes, 151. 23. Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 114–15, summarizing and adding to Augusto Barbi, Il Cristo celeste presente nella Chiesa: tradizione e redazione in Atti 3, 19–21, AnBib 64 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979), 45–97. 24. Eckhard Schnabel, Acts, Expanded Digital Edition, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), explanation of 1:9.

34

JESUS’S ASCENSION THROUGH OLD TESTAMENT

We turn to consider how Luke uses Elijah traditions more widely in his two books. Elijah and Jesus in Luke-Acts By contrast with the ascension story, where the parallelism is between Elijah and Jesus, in the Third Gospel, it is John the baptizer who is seen explicitly as a “new Elijah.”25 Gabriel programmatically identifies John as one who will go “with the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17; the whole verse clearly echoes Mal 4:5–6 [MT 3:23–24]). John’s role of turning fathers to children (Luke 1:17b) comes from Mal 4:5. If John is Elijah, then, implicitly, Jesus is “the Lord” whom Malachi expects to follow the Elijah figure (Mal 4:5 [MT 3:23]). However, there are also parallels between Elijah’s ministry and that of Luke’s Jesus.26 Both raise a dead child (Luke 8:41–42, 49–56; 1 Kgs 17:17–24)—in both cases, speaking of the child’s life/spirit reentering the child (1 Kgs 17:21, 22; Luke 8:55). Both provide food, which keeps going remarkably (1 Kgs 17:16; Luke 9:16–17). Jesus compares his ministry to that of Elijah (Luke 4:25–26), and raises the synagogue crowd’s ire at the implication of Elijah going to a Gentile woman during a famine (vv. 28–29)—although in Luke-Acts, the Gentile mission must wait for the period after Jesus’s ascension. Thus, Luke presents both John and Jesus in the line of succession from Elijah. However, when Jesus is described as a possible “new Elijah” in the disciples’ reporting of what people are saying about Jesus (Luke 9:8, 19), Jesus then asks his disciples for their opinion about him. By asking the question, Jesus implies that the answers so far offered are unsatisfactory.27 Jesus accepts Peter’s answer identifying Jesus as the Messiah (9:20), and Luke goes on to show Jesus’s superiority over both Elijah and Moses by Jesus speaking with them at the transfiguration (9:30) and especially by the heavenly voice’s affirmation that Jesus 25. See the valuable discussion of Elijah in Luke-Acts in Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–15), 1:713–15. 26. There are parallels between Jesus and Elisha too: see Keener, Acts, 1:714–15. 27. Note the emphatic ὑμεῖς “you” (plural) in Jesus’s question (Luke 9:20), shining a spotlight on the disciples.

35

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

is the one to whom the disciples must listen attentively (9:33–35).28 Jesus is greater than the law (symbolized by Moses) and the prophets (symbolized by Elijah). In a related way, Jesus is not Elijah when James and John want to call down fire on Samaritan villages; he rebukes them (Luke 9:52–55).29 Contrast Elijah, who calls down fire from heaven on two captains and each of their groups of fifty soldiers (2 Kgs 1:9–14). Further, Elijah is more generous than Jesus, for he allows Elisha to say farewell to his parents (1 Kgs 19:19–21), whereas Jesus tells prospective followers not even to do that (Luke 9:61–62). Thus, there are interesting contrasts between Elijah and Jesus in Luke’s presentation, as well as strong similarities—and this is not surprising, for Luke regards Jesus as worthy of worship in the context of the ascension (Luke 24:52), contrasting with the usual reaction to God’s action in the body of the Third Gospel, which is to worship God (e.g., Luke 5:26; 7:16; 13:13; 17:15; 18:43).30 Hamm acutely observes, “Luke is clear that the worship of the God of Israel entails worship of the risen Jesus as Lord.”31 The theme of Jesus’s place alongside the God of Israel in this way will become clearer in Acts.32 Indeed, Jesus is distinct from Elijah in at least three further ways, and these, taken together with the observations we have made so far, signal that the exalted role of Jesus is of a different kind to that of Elijah. First, the forty-day period marked out in Acts has no obvious parallel in Elijah’s departure. Jesus’s role during this time is to instruct the disciples both concerning himself and the kingdom of God (Acts 1:2–3), and to prepare them for the Spirit who is to come (vv. 4–5, 7–8). Reading Acts with Luke, we may assume that expounding the 28. Keener, Acts, 1:714–15. 29. See the helpful discussion in V. J. Samkutty, The Samaritan Mission in Acts, LNTS 328 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 102–6. 30. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 862. 31. Dennis Hamm, “The Tamid Service in Luke-Acts: The Cultic Background behind Luke’s Theology of Worship (Luke 1:5–25; 18:9–14; 24:50–53; Acts 3:1; 10:3, 30),” CBQ 65 (2003): 215–31, 230. 32. See my essay, “Jesus, Present and/or Absent? The Presence and Presentation of Jesus as a Character in the Book of Acts” in Characters and Characterization in Luke-Acts, ed. Frank Dicken and Julia Snyder, LNTS 548 (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 123–40.

36

JESUS’S ASCENSION THROUGH OLD TESTAMENT

scriptures about himself was a significant occupation of the risen Jesus during this period (Luke 24:27, 32, 44–47).33 This puts Elijah in his place, for he is part of the scriptures that bear witness to Jesus; Jesus is the coming one in whom the scriptures find their fulfillment. Second, Jesus is not entering heaven for the first time at his ascension, whereas Elijah is. Jesus is, from his conception, “the son of God” (Luke 1:35), here “undoubtedly in its full sense as one begotten by God.”34 Simon Gathercole proposes that the statements that the child is “holy” and “will reign over the house of Israel forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:33, 35) portray Jesus as one who “belongs in the divine sphere of reality,”35 for his life will not cease. Gathercole also points to the “I have come” statement of purpose sayings in the synoptics, including Luke, as signaling heavenly origin.36 If these hints of preexistence are valid, they point to Jesus reentering heaven at his ascension, not arriving there for the first time. In this way, Luke’s Jesus is a figure well beyond the stature and status of the prophet Elijah—Jesus is far more than a prophet. Third, concerning the Spirit, there is no suggestion that Elijah himself dispenses the Spirit: he merely promises Elisha that, if he sees Elijah departing, he will receive the “spirit of Elijah” (2 Kgs 2:9–10, 15). God is the giver of the Spirit, for to speak of the Spirit in both the OT and first-century Judaism is a way of speaking of the presence and power of YHWH himself.37 This is a belief which Elijah (and the writer of 2 Kings) shares with all Israelites and Jews: YHWH and YHWH alone could dispense the Spirit for it was YHWH’s Spirit. By contrast, when Peter interprets the events of Pentecost, he understands the Spirit to be poured out by the exalted Jesus, thus Acts 2:33:38 33. On the relationship of the forty days to the (apparently) shorter period in Luke, see Parsons, Departure, 194–95. 34. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978), 71; see the helpful discussion of Luke’s use of “son of God” in Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 2 vols., AB 28A–B (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, 1985), 1:205–8. 35. Simon J. Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 282. 36. See Gathercole, Son, chs 3–6. 37. Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts, JPTSup 9 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 277. 38. On this passage, see the important discussions in Turner, Power from on High, 275–79; Max Turner,

37

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

τῇ δεξιᾷ οὖν τοῦ θεοῦ ὑψωθείς, τήν τε ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου λαβὼν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, ἐξέχεεν τοῦτο ὃ ὑμεῖς καὶ βλέπετε καὶ ἀκούετε. So then, since he has been exalted to the right side of God, and has received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you both see and hear [My translation].

Jesus, now at God’s right side, the place of authority,39 has been given the Spirit to pour out—he is doing what YHWH alone can do. Jesus is not said to be mediating the Spirit from God, but actually pouring out the Spirit himself. He is thus “Lord of the Spirit” (cf. 2:36 “God has appointed him as Lord and Messiah”40) and the Spirit is his “executive power,”41 located in a category alongside YHWH and distinct from any human being, even a remarkably godly human being such as Elijah. 42 Conclusion Are there parallels between the account in 2 Kings of Elijah’s ascension and Luke’s ascension narratives? The answer must be, “Yes.” Do these parallels indicate that Luke is influenced by the Elijah story in the way he tells the Jesus story? Again, the answer must be, “Yes”; Luke sees Elijah as a forerunner and partial model for Jesus. Nevertheless, the Elijah model is only partial: there are real and significant distinctions in Luke’s portrait of Jesus’s ascension by “The Spirit of Christ and Christology,” in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (Leicester: IVP, 1982), 168–90, esp. 175–84; Max Turner, “The Spirit of Christ and ‘Divine’ Christology,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Carlisle: Paternoster/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 413–36, esp. 419–24. 39. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 183 suggests that “to sit on the throne” (Acts 2:30) corresponds to this expression: “Jesus, sitting on God’s right, shares his throne.” 40. This verse should not be understood as indicating Jesus acquires a new status as “Lord and Messiah” following his resurrection. It is best understood within Luke’s portrayal of Jesus as the “son of God” (a messianic designation) and “Lord” from his conception (Luke 1:35, 43; cf. 2:11). Thus, Acts 2:36 sees from a human perspective: the house of Israel is called to change its perception of Jesus because God has raised him from the dead and exalted him. See more fully, C. Kavin Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke, paperback ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009); C. Kavin Rowe, “Acts 2.36 and the Continuity of Lukan Christology,” NTS 53 (2007): 37–56. 41. Turner, Power from on High, 278. 42. It is unfortunate that Zwiep (Ascension of the Messiah, 184) does not recognize this important distinction, merely noting a “parallel” between Elijah and Jesus over the coming of the Spirit.

38

JESUS’S ASCENSION THROUGH OLD TESTAMENT

contrast with that of Elijah. Some are features that the Elijah story has and that Jesus’s story lacks (the fiery horses and chariots, the whirlwind). Some are features that the Jesus story has and that Elijah’s story lacks (the appearances over forty days, Jesus’s teaching ministry during that period, the worship of Jesus, Jesus’s place at God’s right side). Some are features that take a different shape in the two stories (who gives the s/Spirit to Elisha and Jesus’s disciples, the mission of the “successors” and the nature of their “succession”—Elisha takes over Elijah’s role, whereas the disciples proclaim Jesus, and he remains, “Lord”). By this portrait, Luke signals that the exalted Jesus is and is not a “new Elijah”: he is not less than Elijah—he is far, far more as “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36).

39

3

“For David Did Not Ascend into Heaven . . .” (Acts 2:34a)

Reprogramming Royal Psalms to Proclaim the Enthroned-in-Heaven King Joshua W. Jipp

One of the surprising aspects of Luke’s narration of Jesus’s ascent into heaven in Acts 1:9–11 is the brevity with which Luke describes this event. While there are some similarities with 2 Kings 2:7–12, the account of Elijah’s heavenly rapture is unable to fully explain the meaning of Jesus’s ascent into heaven in Acts.1 Whereas Elijah’s heavenly location is no longer mentioned again after 2 Kings 2 and exerts no influence on the rest of the narrative, Jesus’s location in heaven continues to exert enormous influence on the rest of Acts.2

1. I emphasize the word “fully” here. See, however, the strong conclusions of Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, NovTSup 87 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 59–63, 194; Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012–15), 1:718–20. 2. See here especially, Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts, SNTSMS 146

41

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

The importance of Jesus’s location in heaven is already signaled to the reader through the fourfold repetition in 1:9–11 of Jesus’s current location “in heaven” (εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν). While Luke clearly places great weight on God’s resurrection of Jesus as the royal enthronement whereby God fulfills his promises to David, without the narration of Jesus’s heavenly ascent, the reader could potentially fail to understand how the resurrected Messiah continues his work as Israel’s enthroned king in heaven.3 Thus, making precise distinctions between Luke’s interpretation of resurrection and ascension is notoriously difficult.4 While resurrection and ascension are not interchangeable but rather refer to different chronological moments within Luke’s two-volume narrative, they are necessarily integrated into Luke’s conception of the Messiah’s heavenly exaltation/enthronement. In this essay, I will argue that Luke’s frequent and programmatic use of royal psalms function to set forth Jesus’s ascension as the event whereby Israel’s Messiah is enthroned in heaven and enters into a more powerful rule through which he inaugurates and establishes the kingdom of God.5 In other words, at the ascension, God completes the process of exalting his son by enthroning him to a position of heavenly rule from where the messianic king reigns over his people, judges his enemies, and extends the sphere of his dominion. As such, Luke’s depiction of Jesus’s ascension as the event whereby the Messiah enters into his heavenly rule has literary significance beyond the description of the actual event as Jesus is seen as continuing to enact his kingship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Alan J. Thompson, The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus: Luke’s Account of God’s Unfolding Plan, NSBT 27 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2011). 3. See Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 111: “It is ultimately in that fusion of resurrection with the ascension in one indivisible exaltation that we are to understanding the continuing ministry of Christ.” 4. See similarly, Steve Walton, “‘The Heavens Opened’: Cosmological and Theological Transformation in Luke and Acts,” in Cosmology in New Testament Theology, ed. Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough, LNTS (London: T & T Clark, 2008), 60–73, here, 64–65. Kevin L. Anderson, “But God Raised Him from the Dead”: The Theology of Jesus’s Resurrection in LukeActs (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 216: “The Lukan material on resurrection, ascension, and exaltation provides the reader with telescoping or overlapping images. A dynamism exists in the relationship between the three theological concepts that defies precise schematization.” 5. Similarly, see Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, SP 5 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1992), 30: “Luke clearly understands [the ascension] to be Jesus’ enthronement as King, and therefore as Messiah. By means of this ascent, Luke enables us to envisage the resurrected Jesus not as a resuscitated corpse or wraith but as one living in power ‘at the right hand of God.’”

42

“FOR DAVID DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN . . .”

and establish God’s kingdom from heaven. The narration of Jesus’s ascent into heaven occurs immediately after Jesus and the disciples have been discussing “the kingdom of God” (τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ, Acts 1:3), Jesus’s restoration of the “kingdom to Israel” (τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ Ἰσραήλ, 1:6), and the kingdom’s expansion to Jerusalem, into the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel, and to the Gentiles (11:8). Thus, the geographical expansion of God’s kingdom (1:8) is “produced under a Christological heaven” as the enthroned king establishes God’s rule (1:9–11).6 Jesus’s ascension into heaven shows how God’s messianic king reigns not from the earthly Jerusalem, but from God’s right hand. The Enthroned Davidic King in the Psalter Perhaps the central hope of Israel’s royal psalms is the anticipation that God will establish his kingdom and rule over his people through his chosen Davidic king (Ps 89:3, 20; 132:11). This king, often referred to as “the Lord’s Anointed” (Ps 2:2; 18:50; 20:6; 89:38; 132:17), was viewed as invested with divine authority and power as God’s royal agent.7 Israel’s royal ideology even refers to the Lord’s Anointed as “God’s Son” as a means of emphasizing God’s investiture of him with divine authority and power to rule (Ps 2:6–9; 89:26–28; 110:1–4; cf. 2 Sam 7:12–14). The intimate relationship between God and his Messiah even allowed the latter to operate as a vessel for God’s Spirit (1 Sam 16:13; Isa 11:1–2; 61:1–3; Psalms of Solomon 17:22, 37; 18:5–7).8 Despite the king’s favored status by God, he is frequently the target of intense persecution and opposition from those political rebels who refuse to recognize his authority. This is seen throughout the Davidic Psalms where the royal figure’s humiliating sufferings are on display (Pss 22:14–18, 38:5–8, 69:16–20). The opposition to the king is established 6. Sleeman, Geography, 79. On the way in which Acts 1:8 reflects a “Davidic map that reflects the theological geography of God’s covenant pledge concerning the extent of the Davidic empire,” see Scott W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 231. 7. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings, CBOT 8 (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 199. 8. Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967), 114–15.

43

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

programmatically in Psalm 2 where “the kings of the earth” and “the rulers” attempt to destroy “the Lord and his anointed” (Ps 2:2–3). God’s response to the political pretenders is to rescue his son and enthrone him on Zion:9 “I have set my king on Zion my holy hill.” I will declare the Lord’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance and the ends of the earth your possession.” (Ps 2:6, 7b–8)

The decree preserves the installation of the Davidic king who, as God’s Son, is granted a share in God’s sovereign rule. In Psalm 110, God enthrones the king above his enemies, shares with him the title of Lord, and invites him to sit at God’s right hand: The Lord says to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool under your feet.” The Lord sends out from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies. (Ps 110:1–2)

The messianic king’s enthronement results in the king sharing in God’s throne and ruling over and shepherding God’s people.10 As such, the king’s enthronement results in a period of righteous rule as the people experience peace and prosperity (Ps 72:5–7, 15–16; 144:11–14); alternatively, the king’s vindication results in his execution of judgment against his enemies (Ps 2:8–9; 72:8; 89:23; 110:2). The Psalter’s depiction of God’s reign through his anointed Son stems, of course, from his promise to David in 2 Samuel 7: “I will 9. Without endorsing all of the specific proposals for the Sitz im Leben of the enthronement Psalms, see the helpful discussions of the royal enthronement ceremony in G. Cooke, “The Israelite King as Son of God,” ZAW 73 (1961): 202–25; Johnson, Sacral Kingship, 24–25; Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism, trans. G. W. Anderson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 96–98; Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms, 111–13; Mark W. Hamilton, The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel, Biblical Interpretation Series 78 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 60–82; J. J. M. Roberts, “The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 39–51. 10. See Shirley Lucass, The Concept of the Messiah in the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity, Library of Second Temple Studies 78 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 72.

44

“FOR DAVID DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN . . .”

raise up after you your seed, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom” (2 Sam 7:12; cf. 1 Chr 17). The Chronicler frames the Davidic covenant as establishing the closest possible link between God’s kingdom and the rule of his Davidic ruler. Thus, even as David declares the supremacy of God’s kingship (1 Chr 17:20–21), he also points to God’s exaltation of him to a high rank and honor: “You exalt me as someone of high rank, O Lord God (ὕψωσάς με, κύριε ὁ θεός)! And what more can David say to you for glorifying (τοῦ δοξάσαι) your servant?” (1 Chr 17:17b–18).11 The relationship between the Davidic king and the divine kingdom can be seen in the Chronicler’s rendering of the promise to David where there is a clear interrelationship between the two: “I will establish his kingdom” (17:11), “I will establish his throne forever” (17:12), and “I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever” (17:14).12 The Resurrection/Ascension as the Messiah’s Heavenly Enthronement in Acts But the Psalter’s hope for a righteous king who would reign over Israel’s enemies and the Chronicler’s idealized depiction of a Davidide sharing God’s throne and ruling over Israel had come to frustration through the exile. Psalm 89 states the cognitive dissonance between God’s promises to rule the world through an exalted Davidic king (Ps 89:19, 24) and the present reality of exile: But you have spurned and rejected him. You have become enraged with your anointed. You have repudiated the covenant with your servant. You have completely dishonored his crown. You have broken down all his walls. You have reduced his fortified cities to ruins. All who pass by plunder him. He has become an object of ridicule to his neighbors. You have lifted high the right hand of his foes. 11. Lynch, Monotheism and Institutions, 229–30. 12. Similarly, Scott W. Hahn, The Kingdom of God as Liturgical Empire (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 75–77.

45

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

You have made all his enemies rejoice. (Ps 89:38–42)

God had promised to “establish [David’s] line forever, his throne as long as heaven lasts” (Ps 89:29), and yet, as Scott Hahn notes, the exile had “destroyed or damaged most of the fixtures of the Davidic kingdom: the king . . . [was] deposed and exiled, Jerusalem and its Temple destroyed, hope for reunification of Israel and Judah lost, and the Gentiles raised to rulership rather than vassalage with respect to God’s people.”13 Israel’s central problem is taken up in the Gospel of Luke, where Jesus is portrayed as the Messiah who will restore David’s kingdom to Israel. Gabriel’s announcement to Mary activates the Davidic promises of 2 Samuel 7:12–14 and the Psalter in its description of Jesus’s royal identity and the promise to bestow an everlasting kingdom upon him: “He will be great and will be called the son of the Most High. The Lord God will give to him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:32–33). Similarly, Zechariah praises God for the redemption, salvation, protection from enemies, and mercy this Davidic king will bring “for the house of David” (Luke 1:68–74). While Luke is clear that Jesus is Messiah, Son of God, and Lord from his birth,14 it is not until Jesus’s resurrection-ascension in Acts 1:9–11 that he is enthroned to a position of universal power and actively establishes God’s kingdom (cf. 1:8). Both Peter (in Acts 2:22–36) and Paul (in Acts 13:32–37) use the Psalter in order to interpret Jesus’s resurrection and ascension as the installation of his Davidic Messiah as powerful king. Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2:22–36) There are four significant quotations and allusions to the Psalter in Acts 2:22–36 (Ps 17:5 LXX in Acts 2:24a; Ps 15:8–11 LXX in Acts 2:25–28; Ps 131:11 LXX in Acts 2:30; Ps 109:1 LXX in Acts 2:34–35). Peter’s speech 13. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 202. 14. See further here C. Kavin Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke, BZNW 139 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005).

46

“FOR DAVID DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN . . .”

immediately draws upon the Psalter to demonstrate the inability of death to keep Jesus underneath its power (οὐκ ἦν δυνατὸν κρατεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, 2:24b), when it refers to God as the one who “raised [Jesus] by loosing the birth pangs of death” (ἀνέστησεν λύσας τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ θανάτου, 2:24a).15 The underlined phrase almost certainly stems from Psalm 17:5 (LXX) where “David” cries to God and trusts God to rescue him out of the pangs of death and exalt him over his enemies (17:49–50).16 The Psalm concludes with the summary: “[God] gives great victories to his king. He shows loyalty to his Messiah, to David and his seed forever” (Ps 17:51 LXX). In Acts 2:22–36, however, Peter declares that while David is the speaker of the Psalms, David is not their referent or subject matter; rather, David spoke in the Psalms as a prophet (2:30) who looked forward to the Messiah’s resurrection and exaltation into heaven (2:31–33).17 More precisely, as Matthew Bates has argued, “David was not merely speaking about him, but rather this yet-tobe-revealed Jesus was making an in-character speech at the time of David through David.”18 Peter justifies this reading by exploiting the fact that David is dead, buried, and his tomb is accessible to the public in Jerusalem (2:29), but the Psalms, specifically Psalm 15 (LXX), speak of a figure who is always joyfully living in God’s presence, whose body will not experience decay, who will never be abandoned to Hades, and continues to experience the ways of life.19 Thus, in Acts 2:31b, Peter declares it is the resurrected Messiah who is the referent of Psalm 15:9–10 (LXX) and who “has neither been abandoned into Hades nor has his flesh seen corruption.” Peter’s most creative interpretive move in his sermon—though one that is common in early Christian 15. The underlined expression is difficult given the complicated relationship between the LXX translation (“pangs of death,” in 2 Sam 22:6; Ps 17:5 LXX; Ps 114:3 LXX) of the Hebrew text (which depending on its pointing, may be translated as “cord” or “travail.”) For an extended discussion, see Anderson, “But God Raised Him,” 203–8. 16. Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology, JSNTSup 110 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 136–37. 17. For the way in which Acts and other Second Temple Jewish sources depict David as a prophetic figure, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “David ‘Being Therefore a Prophet . . .’ (Acts 2:30),” CBQ 34 (1972): 332–39. 18. Matthew W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 153. 19. See here especially, Donald Juel, “The Social Dimensions of Exegesis: The Use of Psalm 16 in Acts 2,” CBQ 43 (1981): 543–56; Anderson, “But God Raised Him,” 208–9.

47

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

discourse—is his interpretation of the Messiah’s resurrection from the dead with the fulfillment of God’s promise to David: “God swore an oath to him [i.e., David] to seat on his throne (καθίσαι ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ) one from the fruit of his loins” (Ps 131:11 LXX; cf. Acts 13:23; Heb 1:5).20 Luke’s association of the Messiah’s resurrection with his heavenly enthronement is hinted at by his use of καθίσαι (instead of θἠσομαι from Ps 131:11 LXX) as it looks forward to Psalm 109:1 LXX and indicates “that the enthronement at God’s right hand is understood by Luke as the fulfilment of God’s promise to David to seat one of his descendants upon his throne.”21 Standing behind Psalm 131:11 (LXX) is obviously God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:12: “I will raise up after you your seed, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.”22 Jesus’s resurrection, then, must be more than a return to mortal existence, given Peter’s declaration that the Davidic Messiah now reigns over God’s kingdom and shares God’s heavenly throne.23 As Sleeman has noted: “There is an enthroned Davidic king, but one enthroned in heaven.”24 Psalm 15 (LXX) suits Peter’s purposes nicely as it also speaks of this royal figure as one who is located at God’s right hand (ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἐστιν, 2:25b). The spatial placement of God’s throne (“God’s right hand”) next to the Messiah is what protects the referent of Psalm 15 from being shaken, and within the context of Acts 2:22–36, this almost certainly refers to God’s assistance to sovereignly rescue his messianic son from death (cf. Acts 7:54–60).25 The prepositional phrase 20. Dennis C. Duling, “The Promises to David and Their Entrance into Christianity—Nailing Down a Likely Hypothesis,” NTS 19 (1973): 55–77. 21. Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 139. On the interpretation of LXX Psalm 109, see Jacques Dupont, “‘Assis á la droite de Dieu.’ L’interprétation du Ps. 110,1 dans le Nouveau Testament,” in Resurrexit. Acts du Symposium international sur la résurrection de Jesus, ed. E. Dhanis (Città del Vaticano, Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1974) 94–148. David P. Moessner, “Two Lords ‘at the Right Hand’? The Psalms and an Intertextual Reading of Peter’s Pentecost Speech (Acts 2:14–36),” in Literary Studies in LukeActs: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson, ed. Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998), 215–32. 22. Timo Eskola, Messiah and Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, WUNT 2.142 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 164–65. 23. Robert F. O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” JBL 102 (1983): 245–58: “This promise of an eternal kingdom calls for a king to sit on the throne of that kingdom, this the resurrected Christ who lives forever achieves” (251). 24. Sleeman, Geography, 101. 25. Bates, Birth of the Trinity, 155: “Moreover, since the Father is in the less-elevated but authoritative

48

“FOR DAVID DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN . . .”

also resonates loudly with the better-known Psalm 109 (LXX) to which Peter turns in Acts 2:34–35.26 Again, given that the Father has invited a second Lord to “sit at my right hand” (κάθου ἐκ δεξίων μου) until God has triumphed over all their enemies and placed them under the Lord’s feet (2:35), this too cannot refer to David who “did not ascend into heaven” (2:34). Obviously, Peter’s scriptural interpretation assumes the premise that God has raised Jesus from the dead and located him in a position of heavenly and royal power.27 And Peter’s threefold mention of the Messiah at God’s right hand draws emphasis to the heavenly location of the Messiah’s powerful rule.28 Peter’s use of the Davidic Psalms function to establish that Jesus’s resurrection and ascension are the means whereby God enthrones his Davidic king to a position of continuing heavenly rule. Peter brings together Psalms 15:11 (LXX) and 109:1 (LXX), in part because of their shared phrase “at the right hand” (ἐκ δεξίων, Acts 2:25b and 2:34b) in order to demonstrate that the resurrected Messiah is currently enthroned in heaven and shares in God’s powerful rule at his right hand (τῇ δεξιᾷ . . . τοῦ θεοῦ ὑψωθείς, Acts 2:33).29 This is why David himself cannot be the referent or subject matter of his own speech—David’s death make it certain that David is not the one who “ascended into heaven” (ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, 2:34b).30 This statement about David, however, reminds the reader of another figure who has ascended “into heaven” (1:10–11).31 Psalms 15 and 109 enable Peter station at the Son’s right hand, the Father is ready to exercise sovereignty on the Son’s behalf, posed to meet his need speedily by executing the Sons’ royal command should he so will.” 26. Lidija Novakovic, Raised from the Dead According to Scripture: The Role of Israel’s Scripture in the Early Christian Interpretations of Jesus’ Resurrection, T&T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series 12 (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 203. 27. Luke Timothy Johnson, Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2002), 40: “It should be obvious, however, that this argument is carried by a premise that few of Peter’s hearers and only some of Luke’s potential readers will grant: that Jesus the Nazorean is in fact now resurrected from the dead and living as powerful Lord in the presence of God, enthroned ‘at his right hand.’” 28. See Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 154–55. 29. Novakovic, Raised from the Dead, 205–7. 30. David is frequently spoken of as “exalted” (ὑψόω) by God to a position of powerful rule. See O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” 248–49. 31. Anderson, “But God Raised Him,” 215: “The authorial audience will probably perceive a contrast between Luke’s vivid portrayal of Jesus’ ascent into heaven and David’s continued entombment.” Zweip, Ascension of the Messiah, 154–57, tries to demonstrate that Acts 2:32–36 does not understand Jesus’s ascension as the Messiah’s exaltation to God’s right hand but rather suggests that “the

49

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

to explain the meaning of Jesus’s resurrection as much more than a temporary return to embodied existence and rather as a heavenly royal enthronement.32 Peter uses the language of the Psalter to make precisely this point in Acts 2:33: the Messiah “who has been exalted to God’s right hand” is the agent and the cause of the outpouring of the Spirit. The first act of the enthroned king, in other words, is to send God’s powerful πνεῦμα as the means for the expansion of God’s kingdom (cf. Acts 1:6–11). Peter’s use of Psalm 109:1 and its designation of the Messiah also as Lord further enables him to interpret the resurrection as his heavenly enthronement to a position of absolute lordship: “God has made him both Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:36).33 Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:32–37) In Paul’s synagogue speech in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16–41), Paul’s primary focus is on the Messiah’s resurrection as the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel (13:32–33a). However, Paul uses biblical enthronement texts to interpret the meaning of Jesus’s resurrection as the Messiah’s heavenly enthronement (Ps 2:7; Isa 55:3; Ps 15:10 LXX).34 The fulfillment of the promise for the children comes through “the raising up of Jesus” (ἀναστήσας Ἰησοῦν, 13:32). Most take this phrase heavenly journey type of ascension is reserved for the Easter event” (156). Arie W. Zweip “Assumptus est in caelum: Rapture and Heavenly Exaltation in Early Judaism and Luke-Acts,” in Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles, WUNT 2.293 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 45, suggests that since Luke does not refer to Psalm 110:1 (the “exaltation psalm par excellence”) in Acts 1:9–11, it is unlikely that he connects Jesus’s exaltation with his ascension. This statement carries little weight, however, as it ignores the fact that, within Acts, one almost always finds the citations of the Old Testament Scriptures in the discourse (i.e., the speeches of the apostles) and not in the narrative events. Peter’s speech in Acts 2:14–36, then, provides the explicit interpretation of the events in 1:9–11 and 2:1–13. 32. Similarly, see Eskola, Messiah and Throne, 163. 33. Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 144–45: “Only at his exaltation-enthronement, however, is Jesus installed in the full authority as reigning Christ and Lord. . . . Though Jesus was already Christ and Lord by God’s divine choice during his earthly ministry, at his resurrection-exaltation he became the reigning Christ and Lord of all.” 34. Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 158–59; Simon David Butticaz, L’identite de l’eglise dans les Actes des Apotres de la restauration d’Israel a la conquete universelle, BZNW 174 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 286–88; Robert F. O’Toole, “Christ’s Resurrection in Acts 13, 13–52,” Bib 60 (1979): 361–72. So also, David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, WUNT 2.130 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 135: “The cluster of these three quotations, together with the explicit mention of David in v. 36, points to the significance of the David tradition for understanding the status of the exalted Christ” (emphasis mine).

50

“FOR DAVID DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN . . .”

to be a direct reference to Jesus’s resurrection, but a few have argued that it refers to God bringing Jesus onto the world scene.35 Arguments for the minority view include: (a) unlike 13:30 and 34, the phrase ἐκ νεκρῶν is omitted; (b) there are at least three places in Acts where ἀνίστημι means something like “to bring into the world” or “to raise up a prophet” (3:22, 26; 7:37); (c) there are no other examples of Psalm 2:7 used to refer to Jesus’s resurrection in Luke-Acts; (d) there is a supposed parallel between 13:33 and the statement that God “brought forth” Jesus to Israel in 13:23.36 These arguments are not persuasive, however, and the phrase should be interpreted as a direct reference to the resurrection for the following reasons.37 While it is correct that not every occurrence of ἀνίστημι in Acts refers to the resurrection, the fact that the verb occurs again just a few words later as an explicit reference to the resurrection is significant (ἀνέστησεν αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, 13:34). And it is no great argument that the verb occurs without ἐκ νεκρῶν, for Luke uses ἀνίστημι to refer to Jesus’s resurrection without ἐκ νεκρῶν in Acts 2:24 and 2:32. While Rese is correct that, in certain passages, ἀνίστημι refers to something other than resurrection, in these instances, the verb is always followed by a title (Luke 1:69—“a horn of salvation”; Acts 3:22 and 7:37—“a prophet”; Acts 13:22—“a king”).38 Further, while Rese is right to claim that Psalm 2:7 is not used elsewhere in Luke-Acts to refer to the resurrection, this does not preclude such a usage here—especially given the similar usage in other early Christian texts (Heb 1:5; 5:5; Rom 1:2–4). Most important, however, is the simple fact that the entire discussion of 13:33–37 focuses upon a scriptural demonstration of Jesus’s resurrection as his

35. The most comprehensive argument for this position, that I am aware of, is Martin Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas, SZNT 1 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969), 83–84; see also F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 275–76; Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles (London: T&T Clark, 1994), 645–46; Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 164–65. 36. Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas, 83. 37. Evald Lövestam, Son and Saviour: A Study of Acts 13, 32–37. With an Appendix: “Son of God” in the Synoptic Gospels, trans. Michael J. Petry (Lund: Gleerup, 1961), 8–11, 43–47; Darrel L. Bock, Proclamation From Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology, JSNTSup 12 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 244–56. 38. Also, see Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 163.

51

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

enthronement as Israel’s king. A reference to his earthly ministry would entirely interrupt the flow and logic of Paul’s sermon. 39 Further confirmation that ἀναστήσας Ἰησοῦν should be interpreted as a reference to Jesus’s resurrection can be demonstrated on the basis of its connection to Psalm 2:7 in 13:33b. Specifically, ἀναστήσας Ἰησοῦν is said to be according to what “has been written in the second Psalm.” Psalm 2 is a Davidic Psalm that portrays the victory of God’s people through the installation of God’s anointed king on Zion.40 It is necessary that the interpreter of Acts begin with the first reference to Psalm 2 in Acts 4:25–27. In Peter’s prayer in Acts 4:25–26, Luke quotes Psalm 2:1–2: Our father, through the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of David your servant said: “Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The Kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers are gathered together for the same purpose against the Lord and against his Christ.”

Lest his readers make any mistake, Luke provides the clear interpretation of Psalm 2 through the mouth of Peter in what follows. Luke has linked David with Psalm 2 in two ways: (1) both David and Jesus are referred to as God’s “servant” (4:25, 27, and 30) and (2) in Luke’s interpretation of Psalm 2, Jesus is referred to as the one “whom you [God] anointed” (ὃν ἔχρισας, 4:27). This “whom you anointed” most naturally refers to the coronation of the Davidic King in Psalm 2:6–7. In other words, Jesus is given the same messianic position as that of David in the Psalm, the one described as God’s “Christ” (2:2). Israel’s rulers, Herod, Pilate, and even the people of Israel play the role of the enemies of God and his Christ in Psalm 2 (see Luke 23:12). For Luke, the first part of the drama of Psalm 2 (vv. 1–3) is recapitulated in Herod’s, Pilate’s, and the Jewish leaders’ opposition to the Messiah 39. So also, Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986), 170–71; Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 411 n. 3; O’Toole, “Christ’s Resurrection in Acts 13, 13–52,” 366; Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (MeyerKommentar) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 358–59; Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelsgeschichte: Teil II (Freiburg: Herder, 1982), 137. 40. Despite linguistic connections, the Psalm resonates strongly with 2 Sam 7:12–14, a text we have had occasion to reference already. Within Second Temple Jewish writings, this Psalm was interpreted messianic and brought into intertextual relation with 2 Sam 7. See 4QFlor and Pss. Sol. 17:21–32.

52

“FOR DAVID DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN . . .”

and the messianic community (Acts 4:24–30; so also 13:27–29). If Luke sees Psalm 2:1–3 as fulfilled in the death of Jesus, then it would only make good sense that Psalm 2:7 would be adduced to indicate God’s resurrection and heavenly enthronement of his Son. Thus, what was originally a declaration of God’s election of the Davidic dynasty is now fulfilled in the messianic Son of God’s resurrection and enthronement.41 The most difficult part of Paul’s speech is found in the citations of Isaiah 55:3 and Psalm 15:10 (LXX) in Acts 13:34–35. Paul here argues that Jesus’s resurrection from the dead is not a mere resuscitation but is, rather, a promise that Jesus shall “never turn back to decay” (13:34a).42 The noun διαφθοράν reminds one of Peter’s citation of Psalm 15:8–11 LXX (in Acts 2:25–29, 31), part of which is quoted by Paul in 13:35. It is important to note the relationship between 13:34a and the quotation of Isaiah 55:3 in 13:34b: because (ὅτι) God has raised Jesus from the dead, so he has spoken (οὕτως εἴρηκεν) the words of Isaiah. 55:3. In other words, it is Jesus’s resurrection that activates the gift of “the holy and reliable things of David to you.” Paul invokes Isaiah 55:3 as a reference to God’s covenantal promises made to David for the benefit of future generations.43 The genitive Δαυίδ should be viewed, then, as an objective genitive—“the faithful and sure things [promises made to] David.”44 If it is correct that biblical citations frequently recall their larger context, then the citation of Isaiah 55:3 would also recall the context’s immediate prior wording, “I will make an everlasting covenant with you.” In this view, the “holy things of David” could refer either to the promised blessings associated with the Davidic covenant (e.g., an heir, a kingdom, and protection from enemies),45 or the divine 41. Johnson, Septuagintal Midrash, 42. 42. This is stated nicely by Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 359. See also Novakovic, Raised from the Dead, 211–12. 43. See here Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 170–74; Bates, Birth of the Trinity, 74–76. 44. That “David” is to be understood as an objective and not a subjective genitive is also strongly suggested by its Old Testament background. God is the one who demonstrates his “lovingkindness” (though here, of course, the LXX has read it as “holy”) and “faithfulness” on behalf of David and his dynasty. This is the case in Isa 55:3 as well as in the Davidic covenantal texts of 2 Sam 7:15; Ps 89:30–34, 49–51; 1 Kgs 3:6; and 2 Chr 6:42. On this, see H. G. M. Williamson, “’The Sure Mercies of David’: Subjective or Objective Genitive?,” JSS 23 (1978): 31–49. 45. So Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 517.

53

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

oracles promised to David (cf. 2 Sam 7:12–14).46 Thus, the relationship between 13:34a and 13:34b would be as follows: because God has raised Jesus from the dead (v. 34a) as the fulfillment of his promise to the fathers, so now has he bestowed the Davidic covenantal blessings upon the recipients (v. 35).47 It is a characteristic of the Davidic covenant that it promised salvific blessings to its recipients (2 Sam 7:10–14; Jer 23:5–6; Ezek 34:22–31; 37:24–28; also Luke 1:68–73). The promises are “faithful” (τὰ πιστά, 13:34) because they depend for their efficacy upon the resurrected and enthroned king who “shall not see corruption” (13:35).48 Paul again invokes Psalm 15:10 (LXX) to support his claim that his audience is the recipients of the blessings of the Davidic covenant. The Psalm’s promise—that the holy one would not see corruption (13:35) —does not refer to David because David “fell asleep,” “was added to his fathers,” and “he did see corruption.” The meaning of “he served the will of God in his own generation” is illuminated by Peter’s Pentecost speech. Peter appeals to the obvious fact that David died, was buried, and the place of his tomb is still known (2:29). Given the emphasis on David’s role as a prophet in the Pentecost speech (2:29–32), it would seem likely that when Paul refers to David as a servant to his own generation, it is David’s role as a prophet to his own generation that is in mind. David’s “seeing ahead” (2:31) corresponds neatly with his “serving the will of God” (13:36). David is dead and his body has seen corruption, but Jesus, the object of David’s Psalms, “the one whom God has raised—this one has not seen corruption” (13:37). The Heavenly Enthroned King Establishes and Expands God’s Kingdom In this final section, I want to point, all too briefly, to five ways Luke 46. So Johnson, Septuagintal Midrash, 44–45. 47. See Lövestam, Son and Saviour, 48–81. 48. My interpretation is somewhat similar to Barrett (Acts, 647–48) who paraphrases 13:35: “I will fulfil for you (that is, for the Christian generation) the holy and sure (promises made to) David, by raising up, by not allowing to see corruption, (not David himself but) his greater descendent, who was himself holy.”

54

“FOR DAVID DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN . . .”

continues to draw upon the Psalter to describe how the risen-ascended Jesus actively exerts his rule and enacts God’s kingdom as the enthroned heavenly king. I will simply illustrate the fact that there is no justification for speaking of an absentee Christology in Acts; rather, the enthroned-in-heaven king actively establishes God’s kingdom through pouring out God’s Spirit, vindicating his witnesses, and procures Israel’s repentance and salvation. The Enthroned King Pours out the Spirit (Acts 1:7–8; 2:29–36) Peter interprets the first act of the ascended and enthroned Messiah as making good on his promise (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4, 8) to pour out the Holy Spirit (2:14–36). Peter’s speech, using the exaltation language of Psalm 109:1 (LXX) makes a precise connection between the Messiah’s heavenly exaltation to God’s right hand (τῇ δεξιᾷ οὖν τοῦ θεοῦ ὑψωθείς, 2:33) and the Spirit’s descent.49 That the sending of the Spirit should be viewed as royal act of the enthroned Davidic king is demonstrated in a variety of ways. First, as we have already seen, Peter draws upon four royal psalms (Ps 15, 17, 109, and 131 LXX) in order to justify his claim that God has fulfilled his promises to David to seat one of his descendants on God’s throne in the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Second, we have also seen that the Lord’s anointed Davidic ruler was often seen as an agent of God’s Spirit and, therefore, there was a traditional association between Messiah and Spirit (1 Sam 16:13; Isa 11:1–2; 61:1–3). Third, while the Prophets do not use the language of “the kingdom of God,” they do frequently associate the sending of God’s Spirit as the time when God would restore Israel to his people, forgive their sins, dwell among them, and ingather the nations (Joel 3:1–5 in Acts 2:16–21; cf. Isa 32:15; 44:1–4; Ezek 36:26–27; 37:14).50 Finally, in Acts 1:4–8, the risen Jesus makes a close association between his sending of the Spirit, which will empower the disciples in their 49. The underlined inferential conjunction highlights the fact that the sending of the Spirit stems from the ascended Messiah. So Thompson, Acts of the Risen, 130. 50. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic, 115–16.

55

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

missionary task (1:4b, 5, 8), and the kingdom (1:3b, 6).51 While Jesus redirects the disciples from concerns with timing (1:6), he does go on to “describe the means by which the kingdom will be restored, namely, through the Spirit-inspired witness of the Apostles throughout the earth (v. 8).”52 Thus, it is significant that the very next event Luke narrates is Jesus’s ascension into heaven (1:9–11), and in this way, Luke establishes the closest possible connection between Jesus’s royal enthronement, the outpouring of the Spirit, and the inauguration and expansion of God’s kingdom. The Enthroned King Vindicates and Establishes his Witnesses (Acts 4:23–31; 7:54–60) In Acts 4:23–28, the apostles come together in prayer after their harassment from the Jerusalem priests and elders. In Peter’s prayer, they use the language of Psalm 2 to interpret Jesus as the anointed Davidic king who is persecuted by the agents of Psalm 2:1–2, namely, Israel’s rulers, Herod, and Pilate. In 4:29–30, their prayer demonstrates that the early Christians are enacting the role and pattern of the Anointed One as they too are now suffering at the hands of Israel’s leaders.53 Their prayer, however, demonstrates their belief that the vindicated Anointed One of Psalm 2 is still alive and is powerfully able to empower them to perform healings, signs, and wonders through the name of Jesus (4:30). And as God vindicated his messianic son (Acts 13:32–36), so he answers their prayer by sending forth the Spirit to further empower their mission (4:31). One sees a similar dynamic in Acts 7:54–60 where Stephen is martyred as a result of his vision of the ascended and enthroned Christ: “Being filled with the Holy Spirit, and gazing into heaven, he saw God’s glory and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. And he said: ‘Behold I see heaven opened up and the Son of Man standing at God’s right hand’” (7:55–56). The vocabulary 51. See Butticaz, L’identite de l’eglise dans les Actes des Apotres de la restauration d’Israel a la conquete universelle, 72–75. 52. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 231. See also Thompson, Acts of the Risen, 126–31. 53. I have discussed this in more detail in Joshua W. Jipp, “Luke’s Scriptural Suffering Messiah: A Search for Precedent, a Search for Identity,” CBQ 72 (2010): 255–74, here, 272–73.

56

“FOR DAVID DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN . . .”

of the Holy Spirit, heaven, divine glory, and the Psalm 110 language of God’s right hand converge to indicate that Stephen encounters a proleptic vision of the full glory of the enthroned Messiah (cf. Luke 9:22; 21:27).54 While the risen Lord does not save Stephen from death, he does (a) receive Stephen’s spirit (7:59) and (b) use Stephen’s death to expand the kingdom into the rest of Judea and Samaria (8:1–4; cf. Acts 1:8).55 Thus, both Acts 4:23–31 and 7:54–60 use the language of the Psalter to show how the enthroned-in-heaven Messiah of Acts 1:6–11 answers the prayers of his people and establishes God’s kingdom through empowering the testimony of his witnesses. The Enthroned King Gives Restoration Blessings (Chapters 3–5) In Acts 3:1–10, Peter and John heal the lame man sitting at the gate of the temple. The obvious parallels between this account and Jesus’s healing of the paralytic suggest that the healing ministry of Jesus continues through his witnesses (see Luke 5:17–26).56 But Peter is emphatic that the healing derives not from Peter’s abilities (3:12), but rather takes place “by the name of Messiah Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 3:6b; cf. 4:9–10). Peter’s speech declares that it is the resurrection power of the God of Israel (3:13a) that has “glorified his servant Jesus” (ἐδόξασεν τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, 3:13b) that is responsible for the healing of the lame man. The language of God glorifying Jesus probably draws upon the Psalter’s frequent promise that God would exalt his anointed Davidic servant (e.g., Ps 89:20–21; cf. Isa 52:13).57 Thus, the enthroned king is able to continue his healing ministry on earth by means of his witnesses.58 This is further emphasized by the notoriously difficult statement in 3:19–21, where Peter exhorts the people to repent so that they might experience “times of refreshment from the 54. Eskola, Messiah and Throne, 180–81. 55. Especially insightful for relating the spatial location of the heavenly Messiah and the geographical expansion of the Messiah’s witnesses is Sleeman, Geography, 163–71. 56. Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 71. 57. Jipp, “Luke’s Scriptural Suffering Messiah,” 264–65. 58. Sleeman, Geography, 109.

57

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

face of the Lord” (καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου, 3:20). These times of refreshment come from the glorified heavenly figure (3:21) who grants signs of his favor, presence, and healing to those who turn to him as a foretaste of his “time of universal restoration” (3:21a). The parallels between 3:20–21 and 1:6–11 (times and seasons, restoration, heaven, Jesus’s return, Spirit/refreshment) suggest the heavenly enthroned king is actively responsible for pouring out blessings upon his repentant people in anticipation of his return. 59 In Acts 5:30–31, Peter uses the language of Psalm 109:1 (LXX) to ground Israel’s repentance in God’s exaltation of Jesus: “God has exalted this one to his right hand (ὕψωσεν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ) as prince and savior in order to provide repentance to Israel and the forgiveness of sins.”60 Thus, Acts 3:19–21 and 5:30–31 indicate that God’s enthronement of Jesus to his right hand stands behind the mass conversions of the Jews in Jerusalem who turn to God and experience divine forgiveness (2:41; 4:4; cf. 13:38–39). In Acts 4:10, Peter declares that the rejected but now resurrected Messiah is the one who has healed the lame man (4:10b), and Peter quotes Psalm 117:22 (LXX) to identify him as “the stone that was despised by your builders, this one has become the head stone” (4:11).61 The claim that “there is no other name under heaven” that can procure humanity’s salvation links Jesus’s ascended-enthroned status with his ability to continue his healing ministry. Given Peter’s direct quotation of the Psalm, it is also likely that the frequent invocation of the name of Jesus as the powerful agent of healing (3:6, 16; 4:7, 10, 12, 17, 30) stems from Psalm 117 LXX where the king embodies “the name of the Lord” (Ps 117:26a) and triumphs as the result of “the name of the Lord” (Ps 117:10, 11, 12). Thus, in Acts 3–4, Luke continues to use the Psalter (Ps 117 LXX directly and Ps 88 LXX and the language of royal enthronement indirectly) to show how the resurrected and enthroned59. Anderson, “But God Raised Him,” 228. 60. Eskola, Messiah and Throne, 177–78. 61. On the significant role that Psalm 118 plays throughout Luke and Acts, see J. Ross Wagner, “Psalm 118 in Luke-Acts: Tracing a Narrative Thread,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, LNTS 148 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 154–78; Thompson, Acts of the Risen, 160–61.

58

“FOR DAVID DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN . . .”

in-heaven Messiah sends forth healing (Acts 3:1–10; 4:10–11), forgiveness of sins and times of restoration (3:20–21), and salvation (4:12) to those who turn to the Lord (3:19). With more space and time, one could further argue that the enthroned Messianic ruler engages in judgment and defeat of his enemies (Acts 1:15–26 citing Ps 69:25; 109:8; Acts 5:1–11; 12:20–23),62 creates a unified community in Jerusalem that fulfills the prophetic expectations and hopes for Israel as God’s people (2:42–47; 4:32–35; 5:12–16), and challenges false conceptions of sacred space (7:44–45; 17:24–25).63 But, hopefully, enough small gestures have been made to make the point that Luke uses the Psalter not only to narrate God’s enthronement of Israel’s resurrected Messiah to his right hand, but to also demonstrate the way in which the ascended king continues to rule and establish God’s kingdom from heaven.

62. Johnson, Septuagintal Midrash, 14–15; Jipp, “Luke’s Scriptural Suffering Messiah,” 266–69; Jacques Dupont, “La Destinée de Judas Prophétisée par David (Actes 1,16–20),” CBQ 23 (1961), 41–51, here 50–51. 63. See here Walton, “‘The Heavens Opened,’” 71–73.

59

4

A Revised Cosmic Hierarchy Revealed

Apocalyptic Literature and Jesus’s Ascent in Luke’s Gospel David K. Bryan

In 1987, Mikeal Parsons revived the narrative significance of Luke’s dual inclusion of Jesus’s ascent into heaven at the conclusion of the Gospel and the beginning of Acts.1 Parsons argued that Jesus’s ascent supplies a “triumphal exit” to Luke’s Gospel, an interpretation typically affirmed by scholars today who also view the ascension as a concluding “exaltation.”2 In spite of this general consensus, it remains debated exactly how this brief conclusion to Luke’s Gospel portrays Jesus as “triumphal” or “exalted,” and how the ascent relates to the preceding narrative of the Gospel.3 In other words, within the Gospel of Luke

1. Mikeal C. Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context, JSNTSup 21 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987). 2. Ibid., 112. 3. In many ways, I agree with the conclusion of A. W. Zwiep (The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, NovTSup 87 [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 145–66) that the notion of “exaltation” typically

61

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

alone, what does this conclusion communicate about Jesus, and what is the ascent’s relationship to the preceding narrative of his passion? 4 Apocalyptic literature has also been heavily probed for its connections to Jesus’s ascent into heaven. Frequent accounts of heavenly journeys in apocalyptic texts chronicle visions of the order and hierarchy of heaven, often in contrast to the chaotic earthly setting of human ascenders into heaven. But how can these widespread accounts of heavenly journeys inform Luke’s audience about Jesus’s ascent into heaven, and how might this relate to the narratological issues mentioned above surrounding Jesus’s ascent as the conclusion of Luke’s Gospel? The argument proposed in this essay is that Luke concludes his Gospel with Jesus’s ascent into heaven in order to affirm Jesus’s status as supreme authority in the cosmos, thus revealing a revised cosmic hierarchy that (re)shapes his audience’s way of being in the world. In accord with the larger cosmological and hierarchical discourse found both throughout the Gospel and in apocalyptic heavenly journeys, Jesus ascends into the divine dwelling place where order and authority are present and indisputable, but in a way that reveals his distinct status from both other human ascenders into heaven and other heavenly or celestial beings. Luke’s ascent-intoheaven conclusion, therefore, reveals a revised cosmic hierarchy with Jesus at its apex that also anticipates the eschatological reordering of the world, leaving the hearer of the Gospel with a revised approach to life in a currently disordered world. In order to demonstrate this thesis, it will be helpful to first explore the common destination of Jesus’s ascent and apocalyptic journeys applied to the ascension is more of a theological deduction than an actual reading of the Lukan texts, although I would differ from Zwiep’s form-critical reasons for such a conclusion. 4. By focusing on the Gospel alone, I am not intending to make a case regarding the unity of Luke and Acts. Instead, the argument here is simply concerned with how the ascent corresponds with the Gospel’s larger narratological purposes, and incorporating Acts 1:9–14 has the potential of obscuring a reading of Luke 24:50–53 on its own merits. On the unity of Luke and Acts, see Mikeal C. Parsons and Richard I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); Patrick E. Spencer, “The Unity of Luke-Acts: A Four-Bolted Hermeneutical Hinge,” CBR 5 (2007): 341–66; Andrew F. Gregory and C. Kavin Rowe, eds., Rethinking the Unity and Reception of Luke and Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 2010); Joel B. Green, “Luke-Acts, or Luke and Acts? A Reaffirmation of Narrative Unity,” in Reading Acts Today: Essays in Honour of Loveday C. A. Alexander, ed. Steve Walton et al., LNTS 427 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 101–19; also the essay in this volume by Stanley Porter.

62

A REVISED COSMIC HIERARCHY REVEALED

for its cosmological and hierarchical import. After a brief discussion of apocalyptic cosmology and how it connects authority, order, and humanity’s understanding of its existence in the world to Jesus’s ascent, I will then examine how Luke’s narrative engages these cosmological and hierarchical elements from the Gospel’s beginning in ways that anticipate the ascent-into-heaven conclusion. The final section of the essay will then unite all of these pieces together in order to elucidate the cosmological and narratological significance of Jesus’s ascent into heaven for Luke’s Gospel. “Into Heaven”: An Apocalyptically Appropriate Destination Why does Jesus ascend into heaven?5 While it may seem like an odd conclusion to Luke’s Gospel (see more on this below), Jesus’s ascent fits squarely within a larger web of heavenly journey discourse (albeit with some crucial differences; see below) familiar to a first-century hearer. Several texts in the OT record an ascent into heaven (e.g., Enoch in Gen 5:24 and Elijah in 2 Kgs 2:1–18), but the abundance and variability of ascent-into-heaven accounts within both Second Temple Jewish and Greco-Roman literature is quite unexpected.6 More than a dozen Second Temple Jewish works7 contain some reference to a 5. For the impact of this destination on Acts 1:9–14, see David K. Bryan, “The Heavenly Lord Over All: A Comparison of Second Temple Jewish Ascents Into Heaven and Acts 1:9–14” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Chicago, IL, November 18, 2012). 6. For the purposes of this essay, I define an ascent into heaven as a narration or description of a person or character who journeys or travels, bodily or otherwise (e.g., as a spirit or in a dream), in such a way that the traveler comes into contact with heaven or a heaven-like space. A number of works have attempted to categorize Jewish ascents into heaven. See Gerhard Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas, SANT 26 (München: Kösel, 1971), 51–79; Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993); Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 36–79; Jan N. Bremmer, “Descents to Hell and Ascents to Heaven in Apocalyptic Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. John J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 348–52; Adela Yarbro Collins, “Traveling Up and Away: Journeys to the Upper and Outer Regions of the World,” in Greco-Roman Culture and the New Testament: Studies Commemorating the Centennial of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, ed. David E. Aune and Frederick E. Brenk, NovTSup 143 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 135–66. For possible origins of ascent-into-heaven literature, see Alan F. Segal, “Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and their Environment,” ANRW 23.2:1342–51. 7. See esp. 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 3 Baruch, Ascension of Isaiah, Testament of Levi, Apocalypse of Zephaniah, Apocalypse of Abraham, Testament of Abraham, Jubilees, Ezekiel the Tragedian, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Philo, and Josephus. Numerous texts (e.g., Daniel, 4 Ezra, Ezekiel 40–48, Isa 6:1–11, Revelation, and various Qumran texts) offer further portraits of heaven. Other texts, such as Testament of Solomon, portray significant angelic and demonic elements (not

63

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

human being ascending into heaven—either physically, in a vision, or in a dream—many of which can be found in apocalyptic literature.8 The central purpose of these journeys seems to be to encounter the divine in order to gain some kind of revelation or answers to pressing questions in light of the ascender’s earthly situation. While the revelation provided to the human ascender is a significant portion of these ascents (see below on their mediatorial function as it relates to Jesus’s ascent), I want to examine first the very destination of these ascents—heaven or a heaven-like place—before then looking at how this destination informs the hearer of the larger cosmological issues pertaining to order, authority, and hierarchy that are quite pertinent for evaluation of Jesus’s ascent.9 The Heavenly Destination as Divine Dwelling Place One of the main reasons for this particular destination originates in the chief resident of heaven—namely, God.10 In apocalyptic literature, just as in much of the OT and other Second Temple texts, God is most to mention issues of authority) that might also inform one’s understanding of heaven in the first–century world. 8. On the nature of apocalyptic as motif, genre, worldview, etc., see John J. Collins, ed., Semeia 14: Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1979); Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982), 7–72; John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed., The Biblical Resource Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1–42; Frederick J. Murphy, Apocalypticism in the Bible and Its World: A Comprehensive Introduction (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2012), 1–26; John J. Collins, Apocalypse, Prophecy, and Pseudepigraphy: On Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 1–22. On the origins of apocalyptic literature, see Richard J. Bauckham, “The Rise of Apocalyptic,” Them 32 (1978): 10–23; Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1979); Rowland, The Open Heaven, 191–267; Anathea E. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011); Michael E. Stone, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 75–79. 9. The importance of Jesus’s destination in Luke’s Gospel would be even further highlighted if the fourfold use of εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν to describe the ascent in Acts 1:9–11 were included. For a more detailed discussion of heaven or the meaning of the heavenly space, especially from a Jewish perspective, see Paula Gooder, Heaven (London: SPCK, 2011); Jonathan T. Pennington, Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 39–76; Ulrich E. Simon, Heaven in the Christian Tradition (New York: Harper, 1958); J. Edward Wright, The Early History of Heaven (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). For a recent attempt to revive the biblical understanding of the supramundane, see Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2015). 10. Cf. Rowland, The Open Heaven, 84.

64

A REVISED COSMIC HIERARCHY REVEALED

often the God of/in/who dwells in heaven. In the Book of the Watchers, Enoch ascends into heaven (1 Enoch 14:8–9; cf. 39:3–8, 71:1–13), where he sees God, the “Great Glory” (14:18–23; cf. 1:3–4, 18:8–9). Sibylline Oracles 3:286 describes the “heavenly God (θεὸς οὐράνιος) [who] will send a king” (cf. 3:174; Apocalypse of Abraham 17:19).11 Baruch ascends into heaven where an angel instructs him regarding the heavenly world and the “heavenly God” (τοῦ ἐπουρανίου θεοῦ; 3 Baruch 11:9; cf. Testament of Abraham 2:3, 17:11; 3 Macc 6:28; 7:6) whom all ought to glorify. Levi, who ascends into heaven in a dream, sees “the Holy Most High” when the “gates of heaven” are opened (Testament of Levi 5:1). As Jonathan Pennington remarks, “By far the most common use of heaven in the Pseudepigrapha is in reference to the divine realm, the dwelling place of God, up above in the heavens.”12 The heavenly focus of these apocalyptic texts serves to reveal God as the supreme sovereign and authority of the cosmos, in particular, through the repeated sightings of the throne of God. Enoch enters heaven and sees “a lofty throne. . . . [And] the Great Glory sat upon it” (1 Enoch 14:18, 20; cf. 18:8–9; 25:3; 47:3; 60:3; 62:2–3; 84:2–3; Ascen. Isa. 11:32; 4 Ezra 8:20–21; Sibylline Oracles 3:1–2; cf. Rev 4–5). Second Enoch begins with Enoch’s accounting of the “kingdom of God almighty . . . and of the Lord’s immovable throne” (1a:1; cf. 20:3; 21:1). Levi also sees “the Holy Most High sitting on the throne” (Testament of Levi 5:1–2; cf. 3:5). The throne imagery conjures a notion of God as king in heaven, a title frequently bestowed upon God in the Second Temple period (e.g., 1 Enoch 25:3, 7; cf. 12:3; Testament of Moses 4:2; Tob 13:9; 3 Macc 2:2; cf. Dan 4:37; Moses 2.99).13 Richard Bauckham notes, “In most cases, the throne of God is unique, being the only throne in heaven,” a fact that further affirms the supreme authority of God in heaven.14 In sum, as J. 11. All English citations of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha texts are taken from James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983) unless otherwise noted. All translations of 1 Enoch are taken from George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012) unless otherwise noted. 12. Pennington, Heaven and Earth, 54; cf. Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–15), 1:718. 13. See Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, WUNT 2.142 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 43–123.

65

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Edward Wright states, “The most prominent image of God, therefore, is that of a king enthroned in all his splendor.”15 The accounts of multiple heavens—as perhaps most clearly and concisely delineated in Testament of Levi 3—also lend credibility to the perception of God as supreme authority.16 Levi states, “In the uppermost heaven of all dwells the Great Glory in the Holy of Holies superior to all holiness” (3:4). God is depicted here as supreme authority over “archangels, who serve and offer propitiatory sacrifices to the Lord” (3:5), “messengers [from “the heaven below”] who carry the responses to the angels of the Lord’s presence” (3:7), and the “thrones and authorities” (3:8), so that “when the Lord looks upon us we all tremble. Even the heavens and earth and the abysses tremble before the presence of his majesty” (3:9).17 Finally, within the ascent accounts themselves, divine authority is further illustrated by the fact that it is God and not the (human) ascender who is the responsible party for an ascent into heaven. In certain cases, the ascender petitions God (another illustration of his authority) about something prior to the ascent (e.g., 3 Baruch 1:2), but in no instance is the petitioner asking God to take him up to heaven. On the contrary, the ascent is entirely the work of God, displaying God’s authority and power to bring humanity into the realm of the supramundane.18 Heaven as the destination of these journeys is thus consistently depicted as the dwelling place of the supreme king and authority of the cosmos. The Heavenly Destination and the Hierarchy of the Cosmos Apocalyptic heavenly journeys also illuminate the hierarchy of the cosmos. Heaven is, hierarchically speaking, the apex of the cosmos, 14. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 161. 15. Wright, Early History of Heaven, 191; cf. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 171. 16. On multiple heavens, see Adela Yarbro Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism, JSJSup 50 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 21–54. 17. Fear and awe are a common reaction to the presence of the supramundane in general, whether God, heaven, or angels. E.g., 1 Enoch 14:9; 2 Enoch 1:7–8, 20:1; 4 Ezra 12:5; Testament of Abraham 9:5; Testament of Solomon 2:1. 18. Cf. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 57–58.

66

A REVISED COSMIC HIERARCHY REVEALED

and within the relationality of the cosmos God has ultimate authority.19 No creature—angelic, human, or otherwise—is able to stand before the Creator and claim authority: “No angel could enter into this house and look at his face because of the splendor and glory, and no human could look at him” (1 Enoch 14:21; cf. 68:4). The throne room of heaven, as we have seen, demonstrates that God alone is king in heaven, an obvious illustration of his authority, as demonstrated by Michael, Surafel, and Gabriel calling upon “the God of gods and Lord of lords and King of kings and God of the ages. . . . For you have made all things and have authority over all (πᾶσαν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἔχων)” (1 Enoch 9:4–5; cf. 63:1–4, 84:2–3; 2 Baruch 21:6). Moreover, God “is the judge” whom “no angel hinders and no power is able to hinder” (1 Enoch 41:9). Even the “stars of heaven” obey God (1 Enoch 43:1). God is also frequently depicted as the giver of authority in apocalyptic literature (1 Enoch 9:7; Testament of Job 3:6; Testament of Solomon 1:1, 5:13, 8:1, 13:7, 18:3; cf 3 Enoch 54:8). Within heaven itself there are also various levels of authority under God. Angels have their own hierarchy; archangels, for example, are referenced or listed at points throughout the literature (e.g., 1 Enoch 20:1–7; 2 Enoch 19:3–5; Testament of Levi 3:5; Testament of Abraham 1:4, 13:10; 3 Baruch 11:4, 6–8[G]; Testament of Solomon 2:4–7, 7:7; Life of Adam and Eve 3:2, 13:2; cf. Tob 3:16–17; Joseph and Aseneth 14:7).20 The description of the fall of angels in 2 Enoch further discloses a heavenly hierarchy: But one from the order of the archangels deviated, together with the division 19. Authority is inherently a relational concept, so that anytime there are two beings (whether supramundane or mundane), authority of some type is present. See, for example, Richard T. De George, The Nature and Limits of Authority (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1985), 16–17; Frank Furedi, Authority: A Sociological History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 7; Alexandre Kojève, The Notion of Authority: (A Brief Presentation), trans. Francois Terré (London: Verso, 2014), 8. For a discussion of relationality as it relates to God and creation, see Colin E. Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity: The 1992 Bampton Lectures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 20. Cf. Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology, 110–14. The existence of a hierarchy of angels also seems obvious when one considers the occasional references to the “millions” of angels in heaven (e.g., 1 Enoch 60:2, 71:8–9, 13; cf. 2 Baruch 56:14) or the various “roles” prescribed to angels (e.g., angels of repentance, peace, punishment, etc.). Enoch also witnesses Michael sending other angels, implying angelic authority over angels (1 Enoch 60:4; cf. Apocalypse of Abraham 19:6–9; 2 Baruch 6:4–6, 8:1).

67

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

that was under his authority. He thought up the impossible idea, that he might place his throne higher than the clouds which are above the earth, and that he might become equal to my power. And I hurled him out from the height, together with his angels. (29:4–5a (emphasis added); cf. 1 Enoch 54:5, 69:3; 3 Baruch 11:6[G])

The hierarchy presented here—God > “order of archangels” > “division” of angels—is quite clear. Going beyond angels, Enoch’s vision of the praise-filled declaration of “all the host of the heavens . . . and all the holy ones in the heights, and the host of the Lord—the Cherubin, the Seraphin, and the Ophannin, and all the angels of power and all the angels of the dominions, and the Chosen One and the other host who are are on the dry land and over the water on that day” (1 Enoch 61:10; cf. 71:7; 2 Enoch 1a:5–6, 19:1—20:3; Testament of Levi 3:3–9) conveys a diversity of heavenly creatures that suggests the existence of additional creaturely hierarchies within heaven. 21 Perhaps one of the clearest delineations of cosmic hierarchy is at the conclusion of the Book of the Heavenly Luminaries (1 Enoch 72–82).22 Enoch recounts his guided tour through the heavenly luminaries by the archangel Uriel (1 Enoch 71:1, 75:1–3, 79:6, 82:7). Uriel has been divinely authorized to govern over the sun, moon, stars, and so on (75:1–3, 79:6, 82:7; cf. 2 Enoch 4:1). The orderliness of the cosmos—specifically, in this case, the heavenly luminaries—is central to the book, and it is significant that Enoch concludes his narration by describing in some detail the various orders of heavenly luminaries and the authority given to them. Authority is ascribed to various celestial entities (typically for a specific duration), but it cannot be 21. For a helpful study of angelology and heavenly hierarchies in 1 Enoch and select prophetic works in the Hebrew Bible, see Donata Dörfel, Engel in der apokalyptischen Literatur und ihre theologische Relevanz: am Beispiel von Ezechiel, Sacharja, Daniel und Erstem Henoch, Theologische Studien (Hamburg: Shaker, 1996), 164–247. On the rise of the various divisions within angels or heavenly beings as illustrated here in 1 Enoch 61:10, see Saul M. Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism, TSAJ 36 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1993), 31–69. 22. See esp. Emma Wasserman, “Beyond Apocalyptic Dualism: Ranks of Divinities in 1 Enoch and Daniel,” in “The One Who Sows Bountifully”: Essays in Honor of Stanley K. Stowers, ed. Saul M. Olyan et al., Brown Judaic Studies 356 (Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2013), 190–92. On the nature of the celestial beings in this book, see George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 457–62. One pertinent point for this essay is the divine appointment of Uriel mentioned specifically in 75:1–3, thus demonstrating again the divestment of authority by God to others.

68

A REVISED COSMIC HIERARCHY REVEALED

forgotten that the presentation of the hierarchy begins with “the Lord of all the creation of the world” who “ordered” Uriel (1 Enoch 82:7), who is the “leader” (79:6) over the “host of heaven” (82:7), which consists of a myriad of levels of “leaders,” “captains,” and “divisions” (82:11–20). The specific levels of the heavenly hierarchy are important, but the fundamental point of these heavenly descriptions is to remind the hearer that God is the ultimate authority of the cosmos as well as the source and foundation of all other authority structures. 23 The fact that human ascenders cross from the mundane into the supramundane, however, also calls for consideration of the hierarchical relationship between these two realms. When examining interactions between the supramundane and mundane, it becomes quickly apparent that the demarcations between them are less “absolute” albeit not entirely fluid.24 For the most part, texts such as 1 Enoch 15 illustrate the stark difference between angels and humanity (cf. 93:11–14). In describing the Watchers, the Lord tells Enoch that angels are “the spirits of heaven, [and] their dwelling is in heaven (τὰ πνεύματα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἡ κατοίκησις αὐτῶν)” (15:7, my translation).25 Humanity has neither the same ontology nor dwelling place; note how the Lord stresses the earthliness of the result of the union between angels and women: But now the giants who were begotten by the spirits and flesh—they will call them evil spirits on the earth, for their dwelling will be on the earth. The spirits that have gone forth from the body of their flesh are evil spirits, for from humans they came into being, and from the holy watchers was the origin of their creation. Evil spirits they will be on the earth, and evil spirits they will be called (15:8–9).

God informs Enoch not only of the ontological distinction between 23. As Enoch appreciates in the seventh heaven: “And all the heavenly armies came and stood on the ten steps, corresponding to their ranks, and they did obeisance to the Lord” (2 Enoch 20:3). 24. Kevin Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship Between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament, AGJU 55 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 230. 25. On the nature of the watchers, see John J. Collins, “Watcher,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 893–95; Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John C. Endres, eds., The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014); Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels, 201–5.

69

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

angels and humans—the former are “spirits” and the latter “flesh” (who are dwellers on earth)—but also of the creation of “evil spirits” who dwell on earth instead of heaven (cf. 2 Enoch 31:3–6).26 Perhaps more importantly, this text identifies, as Carol Newsom remarks, that “the problem of evil [in 1 Enoch 6–16] is perceived as a rupture in the order of the universe.”27 The order of the world is unsettled by the Watchers’ inversion and rejection of the cosmic hierarchy and the establishment of the supramundane within the realm of the mundane (cf. Apocalypse of Abraham 13:7–8; Testament of Naphtali 3:2–5; 2 Baruch 56:10–16), a consequence that Enoch claims leads to the creation of evil spirits (i.e., demons) on the earth. The purpose of this section has been to affirm briefly what has long been acknowledged—that God dwells in heaven as king and has authority over the cosmos—but with the additional goal of highlighting the hierarchical presentation of cosmic authority in apocalyptic heavenly journeys. As Newsom states, “Order is at the heart of the symbolic imagination of apocalyptic literature and shapes its rhetoric,” so that apocalyptic cosmology confronts the heavenly ascender with the orderliness of heaven in contrast to the disorderliness of earth.28 The destination of these ascents, therefore, serves to inform, order, and orient the hearer about how one is to be in the world in light of heaven and the cosmic hierarchy with God at its apex. Apocalyptic Cosmology and Jesus’s Ascent While the import of Jesus’s ascent has long been considered, the 26. On this theme in 1 Enoch 6–16, see Kevin Sullivan, “The Watchers Traditions in 1 Enoch 6–16: The Fall of Angels and the Rise of Demons,” in The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John C. Endres (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 91–103. 27. Carol A. Newsom, “The Development of 1 Enoch 6–19: Cosmology and Judgment,” CBQ 42 (1980): 316; cf. Wasserman, “Beyond Apocalyptic Dualism,” 192–94; Ryan Leif Hansen, Silence and Praise: Rhetorical Cosmology and Political Theology in the Book of Revelation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 35. 28. Carol A. Newsom, “The Rhetoric of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. John J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 212. Here she is building upon the earlier sentiments of Ulrich Luck, “Das Weltverständnis in der jüdischen apokalyptik Dargestellt am äthiopischen Henoch und am 4 Esra,” ZTK 73 (1976): 294–97; cf. Newsom, “Development of 1 Enoch 6–19,” 312; Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 72–94; Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology, 99–114.

70

A REVISED COSMIC HIERARCHY REVEALED

apocalyptically cosmological nature of the Gospel’s conclusion and its impact on the wider Gospel narrative has been relatively underexplored.29 Part of the difficulty in assessing the import of cosmology for Jesus’s ascent is due to confusion about the nature of cosmology itself.30 Cosmology does not refer to heaven or earth as mere physical locations (although they are that) but, rather, focuses on cosmological elements such as heaven as they relate to the order and hierarchy of the world. That is to say, one’s being in the world is not merely about where one is located (in a material or physical sense), if, by this, one means a person’s latitude and longitude coordinates.31 Instead, cosmology more properly understood engages how one is in the world, such that places like the throne room of God in heaven inform and influence the orderly way in which humanity is to be in the world.32 As Jeff Malpas explains, “Put more simply, one might say 29. For recent attempts to engage Luke-Acts through the lens of cosmology, place, or space, see Mikeal C. Parsons, “The Place of Jerusalem on the Lukan Landscape: An Exercise in Symbolic Cartography,” in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson, ed. Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998), 155–71; Steve Walton, “‘The Heavens Opened’: Cosmological and Theological Transformation in Luke and Acts,” in Cosmology and New Testament Theology, ed. Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough, LNTS 355 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 60–73; Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts, SNTSMS 146 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Bart B. Bruehler, A Public and Political Christ: The Social-Spatial Characteristics of Luke 18:35—19:43 and the Gospel as a Whole in Its Ancient Context, PTMS 157 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011). Unfortunately, Craig G. Bartholomew, Where Mortals Dwell: A Christian View of Place for Today (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011) does not appear to address Jesus’s ascent into heaven at all. 30. My brief exploration here does not intend to equate anachronistically ancient and contemporary views of the world and thereby discount their significant differences, but, rather, it is the contention in this essay that apocalyptic heavenly journeys demonstrate conceptual understandings of cosmology as bound up with order and orientation in ways that resemble certain contemporary understandings of cosmology, place, and space. For recent philosophical discussions of place and space (and their implications for cosmology), see Karsten Harries, The Ethical Function of Architecture (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1997); J. E. Malpas, Place and Experience: A Philosophical Topography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). 31. Contra Edward Adams, “Graeco-Roman and Ancient Jewish Cosmology,” in Cosmology and New Testament Theology, ed. Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough, LNTS 355 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 5–27. This is not to deny, however, that heaven is an actual place. John A. T. Robinson [“Ascendancy,” ANQ 5 (1964): 6–7] claims that Jesus’s ascent is neither a “movement in space” nor a “movement in time.” Cf. Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 123–39. The problem with rejecting heaven as an actual place (and, therefore, the ascent as an actual movement in space), however, is Jesus himself. If Jesus maintains his humanity in some way as most acknowledge, then heaven has to be an actual place where the humanity of Jesus can reside. Human ontology requires existence in a place; in other words, “to be is to be in place,” as Malpas states. J. E. Malpas, “Comparing Topographies: Across Paths/Around Place: A Reply to Casey,” Philosophy and Geography 4 (2001): 233. 32. Contra Ryan Leif Hansen [Silence and Praise, 7], who proposes that “an individual’s or a group’s

71

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

that things are never ‘in’ the world in some indeterminate fashion but are always oriented and located in relation to the other things around them. It is precisely the oriented and located character of any mode of being in the world that allows things to be in the world in the first place.”33 Discussion of cosmology, place, and order here also invokes notions of authority and hierarchy. The ordering of one’s being in the world calls attention to the authoritative foundation of this ordering, so that authority and order should be understood as intimately connected. Thus, disorder inherently implies a lack of authority (e.g., civil war or anarchy), while order implies that authority is properly accounted for and engaged in the world. Scholarship on apocalyptic ascents into heaven has frequently acknowledged authority as an important component of an ascender’s journey or vision, but in a way that differs from the appreciation of authority for Jesus’s ascent delineated here. One of the reasons for ascents into heaven in apocalyptic literature was the human need for revelation or assurance. Many, if not most, apocalyptic heavenly journeys have lengthy depictions of God, heaven, and the cosmos in order to address the current reality of earthly chaos and suffering (e.g., Apocalypse of Abraham 17:17). Because of these revelatory visions, human ascenders are given some kind of role or responsibility upon their “return” to earth, often with the command to impart this revelation or assurance to a particular earthly audience (e.g., 1 Enoch 12:4–5; 13:1–10; 14:3–7; 15:1–3; 16:2–3; 37:2, 5; 2 Enoch 1a:1; 33:5–12; 36:1; 53:1–2; Testament of Levi 2:10–11; cf. Ascen. Isa. 11:40). Human ascenders thus become mediators of the divine or supramundane realm because, as the line of thinking goes, not all humans are able to ascend into heaven.34 Adela Yarbro Collins rightly claims that a number of these ascents experience of the world is constructed discursively.” Hansen’s approach to cosmology is far too influenced by social constructionism and thereby lacks a proper appreciation of place for cosmology. The world and humanity are in a constantly reciprocal relationship so that one cannot be understood without the other, but this must be counterbalanced in a way that simultaneously appreciates their distinctiveness. 33. Jeff Malpas, “Putting Space in Place: Philosophical Topography and Relational Geography,” Environment & Planning D: Society & Space 30 (2012): 238; cf. Malpas, “Comparing Topographies,” 231. 34. Segal, “Heavenly Ascent,” 1338; cf. Newsom, “Rhetoric of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” 207.

72

A REVISED COSMIC HIERARCHY REVEALED

into heaven are included in apocalyptic literature for “the legitimation of the one who ascends, the establishment of the authority of such a person who thus becomes a mediator and sometimes even a model for the audience.”35 Paula Gooder claims that Enoch receives “authority to approach the throne of God and to pronounce judgement on the Watchers.”36 The type or nature of the authority can vary, but what is clear is that this authority is intimately related to the heavenly destination since the ascender travels into God’s dwelling place, receives God’s revelation, and is commanded to impart such revelation upon his return to earth. Focusing on the authority provided to the ascender, however, tends to overlook the larger authority implications of the ascents, implications that are tied directly to the cosmology presented in these texts. That is to say, the ascender receives authority only because heaven is the apex of the cosmos, which is itself due to the fact that heaven is the dwelling place of the God who is the ultimate authority and bestower of authority in the cosmic hierarchy. Turning to Luke’s Gospel, the apocalyptic notion of attributing authority to an ascender is both appropriate and misleading when applied to Jesus’s ascent. It is appropriate in that the ascent into heaven ascribes authority to Jesus, but it is misleading in the characterization of the nature of this authority. In other words, Jesus is not depicted as a human ascender in need of authoritative revelation to understand the chaos and suffering of humanity on earth. On the contrary, the narrative of Luke’s Gospel has already ascribed authority to Jesus in ways that are foreign to apocalyptic human ascenders into heaven. The ascent into heaven is thus an affirmation that Jesus has authority, but it is a much more profound affirmation than that ascribed to apocalyptic heavenly ascenders. It is an affirmation that Jesus is at the apex of the cosmic hierarchy.37 Before I explicate this 35. Collins, “Traveling Up and Away,” 166. 36. Paula Gooder, Only the Third Heaven? 2 Corinthians 12.1–10 and Heavenly Ascent, LNTS 313 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 45; cf. James Buchanan Wallace, Snatched into Paradise (2 Cor 12:1–10): Paul’s Heavenly Journey in the Context of Early Christian Experience, BZNW 179 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011), 104, 107. 37. Considering the centrality of authority to the domain of politics, I can generally affirm the statement by John A. T. Robinson [“Ascendancy,” 9] that Jesus’s ascent into heaven is “the most political of all Christian doctrines.”

73

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

final point, however, let me first comment on the Lukan narratological preparation for Jesus’s ascent into heaven. The Gospel’s Preparation for Jesus’s Ascent Why does Luke narrate Jesus’s ascent into heaven in the Gospel?38 If one examines the Third Gospel on its own terms apart from Acts, the ascent-into-heaven conclusion is a bit perplexing. The Gospel as a whole seems to have Jesus’s passion and resurrection as its primary focus, and, consequently, there seems to be little foreshadowing of the ascent-into-heaven conclusion of the Gospel.39 Just prior to the ascent, Luke includes several post-resurrection appearances before turning quite suddenly, after Jesus’s promise of the Spirit’s arrival, to Jesus’s departure (24:44–49). The narrative of the ascent itself (24:50–53) has a considerable lack of detail—the actual ascent is given only one verse in 24:51—so that the hearer is left with little to go on as to its significance.40 The motifs of blessing (24:50–51) and worship (24:52–53) certainly contribute something to Luke’s narration of the event, but they do not fully explain why Luke narrates Jesus as ascending into heaven or how the ascent relates to the wider Lukan narrative. 41 While on the surface the Gospel does not seem to anticipate Jesus’s 38. One of the more thought-provoking attempts to answer this question in recent years is an essay by James D. G. Dunn, “The Ascension of Jesus: A Test Case for Hermeneutics,” in Auferstehung - Resurrection: The Fourth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium Resurrection, Transfiguration and Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger, WUNT 2.135 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); cf. P. Victoriano Larrañaga, La Ascensión del Señor en el Nuevo Testamento, 2 vols. (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas: Madrid, 1943), 1:103; Keener, Acts, 1:721–25. Dunn explores how to understand the ascension in a way that correlates Luke’s “other-worldly view of reality” with a modern, immanent conception of the world. 39. Note Jesus’s statements looking forward to his death and/or resurrection (e.g., 9:22, 44; 18:31–33; cf. 20:9–19; 22:14–23) and the lack of any similar anticipation of his ascent apart from the cryptic Lukan narration in 9:51. 40. For an affirmation of the Alexandrian text in Luke 24:50–53, see Larrañaga, La Ascensión del Señor en el Nuevo Testamento, 141–216; John F. Maile, “The Ascension in Luke-Acts,” TynBul 37 (1986): 30–35; Arie W. Zwiep, “The Text of the Ascension Narratives (Luke 24:50–3, Acts 1:1–2, 9–11),” NTS 42 (1996): 219–44; contra Parsons, Departure of Jesus, 29–53. 41. Cf. Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 87; contra I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 908–9; Dennis Hamm, “The Tamid Service in Luke-Acts: The Cultic Background Behind Luke’s Theology of Worship (Luke 1:5–25; 18:9–14; 24:50–53; Acts 3:1; 10:3, 30),” CBQ 65 (2003): 215–31; Kelly M. Kapic, “Receiving Christ’s Priestly Benediction: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Exploration of Luke 24:50–53,” WTJ 67 (2005): 247–60.

74

A REVISED COSMIC HIERARCHY REVEALED

ascent, apocalyptic cosmological emphases of authority, order, and hierarchy are present from the beginning of the Gospel. Gabriel, the prominent (arch)angel of apocalyptic literature (1 Enoch 9:1, 20:7, 40:9; 2 Enoch 21:3; 3 Baruch 4:7; cf. Dan 8:16, 9:21) appears to Zechariah in the temple as ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ (Luke 1:19; cf. Job 1:6; Tob 12:15; 1 Enoch 99:3; Testament of Solomon 5:9; Jubilees 2:2; Life of Adam and Eve 38:2), setting the tone for angelic appearances throughout the Gospel.42 Luke then narrates Gabriel’s announcement to Mary (Luke 1:26–38) and the subsequent praise σὺν τῷ ἀγγέλῳ πλῆθος στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου after Jesus’s birth (2:8–15a). “Two men” with strong angelic characterizations also announce his resurrection (24:4–7, 23).43 The Gospel thus portrays angels as (1) coming to earth to interact with humans and (2) as entirely inferior to Jesus in the cosmic hierarchy. Angels proclaim and praise Jesus on earth, such that the hearer cannot avoid grasping Jesus’s superiority. The superior authority of Jesus is also evident as he rebukes and/ or commands demons throughout the Third Gospel (4:35, 41; 6:18; 7:21; 8:2), and select demonic encounters explicitly highlight Jesus’s identity as the “son of God” (4:41).44 The healing of the Gerasene demoniac may be one of the most prominent interactions that Jesus has with demons, and cosmic authority pervades this scene. Here, (1) a man, is overtaken by (2) a demon called “Legion” (8:30; cf. Testament of Solomon 11:3, 5, 7) that recognizes (3) Jesus as the “Son of God the Most High” (Luke 8:28), who then (4) “commands” the demon to exit the man (8:29). A bit later in the Gospel, people from the crowds question whether Jesus casts out demons “by Beelzeboul the ruler of the demons” (11:15), an accusation that has obvious authority and hierarchical implications for both demons and humans. Jesus’s response—“if by the finger of God I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has overtaken you” 42. On angels in the Lukan writings, see Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology, WUNT 2.94 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); Rick Strelan, Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of the Acts of the Apostles, BZNW 126 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 119–30. 43. If Acts is taken into account, this point is further solidified. Jesus’s ascent in Acts 1:10–11 is followed by the visit of “two men” with angelic characteristics, and those who proclaim Jesus after his ascent are supported and helped by angels (5:19; 8:26; 12:7–11; 27:23–26). 44. Jesus’s authority is also applied to other aspects of humanity’s earthly existence, in particular, the forgiveness of sins (Luke 5:23–24; cf. 12:1–12; 15:7, 10, 32).

75

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

(11:20)—affirms the cosmic struggle depicted in Luke’s Gospel between Jesus and demons. Nevertheless, the fact that Jesus repeatedly casts out and commands demons again leaves the hearer with a lasting impression of the hierarchical superiority of Jesus. 45 Luke also exhibits a strong desire to portray the submission of the devil/Satan to Jesus and, via a derived authority given by Jesus, the disciples (esp. 10:17–20).46 The temptation account (4:1–13) presents perhaps the clearest illustration of the devil’s opposition to Jesus (cf. 8:11–12; 10:17–20; 22:3), and what is remarkable is the unique Lukan emphasis on the “authority” ascribed to the devil. In the second temptation, the devil shows Jesus “all the kingdoms of the inhabited world” (4:5) and says, “I will give all this authority and their glory (σοὶ δώσω τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἅπασαν καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν) because it has been handed over to me and to whoever I desire I [am authorized to] give it” (4:6). This offer illustrates both the derivative nature of the devil’s authority (“it has been handed over to me”) and the devil’s own authority to hand it to others (“to whoever I desire I [am authorized to] give it”). That it is God who has given the devil such authority is a possible implication of Jesus’s response from Deut 6:13: “You will worship the Lord your God and serve him only” (Luke 4:8). After tempting Jesus to no avail, the devil departs the narrative as an active character until the passion (22:3, 31), a narrative absence that implies defeat at the hands of the one who has ultimate authority. Narratologically, the presentation of the passion narrative in Luke 19–24 most clearly illustrates the cosmological discourse of order and authority in anticipation of Jesus’s ascent into heaven. The passion narrative begins with Luke’s clear presentation of Jesus as ὁ βασιλεὺς when he enters Jerusalem (19:38), a title that takes on cosmological significance with the Lukan inclusion of ἐν οὐρανῷ εἰρήνη καὶ δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις (cf. 2:14). The “disorderly” and chaotic state of the earth and 45. It is intriguing to note that while angels are prominent in Luke’s infancy narrative and after the resurrection, the converse is true for demons/the devil/Satan, who are entirely absent in Luke 1–3 and 23–24. 46. See esp. Susan R. Garrett, The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 37–60.

76

A REVISED COSMIC HIERARCHY REVEALED

God’s people lends itself to a presentation of Jesus as one who authoritatively provides peace and, therefore, order. 47 The Jewish leadership then questions Jesus’s authority and the source of his authority in the temple (the place of authority and order for Jews) in Luke 20:1—21:4. Their questioning shows an understanding of authority as derivative (“Who is the one who gave you this authority?” in 20:2b; cf. v. 4), but their motivation throughout 20:1—21:4 is to undermine Jesus’s authority itself.48 Jesus responds to their critique by juxtaposing “from heaven” and “from humanity” (20:4), thereby illustrating that the divine circumlocution of “heaven” is more than a mere location—it is a place in the cosmos that evokes and is synonymous with order and authority. John’s baptism is divinely authorized, a status that the hearer can assume for Jesus’s actions as well (cf. 4:43). In addition, the citations from Pss 117:22 LXX and 109:1 LXX in Luke 20:17 and 20:42, respectively, while in this context also concerned with condemning Jesus’s critics, bring attention to Jesus’s royal, authoritative standing.49 All of these elements are significant considering the impending proclamation of the disordering of the world in 21:5–38. The prophecy of the temple’s destruction denotes a disordering of the Jewish world that would naturally lead to questions about who is authoritatively governing the cosmos. Nevertheless, the unique Lukan conclusion to the eschatological discourse—in which Jesus exhorts his hearers to consider their standing “before the son of man” (21:36)—provides an eschatological illustration of the reordered cosmic authority structure. All people will present themselves before the son of man, an image that evokes apocalyptic notions of angels and humans presenting themselves before the God over all (1 Enoch 14:21, 68:4; 2 Enoch 67:2; 47. Note the frequent mention of eschatological peace in 1 Enoch 1:8, 5:1–10, 11:2, 71:1–17; Sibylline Oracles 3:741–61; Testament of Levi 18:4–5 as well as Jesus’s prophetic statement about the rejection of “the things [that lead] to peace” that is a cause of Jerusalem’s impending destruction in Luke 19:41–44. 48. Note the grammatical similarity of the Jewish leaders’ question to Testament of Solomon 1:1, 5:13, 8:1, 13:7; cf. 18:3. Note, also, Jesus giving authority or authority-like status in the Third Gospel in ways that are not dissimilar to God as giver of authority in apocalyptic heavenly journeys (e.g., 9:1–2, 10:19, 22:24–30). 49. On the Psalms and Jesus’s ascent, see the contribution from Joshua W. Jipp in the present volume.

77

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Testament of Solomon 14:2, 18:3; cf. Wis 12:12–22), except in this case, it is the royal son of man to whom all will be presented. The proclamation of Jesus’s authority in Luke 19–21 is, of course, radically reversed in his passion and crucifixion (22–23). Conflict is central to this section of the Gospel, but the conflict is not limited to the mundane realm. Luke 22 begins with Satan “entering” Judas, and then at his arrest, Jesus exclaims to his detainers, “But this is your hour and the authority of darkness” (Luke 22:53; ἀλλ᾿ αὕτη ἐστὶν ὑμῶν ἡ ὥρα καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους). Darkness is nowhere a positive motif in the Gospel (e.g., the mention of darkness at his crucifixion, 23:44). The expression “the authority of darkness” is unusual, but it is echoed quite strongly in Paul’s defense in Acts 26. Paul explains that he was sent “to turn [them] from darkness to light and the authority of Satan to God” (26:18; τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι ἀπὸ σκότους εἰς φῶς καὶ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σατανᾶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν). The parallelism here between “darkness” and “authority of Satan” is striking, so that it seems reasonable to assume a similar line of thinking here in Luke 22 when Jesus claims his arrest as part of the “authority of darkness,” especially considering the authority attributed to Satan earlier in the temptation scene. The point here is that Jesus’s passion, just like the rest of the Gospel, involves a cosmic authority struggle. Jesus claims a “heavenly” status in 22:69 (“From now on the son of man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God”) and promises the thief on the cross a place in Paradise (23:43), but the overall narrative effect of Luke 22–23 is the rejection of the one who is the authoritative Lord and king. Finally, the resurrection begins Luke’s transition to the conclusion of the Gospel. Space does not permit here a discussion of the relationship between the resurrection and the ascension.50 Suffice it to say that the resurrection of the crucified Jesus forces the hearer to reconsider the order of the cosmos (on many levels). In certain ways, it would 50. On this, see Arie W. Zwiep, “Assumptus Est in Caelum: Rapture and Heavenly Exaltation in Early Judaism and Luke-Acts,” in Auferstehung - Resurrection: The Fourth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium Resurrection, Transfiguration and Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger, WUNT 135 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 323–50.

78

A REVISED COSMIC HIERARCHY REVEALED

be appropriate to end the narrative with the climactic resurrection. Luke, however, chooses to include a conclusion that fits the larger cosmological and hierarchical emphases that have been narrated for the hearer from the Gospel’s beginning. The (Cosmic) Hierarchical Conclusion of the Gospel Most scholars agree that first-century Jews and Christians (e.g., Jude 14–15) were generally, if not specifically, aware of apocalyptic literature and its accompanying themes.51 It is striking, therefore, that Jesus’s ascent into heaven at the conclusion of Luke’s Gospel is so brief and non-revelatory. There is no revelatory vision of heaven in order to instruct Jesus’s life on earth, which points to the fact that there is also no mention of a return of any kind for Jesus at the end of the Gospel (compare this, of course, with Acts 1:10–11). In light of these differences, some scholars claim that Jesus’s ascent should instead be classified as a “rapture” like that of Enoch or Elijah.52 This interpretation, however, is far from satisfying. Besides the chief difference in form between these “rapture” accounts and Jesus’s ascent—namely, that Jesus ascends as the resurrected Lord53—a “rapture” assessment does not fully appreciate the cosmological or narratological significance of Jesus’s ascent for Luke’s Gospel. 54 51. See esp. James C. VanderKam and William Adler, eds., The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, vol. 4, CRINT Section Three: Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996). For Luke-Acts in particular, see Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 27–30. 52. For Zwiep, Jesus’s ascent is the terminus ad quem of Jesus’s earthly life in the same way as the “raptures” of Enoch and Elijah in the OT. Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 35; cf. Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu; Keener, Acts, 1:713–21. However, John F. Maile [“Ascension in Luke-Acts,” 43] rightly notes, “There appear to be elements of more than one ‘form’ present in Luke’s ascension accounts which suggests that Luke did not feel himself tied by any one ‘form’, and thus to seek to press his narratives into one such straight-jacket is to do him a disservice. There is a sense in which Luke is seeking to present a unique occurrence, which calls for a combination of elements to be used.” 53. Cf. Walton, “‘The Heavens Opened,’” 66. C. Kavin Rowe [Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009)] is quite helpful here in understanding Luke’s depiction of Jesus as Lord throughout his narrative. 54. Restricting Jesus’s ascent to a “rapture” only provides hints of the cosmic emphases present in a much fuller way in apocalyptic literature. While a reader of the OT raptures of Enoch or Elijah, for example, could possibly deduce that the destination of these raptures highlights the cosmic authority of God and the relationships between the supramundane and mundane, it is difficult to see how the brief descriptions of their raptures points to anything other than a simple

79

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

The narratological analysis above pertaining to cosmology, order, and authority in Luke’s Gospel showed that Jesus’s authority is already affirmed in the narrative prior to Jesus’s ascent, so that one cannot talk about Jesus’s ascent as establishing his authority.55 The ascent into heaven instead provides a final affirmation that the authority of Jesus, which he has had throughout the narrative, is cosmic in scope.56 Jesus does not ascend into heaven in order to receive revelation like other mediators, while his earthly mediatorial work is accomplished through his life, death, and resurrection prior to his ascent into heaven (cf. Luke 19:10, 22:19–20). Thus, Jesus’s ascent is unique among apocalyptic heavenly journeys. He is the antithesis of the naive human ascender into heaven. Luke presents Jesus as Lord and king from the beginning of his narrative, so that Jesus’s ascent into heaven appropriately places him into the supramundane realm. All that remains is Jesus’s return at the last day to accomplish the final (re)ordering of the cosmos (cf. 9:21–27; 21:25–28, 36; 24:7, 17–27). Yet, not only does the ascent into heaven affirm the authority of Jesus, but it also proclaims a revised hierarchical order to the cosmos. Apocalyptic heavenly journeys constantly acknowledge God as the supreme authority over both the supramundane and mundane realms and their inhabitants. By means of his ascent into heaven, Jesus is now to be considered at the same “level” of authority. Luke’s narrative has repeatedly demonstrated that Jesus is superior to supramundane beings (e.g., angels, demons, Satan), but his ascent into heaven takes the final step in affirming Jesus’s status in the supramundane hierarchy. His ascent into heaven is not as a human in search of revelatory authority but, instead, as the resurrected Lord and king. The ascent-into-heaven narrative proclaims what Luke has demonstrated throughout: all other “authorities”—supramundane, human, or affirmation of the end of their earthly existence. Apocalyptic accounts, however, present a much thicker description of the significance of an ascent into heaven because of their fuller unveiling of cosmology, order, hierarchy, authority, etc. This fuller unveiling seems to correspond much better with Luke’s Doppelwerk and its inclusion of Jesus’s ascent. 55. See a similar sort of conclusion in Rowe, Early Narrative Christology. 56. Cf. Maile, “Ascension in Luke-Acts,” 55–56. For similar thoughts but pertaining to the comparison of non-apocalyptic texts and the Colossian Christ-hymn, see Joshua W. Jipp, Christ Is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 113–16.

80

A REVISED COSMIC HIERARCHY REVEALED

otherwise—are subjugated to the authority of the one who became man and is now ascended to the right hand of God as Lord over all. 57 The significance of the disciples’ actions after the ascent in Luke 24:52–53—“And worshiping him they returned into Jerusalem with great joy”—immediately becomes clear: They worship Jesus because he is the Lord and king at the apex of the cosmic hierarchy.58 This worship is striking because Jesus previously rebuked Satan for attempting to recommend worship of anyone other than God (4:6–8). Here, however, worship of Jesus is permitted and appropriate. Kindalee Pfremmer De Long is certainly correct when she says, “Because the narrative has previously established that worship is reserved for God, this scene signals to the reader that this new level of recognition involves affirmation of Jesus as Lord (Luke 4:8).”59 The dramatic portrayal of the disciples’ joyous worship of Jesus highlights Jesus’s status in the cosmic hierarchy. Jesus is the authority over the cosmos who is worthy of worship and praise—his birth is accompanied by the praise of angels (2:13–14) and his ascent by the worship of humanity.60 Conclusion Apocalyptic heavenly journeys describe a cosmology that stresses the hierarchy of the cosmos, in which God is at its apex as the supreme authority over all other supramundane and mundane realms and inhabitants. Jesus’s ascent into heaven concludes Luke’s Gospel in such a way as to recall similar cosmological emphases throughout the Gospel. More than merely a “rapture” or “departure” to heaven, the conclusion of Luke’s Gospel communicates something about Jesus that is necessary for Luke’s larger narratological purposes. The ascent affirms what the entirety of Luke’s Gospel has already 57. Cf. Strelan, Strange Acts, 47. 58. For a similar conclusion albeit with respect to the Christ-hymn in Colossians, see Jipp, Christ Is King, 79–81. 59. Kindalee Pfremmer De Long, Surprised by God: Praise Responses in the Narrative of Luke-Acts, BZNW 166 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 245 (emphasis added); Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 860. 60. Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Vol. 1: The Gospel According to Luke (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986), 300–301.

81

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

proclaimed—Jesus is Lord over all—a reality that dramatically shapes the cosmic hierarchy of Luke’s audience. God is at the apex of the cosmic hierarchy, but now Luke’s audience must also respond to the affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth dwells in heaven as the resurrected Lord and king who has authority over all. As Thomas Ken penned in 1709: Praise God from whom all blessings flow. Praise him all creatures here below. Praise him above ye heavenly host. Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

82

5

Benefactor and Paradigm

Viewing Jesus’s Ascension in Luke-Acts through Greco-Roman Ascension Traditions James Buchanan Wallace

When, indeed, we assert that the Word, our Teacher Jesus Christ, . . . ascended into Heaven, we propose nothing new or different from that which you say about the so-called sons of Jupiter. . . . Bacchus, who was torn to pieces; Hercules, who rushed into the flames of the funeral pyre to escape his sufferings. . . . And what about the emperors who die among you, whom you think worthy to be deified, and for whom you lead forth a false witness to swear that he saw the burning Caesar rise from the funeral pyre and ascend to heaven? — Justin Martyr1 Then, when they had been ordained for the office of preaching throughout the world, a cloud enveloped Him and He was taken up into heaven, a story that is much truer than the one which, among you, people like Proculus are wont to swear is true about Romulus. — Tertullian2 1. 1 Apol. 21 (T. Falls, FOC 6). 2. Apol. 21.23 (R. Arbesmann, E. Daly, and E. Quain, FOC 10).

83

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Introduction Whatever may have been the intentions of the author of Luke-Acts when composing the story of the ascension into heaven of Jesus Christ, and whatever may have been the antecedents foremost in his mind, the quotations above from the church fathers Justin Martyr and Tertullian provide sufficient warrant for exploring Greco-Roman ascension traditions as essential contexts for understanding the ascension of Jesus Christ in Luke-Acts. The first generations of readers would immediately have detected a similarity between Jesus Christ’s ascension into heaven and the countless tales of ascension into heaven told in Greek and Roman traditions.3 While Justin will go on to insist on the demonic influence of the pagan myths, he initially uses the similarities to argue that certain aspects of Christian teaching about Jesus should be familiar to his audience. Jesus’s ascension is simply true in a way the others are not. Likewise, the author of Luke-Acts (whom we will, in keeping with tradition, continue to call “Luke”) could hardly have expected his audience to have read the story of Jesus’s ascension and simply ignored the cultural, mythological, religious, and political baggage that such an episode would carry with it. Indeed, several factors indicate that Luke crafted his narrative to highlight these connections. Gerhard Lohfink wrote the groundbreaking, systematic treatment of Greco-Roman ascension traditions for interpreting the ascensions 3. Significant studies of ascent to heaven in the Greco-Roman world include the following: Wilhelm Bousset, “Die Himmelsreise der Seele,” AR 4 (1901): 136–69; 229–73; C. Colpe, “Die ‘Himmelsreise der Seele’ als philosophie- und religionsgeschichtliches Problem,” in Festschrift für Joseph Klein zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. Fries (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 85–104; Colpe, “Himmelfahrt,” RAC 15:212–19; C. Colpe, E. Dassmann, J. Engemann, and P. Habermehl, “Jenseitsfahrt I (Himmelfahrt),” RAC 17:407–66; C. Colpe, “Jenseitsfahrt II (Unterwelts- oder Höllenfahrt),” 17:466–89; C. Colpe and P. Habermehl, “Jenseitsreise,” 17:490–543; Ioan Culianu, Psychanodia I: A Survey of the Evidence Concerning the Ascension of the Soul and its Relevance, EPRO 99 (Leiden: Brill, 1983); Culiano (Culianu), Expériences de l’extase: Extase, ascension et récit visionaire de l’Hellénisme au moyen âge, Bibliothèque Historique (Paris: Payot, 1984); Morton Smith, “Ascent to the Heavens and the Beginnings of Christianity,” Eranos 50 (1981): 403–29; James Tabor, Things Unutterable: Paul’s Ascent to Paradise in its Greco-Roman, Judaic, and Early Christian Contexts, Studies in Judaism (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), 57–111; Alan F. Segal, “Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and their Environment,” ANRW 23.2:1333–94, esp. 1333–51; James Wallace, Snatched into Paradise: Paul’s Heavenly Journey in the Context of Early Christian Experience, BZNW 179 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 39–94.

84

BENEFACTOR AND PARADIGM

in Luke-Acts.4 Though Lohfink’s work engages literary and religious questions, his investigation is guided by form criticism. He distinguishes “ascents to heaven” (Himmelsreisen), which are roundtrip journeys of a disembodied soul and depict the traveler as returning from heaven to report in the first person what was seen and learned, from “raptures” (Entrückungen), in which there is a third-person report of a one-way ascent. Lohfink makes a compelling argument that only the “raptures” are relevant for Jesus’s ascension, and he goes on to draw out numerous similarities between the raptures of Jesus in Luke and Acts (especially Acts), and the stories of one-way ascents in GrecoRoman culture, such as the stories of Herakles/Hercules and Romulus. Lohfink and Mikeal Parsons observe that several features in Luke-Acts can often be found in Greco-Roman rapture stories, such as departure from a mountain, a cloud, and subsequent cultic veneration.5 While A. Zwiep argues that the most significant parallels come from Jewish rapture stories,6 the data that Parsons provides demonstrate that the literary features of the ascension in Acts are far more common in the Greco-Roman tradition than in Jewish ascent literature. 7 The work of Lohfink remains insightful and this essay will reiterate several of his points. Alan Segal, however, has demonstrated that the “raptures” and “heavenly journeys” have more in common than Lohfink allows, and looking at the round-trip journeys first can help 4. Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas, SANT 26 (Munich: Kösel Verlag, 1971), 32–50, 74–79. 5. Lohfink, Himmelfahrt, 42–49; Mikeal Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context, JSNTSup 21 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 135–40. The charts of the vocabulary used in Greco-Roman ascension texts and the formal features common to Acts 1 and GrecoRoman ascension texts are especially helpful. Other important discussions of the Greco-Roman contexts of Jesus’s ascension in Luke-Acts include: Rick Strelan, Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of the Acts of the Apostles, BZNW 126 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 33–49; Gary Gilbert, “Roman Propaganda and Christian Identity in the Worldview of Luke-Acts,” in Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse, ed. T. Penner and C. V. Stichele, SBLSymS 120 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 233–56. 6. A. W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, NovTSup 87 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 34–79, esp. 37. This is not to say that Zwiep denies altogether the similarities between GrecoRoman ascent traditions and the ascension of Jesus in Luke-Acts, but he finds the Jewish backgrounds far more relevant. Richard J. Dillon, From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24, AnBib 82 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 260–62, considers only Moses (in later Jewish tradition) and Elijah as significant prototypes. 7. Parsons, Departure of Jesus, 140. Parsons is dealing primarily with the ascension in Acts; he argues that originally, there was no ascension as such at the end of Luke (see 50–51).

85

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

us understand the one-way, bodily ascents more fully.8 Moreover, one weakness of Lohfink’s approach is that he risks conflating the question of literary form with the question of religious/theological (and even political) significance. To understand the religious and theological significance of ascension for an audience, one must move beyond the “rapture” stories to examine the significance of ascent within religious communities. Luke’s depiction of Jesus’s ascension was not just about the elevated status of Jesus or about his departure;9 the ascent serves to validate the benefits Jesus Christ has wrought for humanity while simultaneously indicating that an afterlife in heaven has been opened for those who follow the teachings and example of Jesus. Heavenly Journeys (Himmelsreisen) Several philosophers embellished their arguments with stories of ascent to heaven.10 Typically, a disembodied soul experiences the fate of souls in the next life, and the story of the ascent serves to encourage virtue. Most famously, Plato narrates a story of this type, a mythos (μῦθος) as he calls it, in the final book of the Republic (614b–621d). Er was thought to have been killed on the battlefield. His soul left his body and was allowed to view the fate of souls after death. What he sees serves as added incentive to pursue the philosophical life, in order to better one’s afterlife and subsequent reincarnation. Moreover, Er is commissioned to preach what he has learned to other human beings (614d). More significant for our purposes, however, are similar stories found in the writings of Cicero and Plutarch. In his own Republic, Cicero imitates his predecessor by reinforcing specific virtues through the story of a vision of the ultimate fate of souls. Scipio, a character in the 8. “Heavenly Ascent,” esp. 1343–51. 9. Exaltation is emphasized by, for example, Strelan, Strange Acts, 35–44; and Lohfink, Himmelfahrt, 272–76, who is arguing against those who see the ascension as merely an expression of the departure of Jesus and not an expression of Christology; Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 76–79, connects the ascension to the promise of the Parousia, as does Parsons, Departure of Jesus, 144, in a different way. 10. For more detailed examination of the texts discussed below, and for other texts not mentioned here, see Wallace, Snatched into Paradise, 47–70.

86

BENEFACTOR AND PARADIGM

dialogue, tells of a dream that is a journey through the heavens, guided primarily by his grandfather, Africanus, but also featuring his father, Paulus. According to the cosmology and theology of the dream, the soul (animus) is eternal and divine, and was given to human beings “out of those eternal fires which you call stars and planets” (6.15 [Rudd]).11 Indeed, the Milky Way is a host of shining souls, and the outermost sphere of heaven generally, the fixed stars, is described as “the supreme divinity” (6.17). Africanus instructs Scipio as to the virtues that will lead one’s soul to rise to the heights of divinity after the body is thrown off: “for everyone who has saved and served his country and helped it to grow, a sure place is set aside in heaven where he may enjoy a life of eternal bliss. . . . Their [i.e., states’] rulers and saviours set out from this place, and to this they return” (6.13). Although patriotism and self-sacrifice for one’s country are the most revered virtues, the pursuit of glory and praise is denounced as vain; rather, “Goodness (virtus) herself must draw you on by her own enticements” (6.25). Africanus even mentions Romulus. Narratives of Romulus’s apotheosis typically imply that he ascended bodily (see §53.2). In keeping with the cosmology of this text, however, Africanus refers to the moment “when Romulus’ soul (animus) found its way to this region” (6.24). While the cosmology of the dream suggests that any virtuous soul can return to its native divinity, the emphasis is clearly on rulers and nobles who have been benefactors of their country. Plutarch’s Moralia contain two “myths” of a soul’s journey into the heavens that allow Plutarch to elaborate his understanding of the soul’s fate, though as with Plato, the reader is not meant to take these stories too literally (Sera 563b; Gen. Socr. 589f). These myths occur in Delays of the Divine Vengeance and the complex dialogue, On the Sign of Socrates. Both myths serve the same fundamental purpose: a soul journeys into the heavens to witness the rewards of virtue and the consequences of vice, especially how attachment to bodily pleasure leads to rebirth. In Delays, for example, a dissipated man gets hit in the 11. See Pliny, Nat. 2.8.49. All quotations of Cicero’s Republic are from the translation by Niall Rudd in Cicero, The Republic and the Laws, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

87

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

neck and is thought dead for three days. When he revives, he has a philosophical conversion to the life of virtue, for his soul journeyed to heaven and witnessed the purgation of wicked souls and the process of rebirth. The process of life and rebirth is presided over by Dionysius. The guide for the journey explains: “This was the route, the guide said, that Dionysius had taken in his ascent and later when he brought up Semelê; and the region was called the place of Lethe” (27.566a [de Lacy and Einarson, LCL]). Semele was Dionysius’s human mother, whom he brought up out of Hades, and both ascended to heaven (see also Apollodorus, Libr. 3.5.3). The guide later mentions Orpheus’s path (28.566c). In much earlier periods, Orpheus was associated with descent more than ascent, and a complex amalgam of traditions and cultic practices gathered around his name, most likely in the attempt to secure a better afterlife. With shifting philosophical and cosmological views, the soul’s fate—whether it was good or ill—could be imagined as taking place in the heavens as easily as beneath the earth. 12 The Hermetic tract Poimandres is a revelatory dialogue from Poimandres, or Mind, who explains the origin of human beings and their twofold nature, both material and immortal. There is no heavenly ascent as such; rather, Poimandres describes the postmortem ascent of the righteous soul through seven levels of heaven, as vices such as greed, desire, and deceit are stripped away, and the soul enters the Ogdoad to be deified (24–26). Such an ascent requires putting away material desire in the here and now, in recognition of one’s immortal nature (18–19). Immediately after the description of the soul’s ascent, Poimandres departs, and like the disciples in Acts, the speaker is now empowered to bear witness to what he has learned: “Then he sent me forth, empowered (δυναμωθεὶς) and instructed on the nature of the universe and on the supreme vision, after I had given thanks to the father of all and praised him (εὐχαριστήσας καὶ εὐλογήσας)” (27; cf. 32 [Copenhaver], compare Luke 24:49–53).13 These journeys of the soul are proleptic. They reveal that some part 12. See Segal, “Heavenly Ascent,” 1339. 13. Brian P. Copenhaver, Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a New English Translation, with Notes and Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 6.

88

BENEFACTOR AND PARADIGM

of the human person lives on after death, and they encourage the kind of life that will lead to a better existence after death.14 In two cases, the ascender is explicitly commissioned to spread this message.15 Despite the dramatically different formal character of the reports of bodily ascents (Lohfink’s Entrückungen), we will find that many such stories/ traditions serve remarkably similar purposes:16 ascent is a reward for certain behaviors, the ascender espouses specific modes of behavior, and the ascender shows that immortality can be achieved by human beings and how to do so. Raptures (Entrückungen) and Apotheosis Traditions Herakles/Hercules Herakles was one of many “heroes” given cultic honors in the ancient world.17 A hero did not have to be virtuous or “heroic” to be worshiped; the hero only needed to be perceived as powerful and, therefore, as worthy of imploring for help, or as a threat requiring appeasement.18 The hero was to be distinguished from an Olympian deity, for heroes were dead mortals and thus their cults resembled the worship of chthonic gods.19 Herakles, however, received cultic worship like a hero but also like a god, and his cult, unlike that of most heroes, was not geographically limited but widespread in Greece and beyond, spreading early to Rome.20 A son of Zeus by a human woman, Herakles 14. Segal, “Heavenly Ascent,” 1341, 1345–47. These roundtrip journeys do, of course, serve other purposes too, as discussed by Segal. 15. So also, Menippus, in Lucian’s satire Icaromenippus, ascends to heaven and returns with the commission to preach that the philosophers are all about to be destroyed by Zeus, a message Menippus characterizes as “proclaiming good news (εὐαγγελιούμενος)” (34). Although humorous, we see the working assumption that the heavenly traveler returns with a message for others. 16. This basic connection is made by Segal, “Heavenly Ascent,” 1347–49. 17. For Hesiod’s understanding of heroes as a quasi-divine race immediately preceding our current race, see Op. 156–69. Many of them fought at Thebes and Troy. Already, Hesiod imagines that some heroes received a better afterlife, set apart from others. 18. Walter Burkert, Greek Religion, trans. J. Raffan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 207. 19. Ibid., 205. 20. Ibid., 205, 208–11. An excellent analysis of all facets of the figure Herakles, from the myths to their use in tragedy and propaganda, can be found in Emma Stafford, Herakles, Gods and Heroes of the Ancient World (New York: Routledge, 2012); see esp. 171–97 for discussion of specific cultic sites and both Greek and Roman versions of the cult; see also Diod. Sic., 4.39.1; cf. Isocrates, Archidamus

89

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

suffered the wrath of Zeus’s divine wife Hera. As a slave to Eurystheus, he had to carry out his famous seven labors. Thanks to his wife, Herakles dons clothing that causes him to burn, and unable to end the suffering, he throws himself on a pyre, only to enter heaven and take Hebe as his divine wife. According to Diodorus of Sicily, Herakles had learned from the oracle at Delphi that he should accept submission to Eurystheus and that the reward for his labors would be immortality (ἀθανασία) (4.10.7). At the end of his life, he ascends the pyre and is burned, but no trace of his bones can be found, so those present conclude that “he had passed from among men into the company of gods (ἐξ ἀνθρώπων εἰς θεοὺς μεθεστάσθαι)” (4.38.5 [Oldfather, LCL]).21 In the ancient world, this was a natural conclusion; the absence of a corpse was frequently taken as evidence of an assumption.22 In response, worship is offered (compare Luke 24:52). The author of the mythological compendium called The Library, ascribed to Apollodorus, adds the following details, making his account resemble the imagery of Jesus’s ascent in Acts more strongly: “While the pyre was burning, it is said that a cloud passed under Hercules and with a peal of thunder wafted him up to heaven (καιομένης δὲ τῆς πυρᾶς λέγεται νέφος ὑποστὰν μετὰ βροντῆς αὐτὸν εἰς οὐρανὸν ἀναπέμψαι)” (Library, 2.7.7 [Frazer, LCL]). The cloud facilitates his disappearance, and “heaven” is explicitly named as his destination (compare Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9, 11).23 In both traditions, Heracles has himself immolated on a mountain (compare Acts 1:12). He was, of course, also the son of a god from birth. In art, the ascent of Herakles could show him riding a chariot to heaven, though this motif did not find its way into literature.24 18; and Guy Bradley, “Aspects of the Cult of Hercules in Central Italy,” in Herakles and Hercules: Exploring a Graeco-Roman Divinity, ed. L. Rawlings and H. Bowden (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2005), 129–51. 21. Compare Isocrates, Archidamus, 17. 22. Lohfink, Himmelfahrt, 38. Indeed, according to Diod. Sic. 4.58.6, such is the case with Alcmenê, Herakles’s human mother, who receives cultic honors after disappearing. Examples abound: Aeneas (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 1.64.4–5). Most strikingly, Arrian reports (though he also dismisses it) the rumor that Alexander the Great considered throwing himself in a river so that his body would disappear and he would be thought to have ascended to the gods (Anab. 27.3). 23. Already in the Iliad, several times, those human beings whom a deity snatches from danger and relocates to another (earthly) location are hidden by a “heavy mist (ἠέρι πολλῇ)”: 3.380–82; 20.443–44; 21.596–97.

90

BENEFACTOR AND PARADIGM

Walter Burkert suggests two facets of Heraklean tradition that gave it such lasting popularity: First, despite his acts of extreme violence and enormous appetite (both for food and sex), his myth and cult regarded him as a benefactor of humankind, and he thus became a model for rulers. Alexander I of Macedon claimed to be a descendent of Herakles, and Alexander the Great and his successors developed this claim.25 In fact, when Luke-Acts was penned, the Roman Empire stood on the cusp on what one might call a Heraklean revival under the Emperor Trajan, as the Herakles myths became an important aspect of imperial propaganda.26 Second, as the suffering laborer, Burkert suggests that Heracles offered an “inspiring prototype” for overcoming death.27 Indeed, legends tell of Herakles being initiated at Eleusis (see §5.4), and Emma Stafford takes this as evidence that Herakles was associated with the hope for a happy afterlife “from at least the late sixth century.”28 Whatever the exact reasons, it is certain that well into the Common Era amulets and magical devices connected with Heraklean tradition were valued for the protection they offered.29 In the time of the Roman Empire, “many ‘colleges’ were dedicated to Hercules,” so he was also the object of veneration not just by emperors but in voluntary religious associations as well. 30

24. Max Mühl, “Des Herakles Himmelfahrt,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 101 (1958): 106–34; see 112–13; Burkert, Greek Religion, 210. 25. Burkert, Greek Religion, 211 and 433n37; Stafford, Herakles, 137–70; Ann M. Nicgorski, “The Magic Knot of Herakles, the Propaganda of Alexander the Great, and Tomb II at Vergina,” in Herakles and Hercules: Exploring a Graeco-Roman Divinity, ed. L. Rawlings and H. Bowden (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2005), 97–128, esp. 105–15. Alexander claimed to be a descendent of Temenus, a Heraclid or descendent of Herakles (Herodotus, Historiae, 8.137–39), and Alexander had coins produced bearing Herakles’s image. 26. See G. W. Bowerstock, “Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century A.D.” in Le culte des souverains dans L’Empire Romain, ed. E. Bickerman and W. den Boer; Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 19 (Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1973), 193–94; see also Olivier Hekster, “Propagating Power: Hercules as an Example for Second-Century Emperors” in Herakles and Hercules: Exploring a Graeco-Roman Divinity, ed. L. Rawlings and H. Bowden (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2005), 205–21. 27. Burkert, Greek Religion, 211. 28. Herakles, 172. 29. Nicgorski, “Magic Knot,” 98; Burkert, Greek Religion, 211. 30. Stafford, Herakles, 196 and see 197.

91

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Romulus among the Historians Reports of the ascent of the legendary founder of Rome, Romulus, share literary features with the ascensions of Jesus and Herakles. According to Livy, Romulus was reviewing troops when there was a storm that “enveloped him in a cloud so thick as to hide him from the sight of the assembly; and from that moment Romulus was no more on earth” (1.16.1–2 [Foster, LCL]). Despite initially believing the senators who said that Romulus “had been caught up on high,” the soldiers saw Romulus’s throne empty and “remained for some time sorrowful and silent, . . . Then, when a few men had taken the initiative, they all with one accord hailed Romulus as a god and a god’s son, the King and Father of the Roman City, and with prayers besought his favour to protect his children” (1.16.2–3 [Foster, LCL]). Plutarch reports roughly the same story, only the storm has more theophanic characteristics (Rom. 27.6–8). In addition to the cloud in Livy, we see in both versions the motif of the mourning followers who, like the disciples, are then comforted (Luke 24:52).31 Livy stresses that the ascended Romulus was a son of a god (namely, Mars), and in both authors, he is recognized as a god in his own right, who can offer protection to followers. According to Livy, there was suspicion already at the time that Romulus had really been killed by the senators, a skepticism accentuated even more strongly by Plutarch (Rom. 27.8). To dispel this rumor, a supposedly reputable Julius Proculus serves as an eyewitness and reports: “Quirites, the father of this City, Romulus, descended suddenly from the sky (caelo) at dawn this morning and appeared to me. . . . ‘Go,’ said he, ‘and declare to the Romans the will of Heaven that my Rome shall be the capital of the world; so let them cherish the art of war, and let them know and teach their children that no human strength can resist Roman arms” (Livy, Hist. 1.16.6–7 [Foster, LCL], italics mine). Proculus’s report secures belief in the story. Again, Plutarch is similar, though his Romulus admonishes not just militancy but virtue as essential for conquest: “So farewell, and tell the Romans 31. Lohfink, Himmelfahrt, 48–49.

92

BENEFACTOR AND PARADIGM

that if they practice self-restraint, and add to it valour, they will reach the utmost heights of human power” (Rom. 28.2 [Perrin, LCL]).32 Several things are worth noting. First, Romulus is returning to earth and ascends again. Ascension, then, does not necessarily mean permanent, complete absence. Second, Romulus predicts and encourages Rome’s world domination.33 Third, both Livy and Plutarch present Romulus as encouraging specific forms of behavior. Fourth, Proculus is commissioned to report Romulus’s words. Finally, both offer two versions of what really happened to Romulus. Livy’s account hints at skepticism and recalls the death and apotheosis of Julius Caesar.34 Plutarch, however, explicitly criticizes simplistic belief in such ascents, noting their mythic character (Rom. 28.4). As he continues, he criticizes the idea that the physical body could rise into heaven. Virtue, however, is indeed divine and from the gods, and this divine part can return to the gods when cleansed of bodily attachment (Rom. 28.6).35 In short, the report about Romulus provides an opportunity to reinforce teachings familiar to us from Delays and On the Sign of Socrates (see §5.2). Like Plutarch, the historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus rejects the story of a fabulous ascent. He favors the more rational possibility that he was simply killed. And yet, Dionysius can affirm the divinity of Romulus, concluding that the supernatural phenomena surrounding Romulus’s death (and birth) “give no small authority to the view of those who make gods of mortal men and place the souls of illustrious persons in heaven” (2.56.6 [Spelman and Cary, LCL]). Apotheosis of Roman Emperors Julius Caesar and several emperors and members of the imperial family were claimed to have ascended to heaven as an expression of their divine status (as divus, not as deus, however) after death.36 Artists 32. In Numa, Plutarch briefly retells the story of Romulus, only this account more strongly resembles Roman imperial apotheosis procedures, since Proculus testifies to have seen Romulus ascend (2.3). 33. See Gilbert, “Roman Propaganda,” 242–47. 34. Segal, “Heavenly Ascent,” 1347–48. 35. It is instructive to note how Plutarch’s distinctive presentation of Romulus’s words upon his reappearance correlates with the lesson he draws, for Romulus accentuates his divine origins, the brevity of his stay on earth, and that his ascent was really a return to heaven (Rom. 28.2).

93

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

usually depicted heavenly ascent by incorporating a form of transportation, though such means of ascent are encountered less frequently in literature.37 Julius Caesar is depicted in a horse-drawn chariot similar to representations of Herakles.38 Regarding Augustus, Suetonius reports the following, with no further comment: “There was even an ex-praetor who took oath that he had seen the form of the Emperor, after he had been reduced to ashes, on its way to heaven (qui se effigiem cremati euntem in caelum vidisse iuraret)” (Aug. 100 [Rolfe, LCL]).39 As with Hercules, it occurs in conjunction with cremation. As with Romulus, the ascent is vouched for by the eyewitness of a nobleman, which became a standard element of the process of deifying a dead emperor until the second century. 40 As suggested by the heavenly journeys and the traditions about Herakles and Romulus, an ascent to heaven was something earned (see also Valerius Maximus, Memorab. 8.15.pref.), and the examples of Hercules and Romulus served as models and precedents for the ascents of Roman Emperors (for Romulus as model, see also below, §5.3.4). Brian Bosworth stresses two achievements in particular that recommended an emperor for divine status: world conquest and benefaction to humankind.41 He points to Virgil’s Aeneid to show how 36. Bowerstock, “Greek Intellectuals,” 198–99. The claim that Julius Caesar ascended to heaven can be found in: Ovid, Fasti 3.699–704; Valerius Maximus, Memorab. 9.15.1; see also Suetonius, Jul. 88, though here there is no ascent as such; rather, a comet affirms his heavenly status. 37. For a discussion of such artworks accompanied with several helpful images, see Mary Beard and John Henderson, “The Emperor’s New Body: Ascension from Rome” in Parchments of Gender: Deciphering the Bodies of Antiquity, ed. M. Wike (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 191–219. On p. 193 is an image of Antoninus Pius and Faustina being taken to heaven by a humanoid angel and accompanied by eagles. Moving closer to the time of the writing of Luke-Acts, p. 210 (and see the discussion on p. 209) shows an image from the Arch of Titus. An eagle with spread wings stands in the foreground with the head and shoulders of Titus behind it, clearly indicating Titus’s ascent and apotheosis through the depiction of the emperor’s riding an eagle. 38. Beard and Henderson, “Emperor’s New Body,” 201. 39. Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist., 56.46, attests essentially the same story, making the similarity between what happened with Augustus and the ex-praetor, and Romulus and Proculus, explicit. See also his description of Augustus’s cremation, according to which, an eagle was released near the pyre “to bear the emperor’s spirit to heaven” (56.42 [trans. I. Scott-Kilvert of Cassius Dio’s The Roman History: The Reign of Augustus (New York: Penguin, 1987)]), though Cassius Dio is here probably anachronistic, conflating second century practices with those of the first (see Elias Bickerman, “Consecratio,” in Le culte des souverains dans L’Empire Romain, ed. E. Bickerman and W. den Boer; Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 19 [Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1973], 3–25, see esp. 19). 40. Bickerman, “Consecratio,” esp. 22–25. 41. “Augustus, the Res Gestae and Hellenistic Theories of Apotheosis,” Journal of Roman Studies 89 (1999): 1–18.

94

BENEFACTOR AND PARADIGM

Dionysius (see §5.4) and Hercules serve as the models of conquest and benefaction for Augustus (6.756–853).42 He goes on to argue that Augustus’s Res gestae is, among other things, a deliberate and considered case for Augustus’s deification upon death on the basis of his conquests and benefactions.43 Gary Gilbert has thus rightly recognized the political overtones of Jesus’s ascension in Luke-Acts. He observes, “Ascending into heaven and being seated among the gods, in the political language of the day, marks one off as the legitimate ruler of the inhabited world.”44 In the political use of ascension traditions, however, it is not ascension that marks one off as a ruler, but rather, conquest and benefaction earn apotheosis. In this regard, Jesus’s ascension may validate Jesus’s benefactions to humankind in his ministry, death, and resurrection. That being said, Gilbert is right that the ascension appears to be a guarantor of future benefaction and something analogous to world conquest. While Gilbert notes the ways in which Luke presents Jesus as bestowing peace and how the gospel is poised to conquer the world, these points can be connected more immediately to the ascension itself than Gilbert indicates. Just before ascending, Jesus assures the disciples that followers will spread his message throughout the world and will receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8, and see especially 2:38, where the Holy Spirit is a “gift [δωρεά]”). Since the gospel will spread throughout the world only after Jesus’s ascension, Luke does not appear to be following rigidly the expectations and assumptions about earning apotheosis, so the ascension of Jesus should not be reduced to this political dimension. Complex Convergences: Horace and Ovid Two important poets of the Augustan age, Horace and Ovid, make especially complex and subtle use of the ascension motif in their 42. Ibid., 2–3. See also the poem of Q. Ennius quoted on p. 5, which clearly connects ascent to heaven with achievement (see the fragments in Cicero, Tusc. 5.17.49 and Seneca, Ep. Mor. 108.34). The passage cited above from the Aeneid is part of Anchises’s prophecy from the underworld of Roman greatness; the parade of illustrious ancestors, of course, includes Romulus (6.777–84). 43. That benefactions lead to deification, see also Diod. Sic. 1.18.5–6; 1.20.5–6. 44. “Roman Propaganda,” 247; see 242–47 for his discussion of the ascension.

95

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

poetry. In the second ode in his first book of odes, Horace implores Augustus not to “return too soon to the sky” like Romulus (45–48 [West]).45 In another ode, Iustum et tenacem (3.3), Horace begins by extolling the qualities of a just person (1–8). The just person yields neither to the masses when they are wrong nor to a tyrant, nor in fact does such a person quake when the world itself falls apart at the hands of Jupiter. The poet then declares such qualities to be the character traits that lead to apotheosis, and he begins a catalogue of various mythological figures who have been deified: Pollux, Hercules, Bacchus, and of course, Romulus Quirinus, “who escaped from Acheron on the horses of Mars” (15–16 [West]). Among the feasting deities Pollux and Hercules, the poet insists there will one day be another—Augustus. The list of these specific deities confirms the possibility of ascent, and again, apotheosis is earned. In this poem, however, as in the heavenly journeys, virtue is the key trait. Augustus will reach heaven because of his firm will, justice, and resolve (see line 1), as well as his rejection of the vices suggested as the poem continues, such as deceit, greed, and lack of chastity. For Ovid, too, the story of Romulus and his wife are the prototypes of the ascent of Augustus. While Horace’s odes are imaginative and meant to be suggestive but not literal, they are at least generally sincere in their sentiments towards his patron Augustus. Ovid is a different matter. He was eventually banished by Augustus, and his attitude toward the gods appears to have been cavalier, to say the least.46 In book 14 of the Metamorphoses, Ovid discusses at some length the ascent of Romulus and his wife Hersilia, which is also, in keeping with the theme of the poem, a transformation from a mortal body to a new and better corporeality (14.824–28; 14.845–51). Notably, Romulus can now ascend because of his achievement of founding Rome: he has built a

45. In addition to the translation, see David West’s helpful commentary in Horace, The Complete Odes and Epodes, trans. and notes by D. West, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). 46. See Christopher M. McDonough, “Roman Religion and Ovid” in Approaches to Teaching the Works of Ovid and the Ovidian Tradition, ed. B. W. Boyd and C. Fox (New York: Modern Language Association, 2010), 13–17, see esp. 13.

96

BENEFACTOR AND PARADIGM

state that is “on strong foundations and no longer hangs on one man’s strength alone” (14.808–9 [Miller, LCL]). The working assumption that a leader should merit apotheosis underlies the subtly satirical account of Julius Caesar’s ascent and the prediction of Augustus’s. D. C. Feeney observes that any deeds of Julius Caesar are eclipsed by the divine council in which apotheosis is more a matter of divine fiat than accomplishment (15.779–842). Indeed, in the final analysis, Julius Caesar is deified because of one thing: his son Augustus (15.746–61; 15.818–19).47 Also, we should observe the nature of the transformation. Like Hersilia, Julius Caesar begins to turn into fire on his ascent; indeed, he burns Venus and then outstrips her, to take his place among the stars: “Higher than the moon it mounted up and, leaving behind it a long fiery train, gleamed as a star” (15.848–50 [Miller, LCL]). This imagery of ascension as transformation into a star is rooted in the same kind of cosmology we saw in Scipio’s dream, a “heavenly journey” (see §5.2). Even before this account of Julius’s ascent, Jupiter has assured Venus that Augustus, too, will ascend (15.840–42). After the story of Julius’s ascent, the speaker, in a move similar to Horace (Odes 1.2), offers prayers to various gods, including Quirinus, that Augustus will not make this ascent too soon, even though he acknowledges that in heaven Augustus will “listen to our prayers” (15.869–70 [Miller, LCL]).48 This might sound quite laudatory and politically pious. But Ovid is suggesting that Augustus will join company with the raucous, wrathful gods, who have notorious sexual appetites throughout the Metamorphoses. Moreover, connections between the autocratic Jupiter (whose divine council, unlike the council of earlier epics, does not even question his decisions, such as his decision to destroy the human race after Lycaon tries to give him human flesh to eat) and Augustus 47. D. C. Feeney, The Gods in Epic: Poets and Critics of the Classical Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 206ff. for his discussion of apotheosis in the Metamorphoses, and esp. 210–11 for his discussion of Julius Caesar: “These disconcerting lines [i.e., 15.746–51] offer the blunt interpretation (corresponding to what actually happened) that what made Julius Caesar a god was his son: it was, indeed, his son who made him a god.” 48. For in-depth analysis of the subtleties of this prayer and its connection with the practice of Roman religion under Augustus, see Feeney, Gods in Epic, 214–24.

97

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

are fairly explicit already in book 1.49 Whereas Romulus was rewarded with ascent for creating a state where many can rule, Augustus has returned the state to one-man rule. Augustus may have been less than flattered.50 Satire That the subtleties of Ovid’s presentation of ascent and apotheosis were not lost on ancient readers is obvious from Seneca’s satire of Claudius’s deification, Apocolocyntosis (or Pumpkinification). The work depicts Claudius’s rather difficult entrance to heaven and the ensuing debate as to whether he should be acclaimed a god. Not surprisingly, Hercules features prominently, and Claudius hopes he will advocate for his admission to heaven (7). The debate over his deification parodies Roman imperial consecration processes.51 Diespiter, on a note consciously reminiscent of Ovid, argues strictly from his kinship to Augustus and the fact that Claudius has made others into gods: “I propose that from this day forth blessed Claudius be a god, to enjoy that honor with all its appurtenances in as full a degree as any other before him, and that a note to that effect be added to Ovid’s Metamorphoses” (9 [Rouse, LCL]).52 As Ovid implied of Julius Caesar, the only thing Claudius ever did to earn apotheosis was to have the right relatives. Alas, Augustus himself, who had minded his own business until this point, stands to speak against Claudius, and notably, Augustus’s speech is prefaced with references to the kinds of deeds that earned him his divine status (10). Later, after the writing of Luke-Acts, Lucian of Samsota would offer several parodies of ascent and even descent.53 In Hermotimus, Hermotimus seeks to convince Lycinus of the benefits of philosophy. In 49. Feeney, Gods in Epic, 199–200. 50. In the final lines of the work, Ovid expresses his hopes that he, too, will ascend beyond the stars, for his poetic work will give him immortal fame wherever Rome conquers (15.873–79); see Feeney, Gods in Epic, 249. 51. Michael Paschalis, “The Afterlife of Emperor Claudius in Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis,” Numen 56 (2009): 198–216, 201 and 203, esp. n. 12; Feeney, Gods in Epic, 207. 52. Paschalis, “Afterlife,” 201–2; Feeney, Gods in Epic, 207. 53. See Icaromenippus, esp. 2–3; and the Passing of Peregrinus 39–41.

98

BENEFACTOR AND PARADIGM

so doing, he compares the philosophical life to the ascent of Hercules, in an interpretive move reminiscent of Plutarch’s (and, to a lesser degree, Dionysius of Halicarnassus’s) treatment of Romulus: Think of the story of Heracles when he was burned and deified on Mount Oeta: he threw off however much of him was human that came from his mother and flew up to the gods, taking the pure and unpolluted divine part with him, the part that the fire had separated off (καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ἀποβαλὼν ὁπόσον ἀνθρώπειον εἶχε παρὰ τῆς μητρὸς καὶ καθαρόν τε θεοὺς διευκρινηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρός). So philosophy like a fire strips our climbers of all these things that the rest of mankind wrongly admires. (7 [Kilburn, LCL, very slightly modified])

Here, the story of Herakles is a model for transcending material attachment, throwing off the human so that a more pure part might reach the immortal world. Interestingly, it is not this idea as such that Lucian lampoons; it is, rather, the hypocrisy of the philosophers who fail to do this, as Lycinus quickly points out when he begins to reveal the avariciousness of Hermotimus’s own teacher (9). Despite the mockery, Lucian’s tract would suggest that the ascent of Herakles could be used as a metaphor for the ascent of the immortal part of a human being, once one has become detached from earthly pleasures. Ascensions of Other Figures Ascents to heaven were ascribed to numerous other figures. Though minor mythological figures, the story of Metioche and Menippe is worthy of note. Two young women must be sacrificed to Hades and Persephone to stop a plague, and Metioche and Menippe volunteer: “They willingly accepted death on behalf of their fellow citizens” (Antoninus Liberalis, Metam. 25 [Celoria]).54 Such self-sacrifice moves the chthonic deities, and they “made their bodies disappear, sending them instead up out of the earth as heavenly bodies. When they appeared, they were borne up into heaven (εἰς οὐρανόν). And men called them comets” (Metam. 25 [Celoria, very slightly modified]). The two 54. Francis Celoria, The Metamorphoses of Antoninus Liberalis: A Translation with a Commentary (London: Routledge, 1992).

99

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

young women appear to earn their ascent through self-sacrifice, and we see again a cosmology reminiscent of Cicero’s dream of Scipio. Philostratus reports a tradition of Apollonius of Tyana’s ascent to heaven (Vita Apoll. 8.30). The ascent appears to be a bodily rapture (see also 8.31), but Apollonius appears thereafter to expound on the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and Philostratus concludes that these teachings should serve “to convince us of the mysteries of the soul, to the end that cheerfully, and with due knowledge of our own true nature, we may pursue our way to the goal appointed by the Fates” (8.31 [Conybeare, LCL]). Here, an ascension becomes a warrant for the doctrine that every soul is immortal, in a vein somewhat reminiscent of the heavenly journeys (§5.2). Conclusions Those who ascended offered a precedent that immortality is possible and often became models of the characteristics and/or achievements necessary for others to follow suit. An emperor’s ascent could be predicated on those of Romulus, Hercules, and Dionysius. An ascent to heaven was something earned. Many traditions stress virtue; for emperors and leaders, military prowess and benefactions could also be key factors that earn ascent. As Lohfink realized, however, relatively few writers of the Greco-Roman world appear to have taken the idea of bodily ascent to heaven very seriously.55 Some mock it, while others view it, at best, as a symbol of the immaterial soul that, if virtuous, may rise to heaven after death. In fact, some writers take the opportunity to present the kinds of teachings illustrated more frequently and directly in what Lohfink calls the Himmelsreise form. The heavenly journeys tend to suggest that all souls are immortal and can potentially ascend; such journeys are not so restricted in their significance to a political elite. Indeed, as the discussions of Herakles, Lucian’s Hermotimus, and Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius suggest, even the rapture-type of ascent could provide hope and an example of the immortality of the soul 55. Himmelfahrt, 49–50.

100

BENEFACTOR AND PARADIGM

for the many. Therefore, to understand more fully the implications of a “rapture,” we turn now to mystery religions, voluntary religious groups that were often devoted to a deity who had broken the boundary between earth and heaven (or the underworld), and between mortal and immortal. Mystery Religions As Segal observed, the quest for immortality was by no means the preserve of the elite alone.56 The Eleusinian Mysteries near Athens connected the myth of Demeter’s search for Persephone/Kore, who was kidnapped by Hades, with the hope of a more positive fate in the afterlife.57 Though it is unlikely that a ritualized descent was acted out, there was a ritualized encounter with Persephone/Kore. 58 Ample evidence exists for a connection between the Bacchic mysteries and a better state in the next life.59 Dionysius was a god despite having a human mother. He descended into Hades to bring up his mother Semele, and both ascended to heaven.60 Although ritual practices were highly variable,61 at least one text suggests that the ritual enactment of descent may have been practiced as an immediate experience of the presence of gods, for some “were alleged to have been carried off by the gods (raptos a diis homines dici) who had been bound to a machine and borne away out of sight to hidden caves” (Livy, Hist. 39.13.13 [Sage, LCL]). 56. Segal, “Heavenly Ascent,” 1349, and see his discussion of certain mystery religions, 1349–51. 57. “Happy is he among men upon earth who has seen these mysteries; but he who is uninitiate and who has no part in them, never has lot of like good things once he is dead, down in darkness and gloom” (Homeric Hymns, To Demeter, 480–82 [H. G. Evelyn-White, LCL]). See Colpe, “Jenseitsreise,” 526 and esp. Burkert, Greek Religion, 289. 58. Burkert, Greek Religion, 288; for the Eleusinian mysteries generally, see 285–90; see further Colpe, “Jenseitsreise,” 526–27. 59. Burkert, Greek Religion, esp. 293–95, but also, 296–301. In his work dedicated to mystery religions, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), Burkert downplays the emphasis on immortality and emphasizes the “this-worldly” benefits offered by initiation (see esp. 12–29, as well as 89–114). Nonetheless, he still adduces ample evidence for the importance of immortality in these traditions; on Dionysius specifically, see 21–22. 60. Apollodorus, Libr. 3.5.3 and Plutarch, Sera 27.566a, discussed above, §5.2. According to another legend, he was dismembered, like Osiris; see Burkert, Greek Religion, 297–98 and Diod. Sic. 5.75.4 and 3.62.6. 61. Burkert, Greek Religion, 292.

101

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

When we move to the Greco-Roman mystery religions that were gaining followers even as Christianity was, we find that two of the most prominent were connected with descent/ascent traditions that were then ritually imitated by followers. The mythological foundations of the Isis cult involved Isis’s quest for her husband and brother, Osiris, who was trapped in a box by Set/Typhon. Isis finds his body, but he is later dismembered, prompting Isis’s quest for the pieces. Later, Osiris himself appears from the otherworld to direct his son Horus in the fight against Set/Typhon (Plutarch, Is. Os. 358b) and even has intercourse with Isis after his death (358e). As with Herakles, Romulus, and the emperors, Osiris (and Isis) earned immortality through benefaction (εὐεργεσία) to humankind as he marched over much of the world.62 Moreover, Isis was identified by some with Persephone and Demeter,63 while Osiris could be identified with Dionysius and connected with Orpheus.64 At its core, and in keeping with the Egyptian roots of the tradition, Osiris seems to be a figure of the underworld, not one who journeyed to heaven per se. Nonetheless, the connections with Dionysius suggest that the significance of this fact should not be overstated.65 Apuleius’s novel, The Golden Ass, tells of Lucius, who has been turned into an ass by dabbling in magic; Isis frees him, and he becomes an initiate of her mysteries and later those of Osiris. Although the work as a whole is fiction, the final book of the novel is generally viewed as containing reliable information about the mysteries of Isis.66 When Isis

62. Diod. Sic. 1.18.5-6; 1.19.3; 1.20.5–6; 1.25.2–6; 1.27.5. 63. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, 27. 64. “For the rite of Osiris is the same as that of Dionysius and that of Isis very similar to that of Demeter, the names alone having been interchanged” (Diod. Sic. 1.96.5 [Oldfather, LCL]). The identification is also made at 1.15.6; 1.17.4–5; and Plutarch, Is. Os. 364e. According to one tradition recorded by Diodorus Siculus, Osiris was the “original,” and Orpheus facilitated the transmission of Osiris traditions to Greek soil, letting people view Osiris/Dionysius as Greek (1.22.7 and 1.23.8). Indeed, as Burkert demonstrates, there seem to be several points of connection between traditions associated with Dionysius, Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Osiris (see 294–301), and all of these figures are associated, in one way or another, with journeys to the underworld. 65. See also Segal, “Heavenly Ascent,” 1339–41, who comments on the structural similarities between descents and ascents. 66. This claim is not without its critics, such as J. Winkler, Auctor and Actor: A Narratological Reading of Apuleius’s The Golden Ass (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985). However, good reasons for viewing the final book as a reliable source of information for the Isis cult can be found in: J. G.

102

BENEFACTOR AND PARADIGM

first appears to Lucius to reveal that she will facilitate his release from the form of a donkey, she demands complete devotion for the rest of his life in response to this benefaction and adds: Nor is it unjust that you owe all the time you have to live to her by whose benefit you return to the world of men. Moreover you will live in happiness, you will live in glory, under my guardianship. And when you complete your life’s span and travel down to the dead, there too, even in the hemisphere under the earth, you will find me, whom you see now, shining among the shades of Acheron and holding court in the deep recesses of the Styx, and while you dwell in the Elysian fields I will favour you and you will constantly worship me. (11.6 [Hanson, LCL])

On the one hand, this statement by Isis recalls an important word of caution emphasized by Walter Burkert: the benefits believed to be offered by the mystery religions were often very “this worldly.”67 On the other hand, Isis holds out the possibility not only of a better afterlife, but an afterlife defined by perpetual veneration of the goddess herself.68 An intriguing passage indicates that Isis initiation involved the ritual enactment of descent and ascent to encounter the gods face to face: I came to the boundary of death and, having trodden the threshold of Proserpina, I travelled through all the elements and returned. In the middle of the night I saw the sun flashing with bright light, I came face to face with the gods below and the gods above and paid reverence to them from close at hand. (11.22 [Hanson, LCL])69

In light of Isis’s claims to Lucius quoted above, this ritualized descent/ascent likely had a proleptic character, guaranteeing the intimate relationship with the deity in this life and the next. Moreover, we could speculate that this proleptic descent and ascent was

Griffiths, Apuleius of Madauros: The Isis-Book (Metamorphoses, Book XI), EPRO 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 1–7 and 55. 67. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, 12–29. 68. On the description of the afterlife in 11.6, see Griffiths, Isis-Book, 165–66. 69. Although it is possible to interpret this ritualized journey as strictly descent, it seems to be both, since Lucius sees the gods above, too. Moreover, the myth of Cupid and Psyche, a central part of the book as a whole, includes a descent followed later by Psyche’s ascent to heaven (6.23–24). On this passage, see Griffiths, Isis-Book, 296–301 and Wallace, Snatched into Paradise, 71–76.

103

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

patterned on that of Isis herself, or, at least, her story motivated and guaranteed the possibility of such a journey. Mithraism was emerging and growing at the same time as Christianity. The Mithraic mysteries appear to have had seven grades, and “each of the seven grades was under the protection of, and exemplified, one of the seven planets.”70 The images for these levels can be found on the floors of Mithraea, the caves in which Mithras cults met, and the caves themselves were designed to be images of the cosmos.71 Porphyry speaks of the Mithraic mysteries as follows: “Thus too the Persians perfect their initiate by inducting him into a mystery of the descent of souls and their exit back out again, calling the place a ‘cave’.” (De antro 6 [trans. R. Beck, emphasis in his translation]).72 Mithraic rituals almost certainly facilitated the ritual enactment and/ or access to what one’s soul was before its existence in this life and provided a proleptic experience of existence once the soul has ascended again.73 Whether or not the central deity Mithras himself can be called a deity who ascends is a trickier question. Mithras is both explicitly identified with the sun and distinct from the sun god, Sol.74 One image shows Mithras entering the sun’s chariot.75 Certainly, Mithras as “Sun” journeys through the Zodiac and overcomes the bull, which should be identified with the moon.76 Through its celestial journey of descent from the summer solstice until the winter solstice, and its ascent again from the winter solstice through the summer solstice, the route of the sun is connected with the soul’s descent and

70. Roger Beck, The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire: Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 30. Beck interprets the most important cultic icon, the image of Mithras killing the bull, which appears to have been the central of image of virtually all Mithraea, in astrological terms, too (31). 71. Porphyry, De antro, 6; on the importance of using Porphyry and other philosophers for understanding Mithraism (an approach regarded with great suspicion by some, such as Robert Turcan), see Beck, Religion, 16–17, 41–50, 85–87. 72. Beck, Religion, 42; Beck is trying to emphasize that Porphyry’s language, contrary to common translations, does not indicate that the initiate is taught about these matters of descent and ascent, but that they are experienced ritually. See also Origen, Contra Celsum, 6.22. 73. Beck, Religion, 42–43, and esp. 128–52, 207 74. Ibid., 198. 75. Manfred Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries, trans. R. Gordon (New York: Routledge, 2000), 82. 76. See Beck, Religion, 198 and 201.

104

BENEFACTOR AND PARADIGM

ascent.77 The ultimate culmination of the ascent, Beck observes, will be immortality, for the “cooling” acquired through the descent will be melted away.78 I am not, of course, suggesting that Luke anywhere depicts the earliest Christians as engaging in ritual ascents. Rather, the mystery religions demonstrate that the hope of ascent and immortality could be tied to the model of an ascending/descending deity. A descent and/or ascent was ritually enacted as a foretaste of the life promised through the mystery. Moreover, far from removing deities from their followers, these deities appear, especially in the case of Isis, to have been radically present in the lives of devotees. Conclusions What might Luke have been trying to say to his audience by portraying an ascension that could not have avoided recalling, in his readers’ minds, the ascents of Herakles, Romulus, Roman Emperors, and Dionysius, if not those of many more? Let’s begin with the most obvious and straightforward: Jesus was a human being but received worship (Luke 24:52). Generally speaking, cultic adoration was viewed by the larger culture as the appropriate response to one who ascended. The ascent confirms divine status.79 Such deities often promised continued protection for devotees. Moreover, apotheosis was something earned. Jesus’s ascent would confirm that he was a benefactor to humankind and not a true criminal; indeed, the motif of a suffering benefactor was not uncommon.80 The ascent might also guarantee his continued benefaction through the Spirit and perhaps even make the spread of the gospel to the ends of the earth seem inevitable, in a kind of benevolent and peaceful conquest of the world.81 Indeed, the ascent 77. Ibid., 212. 78. Ibid., 213. 79. These observations are far from novel; cf. Strelan, Strange Acts, 38–41, 44; Lohfink, Himmelfahrt, 46. 80. Strelan, Strange Acts, 46. Consider the cases of Herakles (§5.3.1), Metioche and Menippe (§5.3.6), and traditions of the dismemberment of Dionysius and Osiris (§5.4). 81. See esp. Acts 10:38: “how he [Jesus of Nazareth] went about doing good (εὐεργετῶν) and healing all who were oppressed by the devil” (NRSV); compare the work of the disciples in Acts 4:9. Note

105

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

may confirm that Jesus, like Romulus, has in fact already established a kingdom.82 All of that being said, the ascension of Jesus Christ in Luke-Acts was not, first and foremost, a statement about his status as such, but an expression of what he offered his followers. Frequently, bodily ascensions of Romulus, the emperors, and others were either not taken very seriously, or at least, not taken at face value. Such ascents did, however, serve as paradigms and examples. They expressed the possibility that by imitating the one who ascended and/or by following certain teachings, others might experience immortality and rise to heaven after death. In the mysteries especially, descending/ascending deities appear to have guaranteed ascent and/or immortality to initiates. In this regard, Jesus’s ascension is not, first and foremost, about who Jesus is, but about what Jesus Christ has done and can do for followers. Jesus has already promised “paradise” to a thief on a cross (Luke 23:43).83 Other passages indicate that Luke affirmed an immediate judgment after death (Luke 16:19–31; cf. 12:20; Acts 7:55–60, and note Stephen’s imitation of Jesus [Luke 23:34]). Those following the teachings and self-sacrificial example of Jesus could trust that they, too, would rise to life with God, even as Jesus had. Finally, rather than signaling Jesus’s absence from followers until the Parousia, the ascension, when viewed in light of Greco-Roman ascension traditions, would signal a transformed mode of presence, which is exactly what we find in Acts. The Holy Spirit descends to empower the disciples to imitate Jesus, and Jesus himself appears to characters in the narrative.84 The one who ascends to heaven is the also the explicit contrast Jesus draws between Gentile “benefactors (εὐεργέται)” and his model of service (22:25 NRSV). Compare Gilbert, “Roman Propaganda,” 237–47, 254–55. 82. See Luke 22:24–30, as well as 19:11–40, esp. 38, and see Luke Timothy Johnson’s commentary on these passages, Luke, SP 3 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), 288–95; 343–50. 83. It is highly likely that Paradise was understood as being located in heaven (2 Enoch 8:3–5; Apocalypse of Moses 37:5; 40:1; b. Ḥag. 14b–15b). 84. Interestingly, in some later texts that appear to represent rituals of ascent, the presence and power of divine spirit is a prerequisite for proleptic experiences of ascent. See The Mithras Liturgy 476–77, 500–505, 510–11, 517–28, 628–29 (in Hans Dieter Betz, The “Mithras Liturgy”, STAC 18 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003]) and the Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth 52.14–29, 57.5–11, 59.34–60.1, 60.17–24, 60.29–61.1, 63.9–14 (in Doug Parrott, ed. Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2–5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4, NHS 11 [Leiden: Brill, 1979], 341–73).

106

BENEFACTOR AND PARADIGM

mediator between heaven and earth, in both heavenly journeys and raptures.85 In some mysteries, the initiates seemed to have followed the deity up and/or down. As in the mysteries, Jesus is present in ritual, especially the Eucharist (Luke 24:35), but, of course, there is absolutely no evidence for ritualized ascent. Rather, we here observe the striking contrast with mystery religions. After Jesus goes up, the Holy Spirit comes down. Certainly, the ascending/descending deities protected devotees and were somehow made relatively immanent for their followers in the mysteries. In a similar but very distinctive manner, Luke’s presentation of the ascent confirms that Jesus mediates human access to the divine and that this access will increase for followers after the ascent, first and foremost through the gift of the descent of the Holy Spirit. Only later, after death, do believers join Jesus in paradise.

85. Segal, “Heavenly Ascent,” 1338.

107

PART II

Lukan Ascension Narratives within Luke’s Literary Program

6

The Unity of Luke-Acts and the Ascension Narratives

Stanley E. Porter

Introduction The ascension narratives are found only in Luke-Acts. Whereas we have resurrection accounts of various types in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 28:1–10; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–10) as well as John’s Gospel (20:1–8), and mention of the resurrection (or resurrection-ascension) in other places in the New Testament (NT) (see especially Paul’s writings: 1 Cor 15:4, 12–28; Eph 1:20; etc.), and whereas we also have exaltation passages at various places in the NT (e.g., Acts 2:33–34; 5:31; Eph 1:20; Phil 2:9–11; Col 3:1), the ascension itself is only specifically depicted within Luke-Acts (some have suggested hints in such a place as Rom 10:6–7). That means that even where other NT authors might

111

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

mention the resurrection and/or exaltation of Jesus, they do not mention the kind of visible and observable ascension that Luke-Acts seems to depict.1 Besides Luke 9:51, which is not an ascension narrative but a brief mention of it, there are two accounts of the ascension in Luke-Acts: Luke 24:50–53 and Acts 1:6–11 (see also 1:2, 22). In Luke 24:50–53, as the concluding episode of the Gospel, Luke says that Jesus led his followers to Bethany, where he blessed them, and, while blessing them, he departed from them and was carried up into heaven. They worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and they were in the temple praising God. In the Acts account, the first major episode depicted, Luke mentions in Acts 1:2–3 that his first book was concerned with Jesus’s instructions to his disciples until he was taken up and that he presented himself alive after his suffering in many proofs, while being seen by them for forty days as he spoke about the kingdom of God. In Acts 1:6–11, especially verses 9–11, Luke says that Jesus told his followers that knowledge of the time of the kingdom was not theirs to know and that they could expect to receive the power of the Holy Spirit. Then, after saying these things, while they were watching, he was taken up out of their sight with a cloud supporting him. While they were staring into heaven where he had gone, two men in white garments stood alongside and asked why they were standing and looking into heaven, when they could expect this Jesus who was taken from them into heaven to come back to the place where they saw him go into heaven. These two accounts have aroused significant discussion within NT studies, pretty much from the advent of the historical-critical study of the Gospels with David Friedrich Strauss to the present,2 even if 1. I will use the name Luke to describe the author of both Luke and Acts. I use this name not just as a convention but because I happen to think that the traditional author of these two books is Luke the Gentile, sometime traveling companion but not necessarily disciple of Paul. See Stanley E. Porter, “The Portrait of Paul in Acts,” in The Blackwell Companion to Paul, ed. Stephen Westerholm (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 124–38, esp. 137; cf. Lee Martin McDonald and Stanley E. Porter, Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 291–95. 2. David Friedrich Strauss, Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet, 2 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1835–1836; 4th ed, 1840), 2:642–62; David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, trans. George Eliot (London: George Allen, 1848), 745–56. For a survey (including citing Strauss), see A. W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, NovTSup 87 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1–35 (drawn on below); cf. John Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, WBC 35c (Dallas: Word, 1993), 1222–23.

112

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS AND THE ASCENSION

not to the same extent as some other topics. There are a number of factors that have aroused such discussion, several of which will be part of my larger discussion of the unity of Luke-Acts in relation to these ascension narratives. I am treating unity in the sense of how the accounts relate to each other and how they relate to the unity of Luke and Acts. There is a complex interplay of various factors that has precipitated the continuing discussion of these ascension accounts. Some of this complexity is caused by the textual variants found in both the Gospel and Acts passages, and some of it by differences in vocabulary in the two different accounts, both of which suggest early interpretive difficulties. Some of these solutions have involved various source theories, while others have led to diverse speculation about types of parallel accounts within the wider Greco-Roman world, of which Judaism was a part. I will examine a number of these issues in the following discussion with an eye on how they affect the question of unity. Once I have done so, I will explore how the Lukan ascension narratives function within their respective contexts of Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts, as well as in relation to each other and the Lukan two-volume narrative of the early events surrounding Jesus and his followers. Major Issues in Interpreting the Ascension Narratives of Luke-Acts At least four major issues often emerge in interpreting the ascension narratives of Luke-Acts and have a bearing on the question of unity. I have isolated these four as a basis for examining the role that the ascension narratives play in the unity of the individual NT works and Luke-Acts as a whole. These four major issues include: textual variants within the two major Luke-Acts passages; the differing language regarding resurrection, ascension, and exaltation; various perceived conceptual discrepancies regarding the ascension in Luke and Acts; and the possible sources of the ascension accounts from Lukan and religio-cultural perspectives.

113

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Textual Variants As noted above, there are two major passages in Luke-Acts in which the ascension of Jesus is depicted (I am excluding Luke 9:51, which makes a brief mention of it, in anticipation of the later passage): Luke 24:50–53 and Acts 1:6–11. Within these two passages, major textual variants regarding them as ascension accounts are found in Luke 24:51, 52, and 53a, and Acts 1:9 and 11 (there are also variants in Luke 24:53b, as well as some manuscripts that include the pericope of the woman in adultery, but those are not germane to my discussion; nor is the issue of Acts 1:2). These variants have been examined a number of times, especially since Westcott and Hort identified those in Luke’s Gospel as Western non-interpolations.3 I first summarize and examine the textual evidence for each, and then draw conclusions regarding the implications of the textual issues for unity. Luke 24:51 The question in this verse is whether the verse reads καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εὐλογεῖν αὐτὸν αὐτοὺς διέστη ἀπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν (“and it came to pass while he was blessing them that he was set aside from them and he was carried up into heaven”) or simply καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εὐλογεῖν αὐτὸν αὐτοὺς ἀπέστη ἀπ’ αὐτῶν (“and it came to pass while he was blessing them that he was set apart from them”). The shorter reading is without an explicit reference to the heavenly ascension, stating only that Jesus departed from his disciples. Most contemporary 3. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1881), 2:175–77. Examinations of the text-critical evidence, along with some of the interpretive issues, are found in, among others, A. W. Zwiep, “The Text of the Ascension Narratives (Luke 24.50–3; Acts 1.1–2, 9–11),” NTS 42 (1996): 219–44, repr. in Arie W. Zwiep, Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles, WUNT 2.293 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 7–37; Eldon Jay Epp, “The Ascension in the Textual Tradition of Luke-Acts,” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, ed. E. J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 131–43; repr. in Epp, Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962–2004, NovTSup 116 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 211–25; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” TS 45 (1984): 409–40, esp. 416–20; Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 227–32; and Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971; 2nd ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), ad loc.

114

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS AND THE ASCENSION

editions contain the longer reading, including the UBSGNT5, NA28, and SBL. Some earlier editions, such as Westcott-Hort and Tischendorf’s eighth edition, did not. The evidence for the longer reading is found in 𝔓75 ‫ א‬A B and most other majuscules, the Byzantine tradition, most lectionaries, some Italic manuscripts, the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Georgian2 versions, and some church fathers. The evidence for the shorter reading (omitting the wording noted above) is ‫ *א‬D, some Italic manuscripts, one Syriac manuscript, Georgian1, and Augustine in one place. On the basis of this evidence, the longer reading with the ascension to heaven is to be preferred, as it combines all but a single (though admittedly important) Alexandrian manuscript, the Byzantine tradition, and the vast majority of versions. It is hard to see why the UBSGNT5 originally gave this a D rating, although it quickly inflated to a C and then B in subsequent editions (even though the manuscript evidence did not change significantly). Despite this strong evidence, there has been support for the shorter reading along several different lines. Westcott and Hort treated this as one of their Western non-interpolations, instances in which the shorter (as opposed to its usual tendency to lengthen) Western edition preserved the original reading over the Alexandrian tradition. There are several problems with this solution: the problem with Acts 1:2 indicating that the previous book (Luke’s Gospel) had mentioned the ascension (but see discussion below); the widespread manuscript evidence of the longer text; the unique use of the verb ἀναφέρω (“carry up”) (see discussion below); and various possible reasons for excision, not least an attempt to eliminate possible contradiction between an ascension on the same day as the resurrection (in Luke) and one forty days later in Acts (see below).4 Mikeal Parsons has argued that the longer text represents an attempt made by the scribe of 𝔓75 to enhance the Christology of the passage by emphasizing Jesus’s physical resurrection and ascension as a counter to gnostic opposition.5 Bart 4. See Metzger, Commentary (2nd ed.), 162–63. 5. Mikeal C. Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context, JSNTSup 21 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 29–52, esp. 44. See also Parsons, “A Christological Tendency in 𝔓75,” JBL 105 (1986): 463–79.

115

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Ehrman has argued that the shorter reading is original but that later orthodox corruption occurred when church scribes wished to counter docetic tendencies (and, hence, to lower the Christology) and emphasize the physical reality of Jesus’s ascension.6 Arie Zwiep counters such tendential hypotheses (whether attempting to heighten or lower Christology) by showing the difficulties in establishing tendencies within 𝔓75 and the problem of accounting for the widespread tradition of the longer reading by means of a singular change.7 The alteration in the verbs (διέστη and ἀπέστη) is not a significant factor for our discussion. The textual evidence is clearly in favor of the longer reading with the ascent to heaven, with the excision of the text probably being done by scribes who were trying to harmonize the Luke and Acts account with reference to the timing of the ascension, not with regard to its physicality. Luke 24:52 Discussion of Luke 24:51 makes discussion of verse 52 straightforward. The question in this verse is whether to read καὶ αὐτοὶ προσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ μετὰ χαρᾶς μεγάλης (“and they, having worshipped him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy”) or simply καὶ αὐτοὶ ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ μετὰ χαρᾶς μεγάλης (“and they returned to Jerusalem with great joy”). The longer reading is found in essentially the same manuscripts as in the longer reading of verse 51, with the addition of Sinaiticus, and the shorter reading in the same ones minus Sinaiticus.8 This makes the textual evidence even stronger for the longer reading. The possible reasons for the authenticity of the shorter reading are fewer than for the one in verse 51 (Ehrman does not specifically refer to it, so far as I can see). Parsons unconvincingly

6. Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 231–32. 7. Zwiep, “Text of the Ascension Narratives,” 225–34. Cf. Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 92, where he over-interprets the significance of the imperfect tense-form as suggesting “gradual departure,” and draws an unwarranted parallel with Acts 1:10. 8. The same inflation of ratings occurs from D to C to B in the UBSGNT, for no clear reason.

116

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS AND THE ASCENSION

contends that the idea of worshipping Jesus must have been added as a part of his exaltation to counter the gnostics.9 Luke 24:53a The question in this verse, as in the two instances above, concerns whether to read καὶ ἦσαν διὰ παντὸς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ εὐλογοῦντες τὸν θεόν (“and they were regularly10 in the temple praising God”) or καὶ ἦσαν διὰ παντὸς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ αἰνοῦντες τὸν θεόν (“and they were regularly in the temple praising God”). There are also some variants that include both verbs of praising, thus conflating the readings. The first reading above is found in 𝔓75 ‫ א‬B C* L, and Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian versions, while the second reading is found in D, some Italic versions, and Augustine. The conflated reading appears in A C2 and later majuscule manuscripts, the Byzantine tradition, lectionaries, and some other versions.11 The textual evidence remains clearly in favor of the first reading. Even Parsons (along with Ehrman) does not seem to offer an explanation for this variant. Metzger notes that the latter term might be original and changed to the former, as the former became widely used for Christian praise of God.12 However, one notes that the second reading is also found in the D manuscript. It appears that the D manuscript, along with the Western tradition, has some kinds of tendencies, but the basis of some of them is unclear, in that it is difficult to know why one word for praise is thought better than another, except that the first is more typical of Luke and the change may indicate the desire of the Western scribe to depart from the “established” text. Acts 1:9 The division of manuscript evidence continues in the two readings in 9. Parsons, Departure of Jesus, 48. 10. See David E. Garland, Luke, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 970. 11. This variant began as a C rating and rose to a B in the UBSGNT, again without significant difference in textual evidence. 12. Metzger, Commentary (2nd ed.), 164.

117

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

this verse. The first reading is καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν βλεπόντων αὐτῶν ἐπήρθη, καὶ νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν (“and seeing these things, when they had seen, he was taken up, and a cloud took him under from their eyes”) and the second is καὐτὰ εἰπόντος αὐτοῦ νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀπήρθη ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν (“and after he said these things, a cloud took him under and he was taken away from their eyes”). Although there is a slight alteration in word order in the original hand of Sinaiticus and in B, the first reading is found in ‫ א‬A B C E and most majuscules, the Byzantine tradition, lectionaries, the majority of Italic versions, the Vulgate, Syrian, Coptic, Armenian and Georgian versions, while the second reading is found in D (with a misspelling of ὑπέλαβεν as ὑπέβαλεν), one Italic version, one Coptic version, and Augustine (this variant is not even listed in UBSGNT4/5). As Bruce Metzger rightly points out, the D text is confused at this point. Probably in an attempt to reinterpret the ascension, the Western tradition apparently minimized the visible nature of the ascension (hence elimination of the genitive absolute) and has Jesus engulfed by the cloud before he ascended, further hiding or disguising the nature of his ascension, although what it means that he was taken away from their eyes is unclear, unless it represents a conflation with the Alexandrian text.13 Acts 1:11 The longer text reads οὗτος ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἀναλημφθεὶς ἀφ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν (“this same Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven . . .”) and the shorter text reads οὗτος ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἀναλημφθεὶς ἀφ’ ὑμῶν (“this same Jesus who was taken up from you”). The longer reading is found in ‫ א‬A B C E and the majority of majuscules, the Byzantine tradition, the lectionaries, and the Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, most Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian versions, and many church fathers, while the shorter reading is found in D and a few majuscules, one lectionary, some Italic and Coptic versions, and a few fathers. This is the third 13. Metzger, Commentary (1st ed.), 282; Zwiep, “Text of the Ascension Narratives,” 241–42.

118

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS AND THE ASCENSION

of four occurrences of the phrase “into heaven” in Acts 1:10–11, but the only one where it is deleted in the Western tradition. The textual evidence is clearly in favor of including the reading.14 It appears that the Western tradition, as noted above, wishes to minimize the physical ascension, and perhaps this motivated the deletion of “into heaven” with reference to Jesus’s being taken up. The two earlier uses refer simply to the disciples looking into heaven. However, the fourth use refers to Jesus going into heaven, so it may well be that the Western tradition simply preserves a mistaken deletion.15 There is also a variant in Acts 1:2, but it does not involve a major change affecting the notion of the ascension, as the word used for ascension, ἀνελήμφθη (“take up”), is used in both the Alexandrian and other texts (𝔓74vid ‫ א‬A B Cvid, most majuscules, the Byzantine tradition, and lectionaries) and D and a few others, but simply in a different place in the syntax so that D and related manuscripts could add a comment on the task that the risen Jesus commanded his followers to perform (ἐκέλευσεν κηρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, “he commanded to preach the good news”).16 As a result, after considering the options, some of which alternatives might help alleviate some of the further issues noted below, there is reason to accept the Alexandrian textual form, supported by others, rather than the D or Western reading, in all of the instances. This means that the text supports the visible, physical ascension in Luke 24:51, the worship of Jesus in Luke 24:52, their praise of God using Lukan vocabulary in Luke 24:53a, the ascension and cloud covering of Jesus in Acts 1:9, and reference to Jesus as ascending into heaven in Acts 1:11. In other words, both accounts have a similar depiction of a visible ascension. My analysis of the issues below will utilize this form of the text.

14. Note the increase of its rating in the UBSGNT from C to A, although the textual evidence is not significantly different, apart from the citation of more fathers. 15. See Metzger, Commentary (2nd ed.), 245. 16. See Mikeal C. Parsons, “The Text of Acts 1:2 Reconsidered,” CBQ 50 (1988): 58–71; Parsons, Departure of Jesus, 126–34.

119

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Distinguishing Resurrection, Ascension, and Exaltation One of the major interpretive issues concerning the ascension of Jesus and its conceptual unity is its relationship to the resurrection and exaltation. In the introduction above, I noted that scholars have sometimes noted the ways that the resurrection, ascension, and exaltation relate to each other. There is significant debate about how these concepts are related to each other. Some contend that exaltation was the earliest conception of Jesus’s afterlife,17 due to no clear explication of it in Paul’s writings apart from some passages that may imply it (e.g., Rom 8:34; 10:6–7; Col 3:1; 1 Tim 3:16; cf. 1 Pet 3:21–22). Such passages are not altogether clear that they are talking about the ascension, at least as it is depicted in Luke-Acts. It might also be argued that such interpretations involve reading Luke’s depiction of the ascension back into the Pauline passages. Others see resurrection and exaltation as one and the same (e.g., Phil 2:9; 2 Cor 4:4; cf. John 6:62, 10:17), in that there is contained within the notion of exaltation the necessity of the resurrection. Some see ascension as implied in the resurrection as possibly a resurrection-exaltation complex (e.g., 1 Cor 15:4, 12–28; Eph 1:20). In any event, there is vocabulary that is associated with each of these concepts. I realize that each one of these notions may be described in other ways, but there tends to be certain vocabulary that is used for each. The most frequent words for resurrection are the verbs ἐγείρω (“raise”) and ἀνίστημι (“stand up”). The verbs share similar semantic domains according to the Louw–Nida lexicon (especially semantic domain 17, “Stances and Events Related to Stances,” and domain 23, “Physiological Processes and States”).18 The verb ἐγείρω has a very 17. See Gerhard Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas, SANT 26 (Munich: Kösel, 1971), 80–146. This view provides the underlying support for William Baird, “Ascension and Resurrection: An Intersection of Luke and Paul,” in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers, ed. W. Eugene March (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980), 3–18. Baird, however, overly problematizes 1 Cor 15:8 in his analysis. See also Fitzmyer, “Ascension,” 409–13; and James D. G. Dunn, “The Ascension of Jesus: A Test Case for Hermeneutics,” in Auferstehung—Resurrection, ed. Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger, WUNT 135 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 301–22, esp. 303–8. 18. See Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988).

120

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS AND THE ASCENSION

broad sense, indicating the literal and figurative modulations (according to the categories in the Louw–Nida lexicon) of standing up (Matt 2:13, 14, 20; 12:11; Mark 5:41; John 5:8; 13:4; Acts 9:8; Jas 5:15, with a figurative extension), waking up (Acts 12:7), causing to exist (Matt 11:11; Luke 3:8), and restoring (John 2:19), as well as raising to life, both of various humans (Matt 9:25; Mark 5:41; Luke 8:54) and especially of Jesus, whether in anticipation of it (Mark 14:28; Matt 27:63), as descriptive of it (Matt 28:6, 7; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:6, 34), or as referring back to it (John 21:14; Rom 4:24; 6:4, 9; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Cor 15:4, 12–28; 2 Cor 4:14; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 2:8; Heb 11:19; 1 Pet 1:21; etc.). The verb ἀνίστημι has a narrower sense, indicating causing something to stand (Acts 9:41) or, as a figurative extension, to be raised to life (John 6:39), including in a few instances reference to Jesus’s resurrection (e.g., Luke 24:7, 46; Acts 17:3; 1 Thess 4:14, cf. v. 16). Both words are general words for raising or standing up (cf. Matt 9:7, 9; 12:41, 42; Mark 5:41, 42; 9:27; 12:25, 26; Luke 4:23, 24, 25, 28; 6:8; 8:54, 55; 11:8; 24:6, 7; John 11:29, 31; where the two verbs are used in similar contexts), with the first used far more widely of Jesus’s resurrection than the second (although cf. Matt 17:9, 23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; with textual variants). Thus, while these words have broader usage, they are also applied in specific ways to the resurrection of Jesus. The words that are often associated with exaltation of Jesus are ὑψόω (“lift up”) and ὑπερυψόω (“hyper-lift up”). The verb ὑψόω, which is not as widely used as the words for raising or standing up above, has the sense of lifting up or elevating, including literal (John 3:14) and figurative modulations (the former in semantic domain 81, “Spacial Dimensions,” and the latter in 87, “Status”). The figurative extension is used for exaltation (Matt 23:12; Luke 1:52; 14:11; 18:14; 2 Cor 11:7; Jas 4:10), and applied to Jesus Christ positionally (e.g., John 8:28) and christologically (e.g., John 3:14; 12:32, 34; Acts 2:33; 5:31). The second verb, ὑπερυψόω, only occurs in Philippians 2:9, speaking of the “hyper exaltation” of Jesus Christ (domain 87). There are a number of words that are used to indicate the ascension,

121

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

most of them found in Luke-Acts. These words include ἀναβαίνω (“go up”), ἀναλαμβάνω (“take up”) and its noun form ἀνάλημψις (“a taking up”), πορεύομαι εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν (“go into heaven”), ἀναφέρω (“carry up”), and ἐπαίρω (“raise”). The first word, ἀναβαίνω, indicates directional movement, with the vast majority of instances being literal (e.g., Matt 5:1; Luke 18:10; Acts 1:33; domain 15, “Linear Movement”) but with some involving processes of growth (Matt 13:7; Mark 4:7; domain 23). There are very few instances that refer to anything related to Jesus Christ. However, in John 3:13, Jesus states that “no one has gone up (ἀναβέβηκεν) into heaven except the one who has come down from heaven,” and in John 20:17, Jesus tells Mary not to touch him, because “I have not gone up (ἀναβέβηκα) to the father,”19 but that he is going up (ἀναβαίνω) to the father. The event depicted, on the basis of Jesus’s confrontation with Mary after his resurrection, indicates a postresurrection event, such as the ascension or exaltation. This usage of the verb probably indicates what is traditionally thought of as the ascension, although it is captured in John’s Gospel not as the kind of lifting up or exaltation that is found elsewhere but as a linear journey. The only other possible reference to the ascension is Romans 10:6, with quotation of Deuteronomy 30:12, but it is unclear that the ascension per se is indicated here.20 The verb, ἀναλαμβάνω (semantic domain 15), appears only twelve times in the New Testament, indicating some type of taking up. Most of these are physical acts (e.g., Acts 7:43; 10:16; 20:13, 14; 23:31; 2 Tim 4:11), including the ascension of Jesus mentioned in several places (Acts 1:2, 11, 22; 1 Tim 3:16; cf. Mark 16:19, where it is used of the ascension in the longer ending of Mark, which appears to be a compilation based upon the other Gospels).21 The corresponding 19. See Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 135 (cf. 137), for problems associated with the traditional interpretation of the perfect-tense form in these Johannine passages. As Zwiep indicates, interpreters are forced to abandon such an interpretation in these passages, although they struggle to find an alternative understanding (he, however, does not consult any grammatical or linguistic works in an attempt to explain it). See Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, SBG 1 (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 356, for my interpretation. 20. See Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 140, where he notes that the connection to ascension is remote, even for those who see one. 21. See Stanley E. Porter, How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 99–102.

122

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS AND THE ASCENSION

noun, ἀνάλημψις, only occurs in the Luke 9:51 ascension passage. The use of πορεύομαι, a very frequent verb of motion (domain 15 in this sense), only occurs in contexts of ascension when it is used with a modifying adjunct indicating the destination, such as “into heaven” in Acts 1:11. In other words, there is nothing about the lexical significance of this verb alone to indicate the ascension. The verb, ἀναφέρω, has mostly literal uses involving carrying up (e.g., Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2; domain 15), with the extension of making an offering (e.g., Heb 7:27; 9:28; 13:15; Jas 2:21; 1 Pet 2:5, 24; domain 53, “Religious Activities”). Luke 24:51 is an instance of the literal use, indicating ascension on the basis of the adjunct “into heaven.” The final word is ἐπαίρω. This word appears about nineteen times in the NT, often concerned with the raising of something (domain 15; even if modulations are idiomatic), such as eyes (Matt 17:8; Luke 6:20; 16:23; 18:13; John 4:35; 6:5; 17:1), voice (e.g., Luke 11:27; Acts 2:14; 14:11; 22:22), head (e.g., Luke 21:28), or hands (e.g., Luke 24:50; 1 Tim 2:8). The verb is used once to indicate Jesus himself being raised (Luke 24:50). From this evidence, we can see that there are distinctive sets of words that are used for the resurrection, ascension, and exaltation of Jesus Christ within the NT.22 The implications of this finding are several. According to the semantic domains of the Louw–Nida lexicon, these words are not only distinct but they generally occupy similar semantic domains within their group and different semantic domains than other groups. This supports the notion that distinctive terminology is used for the language of each of these christological moments in the life of Jesus Christ. Further, whereas there has been a tendency to try to find semantic overlap or conceptual inclusion among the terminologies, to the point of confusion of the concepts related to them, there does not appear to be a clear reason to find such overlap or inclusion from the evidence above. The basic meaning of the terms, as well as their groupings and distinctions, indicates that terms within a group may well indicate similar moments in the afterlife of 22. See Stephen G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts, SNTSMS 23 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 96, who recognizes such a distinction for ascension and resurrection language.

123

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Jesus Christ, but no clear indication that they are used as significantly overlapping synonyms with each other. Therefore, we are on good grounds for distinguishing these sets of terms. We thus see that terms of ascension are firmly grounded in Luke-Acts. Supposed Conceptual Discrepancies regarding Ascension There are three supposed major discrepancies in the ascension accounts of Luke-Acts that scholars often mention (besides the textcritical issues already treated above) and that threaten the notion of the unity of the ascension in Luke-Acts. One is locational and the other two are temporal. The locational issue concerns where the ascension occurred. Luke 24:50 says that he (presumably Jesus) led them (presumably his disciples and perhaps other followers) as far as Bethany, and there the events of the ascension occurred. However, in Acts 1:12, after the events of the ascension, the narrator says that the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olives. As a result, Hans Conzelmann notes “the setting of the Ascension in Bethany in v. 50,” which he says “flatly contradicts the geographical reference in Acts 1, 12,” which is the Mount of Olives.23 As Joseph Fitzmyer has indicated, however, “Bethany was on that mount” (of Olives), so “both modes of speech would be tolerable.”24 In fact, Luke in 19:29 locates Bethany on the Mount of Olives.25 Thus, this is not a major problem at all, but only one created by those who are unaware of Palestinian geography.26 23. Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St Luke, trans. Geoffrey Buswell (London: Faber and Faber, 1961), 94. Cf. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, Hermeneia, trans. James Limburg et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 9, where he does not mention the Lukan account at all in relation to the Mount of Olives. 24. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 2 vols., AB 28, 28A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981–1985), 2:1590; cf. 2:1248, 1589–90 (who cites Conzelmann); Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, AB 31 (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 213. See also Francois Bovon, Luke 3: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 19:28—24:53, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 410. 25. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, SP 5 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1992), 33. Cf. Peter Atkins, “Luke’s Ascension Location—A Note on Luke 24:50,” ExpTim 109 (1998): 205–6. 26. See Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 227, who finds no problem here. The location of the ascension, along with other geographical features (especially the reorienting effect of heaven), has been made the focus of Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts, SNTSMS 146 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), although perhaps he overreaches in his theological conclusions and does not pay due attention to all of the geography of Acts (i.e., that

124

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS AND THE ASCENSION

The ascensions of both Luke and Acts are depicted as occurring in essentially the same location. The temporal issues are two. The first concerns when the ascension occurred. There are two different positions on this, the standard view and a more recently presented view. The standard view is that the ascension in Luke 24:50–53 occurred on the day of the resurrection, and that the ascension in Acts 1:6–11 occurred forty days after the resurrection, as indicated specifically by Acts 1:3, which says that Jesus was seen by his followers “for forty days” before he gathered them together for the ascension. As Ehrman clearly says, “More serious is the chronological discrepancy; in the Gospel Jesus ascends on the day of his resurrection . . . , whereas the book of Acts explicitly states that he did so forty days later (1:3).”27 There are many who apparently hold to this viewpoint, although many fewer offer substantive reasons for this interpretation of Luke 24:50–53.28 Fitzmyer is one of the few who do. He notes the “series of temporal adverbs, prepositional phrases, and subordinate clauses used in [Luke 24 that] make this dating clear.”29 There are several major problems with this historical reconstruction. The first is that the Lukan account gives no clear indication that the events surrounding the ascension occurred on the same day as the resurrection. Luke’s account says that on the first day of the week, early in the morning (Luke 24:1), the women came to Jesus’s tomb and found it empty. They reported these findings to the others. Then, that same day (Luke 24:13), two followers of Jesus were traveling to Emmaus, when they unknowingly encountered the risen Jesus, whom past Acts 11:18), according to the review of Jennifer Eyl, Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 21 July 2010 (online at http://www.bmcreview.org/2010/07/20100738.html). 27. Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 227–28. See also, Conzelmann, Acts, 5–6; Robert H. Stein, Acts, NAC 24 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 623, which requires that he posit “telescoping” to preserve interpretive integrity. For those who hold to the forty-day-later ascension in Acts 1, see Henk Jan De Jonge, “The Chronology of the Ascension Stories in Luke and Acts,” NTS 59 (2013): 151–71, esp. 152n4. De Jonge lists, with citations: C. K. Barrett, Jürgen Becker, Francois Bovon, James Dunn, Joseph Fitzmyer, Gerhard Lohfink, Daniel Marguerat, and Richard Pervo, as those among others. 28. See de Jonge, “Chronology,” 154–58 for possible solutions, although the one he does not suggest is that Luke does not indicate that the ascension happened on the same day as the resurrection. 29. Fitzmyer, “Ascension,” 417, listing Luke 24:1 with reference to the first day of the week; v. 13 with reference to that same day; v. 33 with reference to that same hour; v. 36 with a simultaneous participial clause (“as they were saying these things”); and vv. 44 and 50 with “but.” Not all of these are equal, and not all of them are temporal indicators.

125

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

they invited to stay with them when evening came. After he revealed himself to them when they ate, they hurried back to Jerusalem, presumably at night, a distance of probably around seven miles and probably taking them a couple of hours to traverse. The third and final episode of Luke 24 is the ascension. Fitzmyer’s list of supposed temporal indicators ends with the “but” in verse 50, and does not include any indicator from verses 51–53. Luke’s use of the conjunction δέ (“and/but”) does not necessarily indicate that the events are temporally connected, but that there is mild discontinuity between the connected elements (note that in Luke 24:13, the connective between the resurrection and Emmaus accounts is καί, “and,” indicating continuity).30 Whereas the other two episodes begin with clear temporal indicators, the third does not have such an indication, and so there is no clear presumption that the ascension took place on the same day. Second, there are good chronological reasons to think that the ascension took place on another day. Some of these reasons concern the events already narrated above, and the others concern the oddness of Jesus gathering his followers together at night and then taking them out to Bethany.31 Third, there are contextual indicators that the ascension occurred at another time. The second episode, the Emmaus incident, closes with Jesus telling his followers that they are witnesses to the Messiah suffering and rising from the dead, and that they should stay in Jerusalem until they receive power from on high. It seems narratively odd that then the next episode—if it were to happen immediately afterward (as it would have had to in order to have taken place on the same day as the other two events)—would take them immediately out of the city. Therefore, there is no reason to think that the Lukan ascension occurred on the same day as the resurrection, and, therefore, presumably, no necessary problem with the ascension, even as depicted in Luke’s Gospel, taking place forty days later, as indicated in the book of Acts. 30. See Stephanie L. Black, Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew: καί, δέ, τότε, γάρ, οὖν and Asyndeton in Narrative Discourse, JSNTSup 216 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 142–78. 31. See Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke, 5th ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922), 564.

126

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS AND THE ASCENSION

In a reversal of the standard chronological problem, Henk de Jonge has recently argued that the Lukan account is correct that the ascension occurred on the day of Jesus’s resurrection, but that the forty days mentioned in Acts 1:3 are the period of Jesus’s post-resurrectionascension appearances.32 De Jonge’s argument essentially assumes that Luke places the ascension on the same day as the resurrection,33 and then finds difficulties with such a view in light of the account in Acts. There are several problems with this position. The first is his assumption regarding the timing found in Luke 24 (as discussed above). The second is his peculiar reading of Acts 1:1–11, which alternates between highly wooden and highly interpretive. On the one hand, he seems to take a woodenly sequential chronology, but on the other, he wants to find temporal alterations. If the ascension in Luke is not temporally specified (as it is not), then the problem of taking Acts 1:1–2 as an introduction to Acts is alleviated: this second book, the book of Acts, picks up from the time of what Jesus did and taught until he was taken up at the ascension. In de Jonge’s interpretation, verse 3 must take on a “special” character and, in some ways, must refer to a later period, because of the events that are depicted34—Jesus presenting himself alive to his disciples after his suffering in many proofs. De Jonge must isolate verse 3 and then take verses 4–8 as a continuation of verse 2 (the wording of verse 2, “until such day . . . ,” however, provides for a temporal span), rather than taking the events of verses 4–5 as linked to the events of verse 3, which seems better to fit the narrative flow (and is supported by the use of the conjunction καί, “and,” in verse 4) and to depict the events that occurred during the forty days leading up to the ascension. The events of verses 6–11 are then suitably introduced with continuing discussion of Jesus with his disciples until the ascension itself is depicted. De Jonge does not provide a convincing solution to his chronological problems of the ascension. In fact, his odd interpretation of verse 3 can be alleviated 32. De Jonge, “Chronology,” 152–54 and 158–65. 33. His arguments (Ibid., 161–62) revolve mostly around the notion of Jesus’s meal with his disciples, which he posits must have been on Easter Sunday. This does not follow. 34. Ibid., 162–63.

127

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

simply by seeing reference to the ascension in verse 2 as providing the scope of the Lukan account and positing the forty-day time period within the events of Acts 1:1–2—the time period mentioned in verse 3. The second chronological problem concerns what exactly the book of Acts says that Luke had narrated in his previous book, and what exactly that book claims to have narrated. Ehrman says that, “more puzzling, Luke begins his second volume—immediately prior to recounting the event—by claiming that his former book had already narrated ‘the things Jesus began to do and teach until the day when having through the Holy Spirit commanded the disciples whom he had chosen, he was taken up’ (ἀνελήμφθη, 1:2).”35 He claims that, recognizably taking a “contrary stand,” “Luke does not actually say that he has previously narrated an account of Jesus’ ascension. He states only that he has told of the things Jesus began to do and teach ‘until the day’ (ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας) he was ‘taken up.’”36 In other words, Ehrman wants us to believe that Luke is saying that he has told us of the things that Jesus began to do and teach up to, but not including, the day of his ascension in Luke 24:50–53, esp. verse 51. Those reading this will be excused for thinking that this is Ehrman engaging in special pleading so as to justify his attempt to argue for the shorter readings in Luke 24:50–53. He claims that this is a problem often dismissed and not addressed by commentators.37 There are reasons for this. First, Ehrman says that both Acts 1:2 and 22, which articulate Luke’s retrospective inclusion of events, can be interpreted differently. It might be true that Acts 1:22 refers to the ascension account in Acts 1:6–11, as Ehrman posits (not Luke 24:50–53),38 but this shows how his understanding of both Acts 1:2 and 22 cannot be correct. By Ehrman’s account, whether Acts 1:22 refers to the account in Acts or Luke’s Gospel, Peter is saying 35. Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 228. 36. Ibid., 229. Note that very similar wording is found in both Acts 1:2 and 22, and Ehrman seems to treat them as identical for interpretive purposes, which I will do here. 37. He cites, for example, F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 66. However, he is not quite accurate. Bruce does note that the phrase is a form of “Attic attraction” for the phrase ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ᾗ, and he compares Matt 24:38. In the third edition of his commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 98, Bruce equates the phrase with ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ἐν ᾗ. 38. Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 228n185.

128

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS AND THE ASCENSION

that they are interested in appointing a successor for Judas who was with Jesus from the time of John’s baptism until before the day of his ascension, but not his ascension. This is a problematic interpretation, as it makes little sense of Peter’s inclusive statement. There is the further problem that the interpretation of this wording is unlikely in other circumstances. For example, Ehrman would have us believe that people were engaging in eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage up until the day before Noah entered the ark (Matt 24:38; Luke 17:27); or that Zechariah was to be silent up until the day before the birth of John the Baptist occurred (Luke 1:20). Presumably, by this reasoning, Luke is saying in Acts 2:29 in Peter’s speech that David’s tomb was in Jerusalem up to the day before Peter spoke, but perhaps not the very day that he spoke. There is very little basis for Ehrman’s argument for the second chronological difficulty. As I have indicated, there is little to warrant the supposed locational or chronological difficulties that are sometimes marshaled to call into question the Lukan ascension accounts. The two ascension accounts have both locational and temporal integrity. Sources of the Ascension Accounts The final issue to consider is the sources of the ascension accounts. These sources are less crucial for unity of the accounts than are the other factors but, nevertheless, warrant brief discussion. There are two types of sources to consider here. The first is the Lukan sources, and the second is the Greco-Roman sources. The Lukan sources, including whether Luke created the ascension or whether he acquired it from another source, have perplexed scholars because Luke is the only Gospel writer to articulate a physical, visible ascension—no matter what one makes of other passages that may be interpreted to suggest an ascension. At least six proposals have been made: (1) that Luke’s account is based upon eyewitnesses, (2) that the ascension (which actually occurred at the resurrection) is a retelling of Jesus’s last actual appearance, (3) that it is a legend based upon concretization of Jesus’s post-resurrection appearances, (4) that it is a 129

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

legend embodying the proclamation of Jesus’s exaltation, (5) that the accounts are Lukan creations, or (6) that they are based upon some form of reliable tradition (a variant on the first position).39 The second, third, and fourth explanations, while possible, seem too theologically dependent upon either some of the misinterpretations noted above or a theological presumption not shared by other New Testament authors, as the passages regarding resurrection and exaltation indicate. It is possible that Luke created the ascension accounts. However, on the basis of the fact that there are hints elsewhere in the NT of the ascension, and references to it as a post-resurrection event in the life of Jesus in John’s Gospel (which does not develop Luke’s account), it is more likely that Luke had access to tradition about the ascension, quite possibly if not likely based upon eyewitnesses to the event.40 Some have thought that Luke did not have this information when he wrote the Gospel, but later gained more information that resulted in his fuller and more precisely temporally situated account in Acts.41 With the supposed inconsistencies eliminated and the longer readings in Luke accepted, there is no need to see such a developmental pattern, especially when the varying contexts are taken into account. Some scholars have been more concerned to find parallels with the ascension in a variety of extra-biblical sources. The Jewish and GrecoRoman sources include those sources that would have been available to a writer of the first century, whether they originated in Hellenistic, Roman, Jewish, or other milieus. Two major views have been studied at some length, the notion of a heavenly ascent (e.g., Testament of Abraham B 7:19—8:3) and a rapture (Gen 5:24; 2 Kings 2; 2 Enoch 67; 39. The first five are a summary of the proposals made in his introduction by Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu, as summarized in Francois Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five Years of Research (1950–2005), 2nd rev. ed. (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 192, with lists of scholars associated with each proposal. The sixth is suggested by I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 908. 40. Cf. Parsons, Departure of Jesus, 144; Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 38. See also Bovon, Luke 3, 409. 41. Marshall, Luke, 908, attributes such a view to Pierre Benoit, “L’ascension,” RB 56 (1949): 161–203; repr. in Exégèse et Théologie I (Paris: Cerf, 1961), 363–411, esp. 399. According to Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 10 and n. 1, the notion of Luke receiving further information regarding the forty days was first found in D. F. Strauss, but also in many others since then (such as Friedrich Blass, Alfred Plummer, B. H. Streeter, C. F. D. Moule, and Bo Reicke, among others).

130

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS AND THE ASCENSION

4 Ezra 14; 2 Baruch 76), as well as the soul being assumed into the heavenly realm (Testament of Abraham B 14:6–7; Life of Adam and Eve 32–37; Testament of Judah 9:3; 10:2; Testament of Job 52) and an angelic ascent after an appearance (Gen 17:22; 35:13; Jubilees 32:20; Judg 6:21; Tob 12:20–22; Testament of Abraham B 4:4). In the first, the heavenly ascent, there is emphasis upon the movement of the soul or spirit of a human to the heavenly realm. In Judaism, such a trip does not mark the end of the person’s earthly life, although in Greco-Roman literature it does.42 These trips are physical and involve both the body and soul of the traveler (unlike the soul assumption), and in both Jewish and Greco-Roman literature, are told from the perspective of the traveler. In the second, the rapture, a human being is transported into heaven in physical form at the end of life, unlike the return of an angel to the heavenly realm (as examples, see Enoch, Elijah, Ezra, and Baruch).43 If these categories are valid, Lohfink’s initial conclusion, supported further for Luke-Acts by Parsons and by Zwiep, who sees the closest parallel in the story of Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1–18; Mal 3:22–23; Sir 48:9–12; 1 Macc 2:58),44 seems to confirm that the ascension in Luke-Acts is a type of rapture, in which Jesus travels both physically and spiritually to heaven at the end of his earthly life—even if it is more than simply a rapture account but possibly also a final blessing and admonition. 45 Regardless of the sources of Luke’s account, the fact is that Luke clearly depicts the ascension both at the close of his narrative of the ministry and teaching of Jesus and at the beginning of his narrative of the growth and development of the early church. The Ascension Narratives and the Unity of Luke-Acts On the basis of the above findings, I believe that it should already 42. See Parsons, Departure of Jesus, 136–37, 138 for examples from Greco-Roman assumption stories. 43. This taxonomy was proposed by Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu, summarized by Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 21–22; cf. also 41–76. 44. See Parsons, Departure of Jesus, passim, but esp. 135; Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 58–71, and passim, but esp. 36, 194. See also Samson Uytanlet, Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography: A Study on the Theology, Literature, and Ideology of Luke-Acts, WUNT 2.366 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 118–30. 45. See John F. Maile, “Ascension in Luke-Acts,” TynBul 37 (1986): 29–59, esp. 42–44.

131

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

be clear that there is an inherent unity to Luke-Acts on the basis of the two ascension narratives.46 Their textual explicitness regarding the depiction of a visible ascension, their use of appropriate vocabulary for such a depiction, their inherent compatibility without contradiction or inconsistency, and their fit within similar biblical and other rapturetype stories all point to the unity of the Lukan accounts, between the two and in relation to their respective books. Before I say more about this unity, however, I note that there have been three major, relatively recent studies that examine the literary dimensions of the ascension in Luke-Acts, especially in light of the unity that it provides. The first is by Parsons. After examining the historical context (what he styles a diachronic analysis) of the Lukan ascension,47 he then provides an examination of Luke 24:50–53 in its narrative context.48 He does the same for the account in Acts 1:1–11.49 In his treatment of both ascension accounts, Parsons surveys and incorporates a range of material on literary interpretation, and applies this to the role of the ascension narrative in Luke-Acts. He emphasizes the role of the ascension in Luke 24:50–53 and Acts 1:1–11 in terms of closure or opening, viewpoint, and the reader.50 The ascension closes one work and opens the next. There are, no doubt, many interesting insights that Parsons offers on the basis of his study. However, one cannot help but thinking that he has (1) lost sight of the significance of the ascension in his broad sweep of literary interpretation of two entire books and (2) become somewhat lost in a variety of literary notions, not all of which are as readily applicable as others. The second literary analysis is by Zwiep. In general conformity with Parsons’s 46. On the broader issues of unity and Luke-Acts, see the survey in J. Verheyden, “The Unity of LukeActs: What Are We Up to?” in The Unity of Luke-Acts, ed. J. Verheyden, BETL 142 (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1999), 3–56, esp. 19–22, where he recognizes the influence of Parsons and Zwiep and their views of the ascension on this discussion. 47. Parsons, Departure of Jesus, 29–63. 48. Ibid., 65–112. 49. Ibid., 117–50, 151–86. 50. For a summary of Parsons, see Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 28–31, but without much critical comment. Parsons was definitely anticipated by Anton Fridrichsen, “Die Himmelfahrt bei Lukas,” ThBl 6 (1927): 337–41. He is followed by Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986–1990), 1:300–301, 2:9–20; and John T. Carroll, Luke, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 495.

132

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS AND THE ASCENSION

conclusions regarding the role of the ascension accounts, he contends that “Luke has positioned the ascension texts at the key points of his two-volume work (at the centre and the close of the first, in the opening chapter of the second book)” in order to suggest “that the ascension of Jesus is of central significance to Luke.”51 The third, by Matthew Sleeman, is only concerned with the ascension in Acts, and whereas he attempts to show the unity of Acts around the heavenly ascent notion in the Acts ascension, he only treats Acts 1:1–11:18, not the rest of Acts and not Luke’s Gospel. As mentioned above, with the longer forms of the passage, the account in Luke’s Gospel, while perhaps not as full as that in Acts, certainly provides a summary of the visible ascension at the end of the Gospel, one that is equivalent to that at the beginning of Acts in depicting the same post-resurrection event. This event is the Lukan ascension, something distinct from Jesus’s resurrection or his exaltation, even if there is some conceptual overlap of these terms and their descriptions elsewhere in the New Testament. There is sufficient terminological distinction and other New Testament indication to distinguish a separate type of event in the life of the post-resurrection Jesus. Once the supposed temporal and locational difficulties are explained, it becomes clear that Luke, as author of both his Gospel and Acts, was describing the same event, even if there are some possible contextual distinctions to each account. They reflect what is often seen elsewhere in the biblical account as a rapture-type event in which the figure is removed from the earth to heaven at the end of life, even if more is theologically implied. One depiction of the event occurs at the end of Luke’s Gospel and a similar and equivalent account occurs at the beginning of his second book, the Acts of the Apostles. In these ways, the ascension accounts in Luke-Acts form their own unity and create unity between the two Lukan writings. These elements of unity, however, do not necessarily create the kind of unity that is sometimes discussed in previous literary treatments of the ascension. For both Parsons and Zwiep, as well as in a more 51. Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 80–115, esp. 115 (quotation).

133

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

limited way for Sleeman regarding Acts, the ascension accounts form a pivotal literary turning point in the Lukan account, in which the closing ascension of Luke’s Gospel unites together and brings to closure the events of the Gospel, especially Jesus’s coming to Jerusalem (see Luke 9:51) and role in relation to the temple (see Luke 24:53), and in which the opening ascension of Acts unites together and opens up the events of Luke’s treatment of the spread of Christianity. In both instances, I think that such an analysis may well push the narrative, literary, and theological significance too far. This is seen in two ways. First, this requires that we view Luke-Acts as a single literary work, in which the fulcrum or turning point is predicated upon the point of transition from the one to the other, and this turning point is the ascension. The two books are almost assuredly related as two volumes by the same author and have relatively overlapping purposes.52 However, each one has its own literary integrity based upon the characters and episodes that it depicts. The ascension provides, at best, a point of transition for each.53 Second, these previous literary analyses place too much significance upon the ascension, especially as the ascension is relatively underdeveloped in Luke’s Gospel and is subordinated in Acts to the things that Jesus began to do and to teach (Acts 1:1). The ascension in Luke 24 is not temporally located but is used to bring the Gospel to a close after other events that have relatively greater importance in establishing the resurrection significance of Jesus. If the ascension is one of the three moments in the afterlife of Jesus, it is the one that is admittedly unique to Luke so far as depiction is concerned, but it is also much less well-developed in relation to the resurrection, which Luke depicts far more graphically through the tomb and then Emmaus accounts. The ascension is transitional, not focal. It is, as Luke Timothy Johnson states, “a hinge between the two volumes.”54 In the book of Acts, the opening of the 52. For recent discussion of some of these issues, see Sean A. Adams, The Genre of Acts and Collected Biography, SNTSMS 156 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 68–115. 53. See Carol L. Stockhausen, “Luke’s Stories of the Ascension: The Background and Function of a Dual Narration,” Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 10 (1990): 251–63, esp. 255–61, who emphasizes the non-redundant function of multiple narratives, as in the Acts conversion accounts of Paul.

134

THE UNITY OF LUKE-ACTS AND THE ASCENSION

book positions the ascension as the temporal closing point of the first account in order to move to the events surrounding the growth and development of the early church in response to the actions and teachings of Jesus. Even in the ascension itself, Acts points to the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus’s followers will receive (Acts 1:8) so that they can accomplish these purposes. When they are still standing after the ascension, the two “men” standing there ask them why they are still standing and looking into heaven, when they should be moving to the next phase of their ministries in anticipation of Jesus’s return, not still contemplating the ascension. The ascension in Acts thus also forms a transition from the ministry of Jesus to the ministry of Jesus’s followers who are charged with continuing his work until his return. Nothing that I have said here, however, diminishes in any way the unity of the Lukan ascension accounts or the role that they play in maintaining unity between Luke and Acts. They merely do not provide the pivotal or fulcral function that has sometimes been posited but function as a hinge that connects two accounts with their own purposes and integrity. Conclusion I conclude by noting that there are a number of critical issues that have attended discussion of the ascension narratives in Luke-Acts and have threatened their integrity and unity. These have been identified as the textual form of the accounts in both Luke and Acts, the terminological issues that distinguish the events depicted in Luke and Acts from other similar types of episodes in the afterlife of Jesus, the locational and temporal issues that have resulted in many of the interpretive difficulties, and the sources or origins of the ascension accounts. By discussing each of these, and by clarifying—if not eliminating—the critical difficulties, the unity of the accounts has emerged. This does not mean that they necessarily unite Luke and Acts together, however, as some have argued. I believe that there is a fundamental unity to 54. Johnson, Acts, 25.

135

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

the ascension narratives in Luke-Acts based upon their similar if not identical depiction of a visible ascension. This ascension, whether identified as occurring in Bethany or on the Mount of Olives (they are essentially the same), took place after the resurrection of Jesus, at a time unspecified in Luke’s Gospel but designated as forty days after in the book of Acts. In depicting this event, the author does not use it as the focal point of either narrative, but it serves as a hinge from the Gospel of the life and ministry of Jesus to the account of the results of this life and ministry in the early church found in the book of Acts.

136

7

Jesus’s Ascension and the Lukan Account of the Restoration of Israel

David W. Pao

Among the New Testament (NT) writings, only Luke provides an explicit account of the public ascension of Jesus. The significance of Jesus’s ascension in his writings is further accentuated by the fact that it appears in both his first and second volumes. While it is widely acknowledged that the ascension account found at the end of Luke’s Gospel serves to provide a proper conclusion to this gospel (Luke 24:50–53),1 and the one found at the beginning of Acts serves to introduce the mission of the apostles after Jesus’s departure (Acts 1:9–11),2 the programmatic significance of the ascension narrative 1. See David Bryan's discussion of the function of the ascension in the concluding chapter of Luke’s gospel in this volume. 2. See, for example, Mikeal C. Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context, JSNTSup 21 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 155–85, even though he would not assume that both

137

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

within the wider theological program of Acts still needs to be explored further. With the recent growth of literature that points to the importance of reading significant portions of Acts through the lens of the prophetic promises of the restoration of Israel,3 a renewed examination of the role of the ascension narrative within such a program becomes necessary.4 In focusing on the programmatic significance of the ascension narrative in Acts, we will follow the majority view in Lukan scholarship in affirming the reliability of the Alexandrian witnesses,5 and will perform our analysis on the final narrative that betrays Luke’s editorial hand.6 After all, to discuss the ascension narrative at the beginning of Acts within Luke’s restoration program is to examine the narratological significance of this account for the remaining sections of Acts. Perceived Significance of Jesus’s Ascension In discussing the significance of Jesus’s ascension, Lukan scholars often volumes should necessarily be read as one unified narrative. For those who would further argue that the two narratives are penned by two different authors, see Patricia Walters, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence, SNTSMS 145 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 194. 3. E.g., K. Haacker, “Das Bekenntnis des Paulus zur Offnung Israels nach der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas,” NTS 31 (1985): 437–51; David Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel, JSNTSup 119 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); Max M. Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); Rebecca I. Denova, The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts, JSNTSup 141 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, WUNT 2.130 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); Michael Fuller, The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s ReGathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts, BZNW 138 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006); Peter Mallen, The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts, LNTS 367 (London: T&T Clark, 2008); Richard Bauckham, “The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts,” in The Jewish World around the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 325–70; Michael A. Salmeier, Restoring the Kingdom: The Role of God as the “Ordainer of Times and Seasons” in the Acts of the Apostles, PTMS 165 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011). 4. Despite its title, David L. Tiede’s study (“The Exaltation of Jesus and the Restoration of Israel in Acts 1,” HTR 79 [1986]: 278–86) focuses on Acts 1:6 and 1:12–26 and bypasses the ascension narrative. 5. Though our focus is on Acts 1:9–11, we rely on the Alexandrian witnesses for both Luke 24:50–53 and Acts 1:9–11. See in particular, John F. Maile, “The Ascension in Luke-Acts,” TynBul 37 (1986): 29–59; and Arie W. Zwiep, “The Text of the Ascension Narratives (Luke 24:50–3, Acts 1:1–2, 9–11),” NTS 42 (1996): 219–44. Contra Parsons, Departure of Jesus, 29–52, 117–35. 6. Contra G. Schille (“Die Himmelfahrt,” ZNW 57 [1966]: 183–99) who assumes that this narrative that reflects on early Christian liturgical traditions does not sufficiently reflect Luke’s own theological purposes.

138

JESUS’S ASCENSION AND THE LUKAN ACCOUNT

point to the days immediately preceding and following this event. For those who consider Jesus’s resurrection as the primary occasion of his exaltation,7 the ascension serves as “the confirmation of the exaltation of Christ.”8 Just as the appearances during the forty-day interval confirm the reality of Jesus’s bodily resurrection, the public ascension confirms the reality of Jesus’s exaltation in his resurrection. As such, the ascension can also be considered as “the culmination of the resurrection appearances.”9 The ascension has therefore been considered part of the “Easter event” as Luke preserves the “unity of the resurrection story.”10 For these scholars, since Jesus has already been exalted during his resurrection, “his ‘ascension’ is nothing more than the appearance from glory in which Christ took his final leave from the community of his followers.”11 Others who highlight the appearances of the two ascension accounts at their present narrative location argue that the first concludes the period of Jesus’s ministry and the second commences the mission of the apostles. As such, the two ascension stories become markers for the two significant periods of salvation history.12 This understanding is confirmed by textual details in Acts 1 when the focus shifts from the words and deeds of Jesus (1:1) to the mission of his disciples (1:4, 5, 8).13 The eyewitness account of Jesus’s ascension in 1:9–11 becomes the basis of the ministry of the witnesses of the Gospel.14 Situated between

7. For the question as to whether Jesus was exalted in his resurrection or ascension, see the discussion on Acts 2:33–36 below. 8. Maile, “Ascension in Luke-Acts,” 55. 9. Ibid. 10. Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 46. 11. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” TS 45 (1984): 424. Some, such as H. J. de Jonge (“The Chronology of the Ascension in Luke and Acts,” NTS 59 [2013]: 151–71), would further argue that for Luke the resurrection and the ascension are actually two parts of a continuous event and the “forty-day” period in Acts 1:3 is not linked with the subsequent ascension narrative in 1:9–11 but a separate account of Jesus’s post-Easter appearances. 12. Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, NovTSup 87 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 171. 13. Carol L. Stockhausen, “Luke’s Stories of the Ascension: The Background and Function of a Dual Narrative,” Proceedings 10 (1990): 259. 14. For the importance of eye-witness testimony of Luke’s work, see Clare K. Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography, WUNT 2.175 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 227. The repeated emphasis on the “visible” ascension of Jesus in 1:9–11 (βλεπόντων, ὀφθαλμῶν, ἀτενίζοντες, [ἐμ]βλέποντες, ἐθεάσασθε) substantiates this reading.

139

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

these two periods, the ascension narratives become a transition story that ties the two stories together.15 While some see the ascension as the conclusion of Jesus’s earthly ministry, others emphasize that Jesus’s ascension does not introduce “a passive absentee Christology,” but he will instead continue to influence “the production of earthly space(s) through numerous means.”16 The disciples therefore do not simply inaugurate another period of salvation history; they become “mediators” of the exalted Christ as they continue his mission on earth.17 The one who is no longer (always) visible reveals himself in the community of believers who are to experience his presence in a new way.18 A significant way this exalted Jesus is present among his people is through the Spirit that is to be bestowed upon God’s people closely following Jesus’s ascension. Almost all Lukan scholars recognize this descent of the Spirit as the immediate result of Jesus’s ascension. Not only does the Pentecost event follow closely after the ascension, in both accounts in Luke-Acts the promise of the Spirit is given immediately beforehand. In Luke 24:49, the disciples are called to “remain in the city until [they] have been clothed with the power from on high.” Likewise, in Acts 1:8, the disciples are promised to “receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon [them]” (cf. Acts 1:5). Some have even considered what we find in Acts 1:9–11 as Luke’s “expanding the ascension narrative by means of ‘apocalyptic stage-props’ so that the departure of Jesus in his sequel volume provides the impetus for the gift of the Spirit.”19 The ascension can often then be understood as “the prelude to the sending of the Spirit,”20 and this sending of 15. See also the detailed discussion in Gerhard Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu. Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas, SANT 26 (Münich: Kösel-Verlag, 1971), 251–71. 16. Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts, SNTSMS 146 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 51–52. This is a response to Hans Conzelmann (The Theology of St. Luke [London: Faber, 1987]) whose strict periodization history ended Jesus’s ministry on earth with his ascension. 17. Thus François Bovon, “L’importance des mediations dans le projet théologique de Luc,” NTS 21 (1974–75): 23–39. 18. Daniel Marguerat, Les Actes des apôtres 1–12, CNT 5a (Genève: Labor et Fides, 2007), 51: “A l’invisibilité de Jésus répond la visibilité d’une communauté d’hommes et de femmes en prière; s’effaçant du monde, le Ressuscité ouvre un espace dans lequel la communion des croyants concrétisera sa présence cachée.” 19. Parsons, Departure of Jesus, 150.

140

JESUS’S ASCENSION AND THE LUKAN ACCOUNT

the Spirit alone has therefore been understood as fully explicating the significance of Jesus’s ascension in the narrative of Luke. 21 Moving beyond the events immediately preceding and following Jesus’s ascension, many have also pointed to the importance of this event in relation to the future return of Jesus. After all, the “two men dressed in white” (1:10) explicitly make references to the parousia: “This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way you saw him go into heaven” (1:11). The precise significance of this note, however, remains disputed. What is clear is that the ascension becomes “the pledge of the return of Christ” as Jesus’s disciples are called to be his faithful followers despite his apparent absence.22 Some have further suggested that this note is meant to direct attention away from the future parousia since the present period is already the time of God’s fulfilling his promises to his people.23 What is questionable is the suggestion that the ascension account (with the final words of assurance from the two men) is meant to address the question of the delay of the parousia. Some have considered this to be the main function of the Lukan ascension narratives as the first generations of Jesus’s followers wrestle with the disappointment of the absence of Jesus’s immediate return.24 Nevertheless, this concern does not appear to be a significant one in early Christianity,25 and

20. Maile, “Ascension in Luke-Acts,” 58. 21. Thus Andy Johnson, “Resurrection, Ascension and the Developing Portrait of the God of Israel,” SJT 57 (2004): 146–62. 22. Maile, “Ascension in Luke-Acts,” 58. 23. Eric Franklin, “Ascension and the Eschatology of Luke-Acts,” SJT 23 (1970): 191. Thus also, Zwiep (Ascension of the Messiah, 13) who suggest that the ascension account makes it clear that the church “may live in the assurance that the interim is divinely-planned and that God has a specific purpose for his Church to fulfill.” 24. P. A. van Stempvoort, “Interpretation of the Ascension in Luke and Acts,” NTS 5 (1958): 30–42; Robert O’Toole, “Luke’s Understanding of Jesus’ Resurrection-Ascension-Exaltation,” BTB 9 (1979): 111; Erich Gräßer, Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte, WUNT 137 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 305–10. 25. See David Aune, “The Significance of the Delay of the Parousia for Early Christianity,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, ed. G. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 87–109. Likewise, Martin Hengel (Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity, trans. John Bowden [London: SCM, 1983], 184 n. 55) also urges New Testament interpreters to be careful when using this “tired cliché of the delay of the parousia” in explaining a host of New Testament passages.

141

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Lukan passages that deal with eschatology do not point to this as a major purpose of his writings.26 This brief survey has highlighted some of the contributions of Lukan scholars in evaluating the significance of Jesus’s ascension in the Lukan narrative. These discussions often focus on the place of the Lukan ascension narratives within their immediate literary contexts. The ascension as the climax (or public demonstration) of Jesus’s exaltation naturally provides a proper conclusion to the ministry of the earthly Jesus while paving the way for the mission of the church. The descent of the Spirit that follows closely in the opening chapters of Acts would likewise naturally be theologically and chronologically connected with the event of Jesus’s ascension. Only the expectation of Jesus’s return points to a period beyond what is described in the opening chapters of Acts, but this merely carves out space for the history of the church, rather than providing impetus for detailed development in the remainder of Acts. More importantly, a mere catalog of the significance of Jesus’s ascension does not explain the interrelationship among these events. If Jesus’s ascension is linked with his exaltation, the giving of the Spirit, and the fulfillment of God’s promises at the end of times with the return of Jesus, this ascension should be evaluated within the wider context of Luke’s conception of the continuation of Israel’s story as Jesus departs from his earthly ministry. Situated at the beginning of the second volume of the Lukan writings, the significance of Jesus’s ascension for the second half of Acts should also be reconsidered.27 One wonders how the call to witness to the “ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8) in the verse that immediately precedes the ascension narrative in Acts 1:9–11 is related to Jesus’s ascension.28 It is only when Jesus’s 26. See, for example, John T. Carroll, Response to the End of History: Eschatology and Situation in Luke-Acts, SBLDS 92 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). 27. Some (e.g., Sleeman, Geography, 63–254) would limit the significance of the Lukan ascension narratives to the first half of Acts and therefore largely ignore the importance of the exalted Lordship of Jesus for the remaining chapters that complete Luke’s foundation story of the early Christian movement. 28. The significance of Jesus’s ascension for the universal mission of the church is sometimes noted, but often in relation to other New Testament traditions. See, for example, Jean-Michel Maldamé (“Comment l’ascension du Christ fonde-t-elle un salut universel?” Théophilyon 6 [2001]: 451–82)

142

JESUS’S ASCENSION AND THE LUKAN ACCOUNT

ascension is situated within Luke’s story of the restoration of Israel that its significance can be fully appreciated. After all, Luke is not simply writing a history of the early church, but also a history of how God fulfills his promises to his people. It is this history that would serve the first-century church in their construction of their identity claim vis-à-vis those who also claim to be heirs of the history of Israel. Acts 1 and the Restoration of Israel Instead of laying out in detail the Lukan program of the restoration of Israel in Acts,29 it is sufficient to highlight several important notes related to this program in the immediate context of Acts 1:9–11. First, in Acts 1:6, the restoration of Israel is explicitly evoked in the question raised by the eleven apostles: “Lord, are you at this time restoring (ἀποκαθιστάνεις) the kingdom of Israel?” Jesus’s response in 1:7 focuses on the timing of such restoration, but the fact of the restoration was not denied, nor were the disciples rebuked for raising this question.30 These apostles who have been taught by the risen Jesus for forty days “concerning the kingdom of God” (1:3) have certainly brought up an important concern that guides Luke’s narrative, although the way this restoration is to be carried out may not be what they had expected.31 The fact that this remains a concern in Luke’s narrative is reflected in the reappearance of the same word group in 3:21 in relation to the return of the exalted Lord after “the times of the restoration (ἀποκαταστάσεως) of all things.”32 The relationship between the apostles’ question concerning the restoration of Israel and the ascension narrative that depicts the who points to the significance of Jesus’s ascension for the Gentile mission in the Pauline writings. Systematic theologians also see this connection, although again without directly grounding it in the Lukan narrative (e.g., George R. Sumner, “The Ascension of Christ and the Mission to the Gentiles,” in The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon, and Creed in a Critical Age, ed. Ephraim Radner and George Sumner [Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1998], 136–48). 29. See the works listed in n. 3 above. 30. Thus Anthony Buzzard, “Acts 1:6 and the Eclipse of the Biblical Kingdom,” EvQ 66 (1994): 197–215. Cf. Salmeier, Restoring the Kingdom, 79–90. 31. Tiede (“Exaltation of Jesus,” 278–86), for example, argues that 1:8 is meant to correct the expectation of the apostles as Jesus points to the inclusion of the Gentiles as an essential part of the restoration program. 32. See below for a more extended discussion of Acts 3:19–21.

143

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

exaltation of Jesus the Messiah is further suggested by a probable allusion to Daniel 7—in which the Son of Man rides a cloud and is exalted to take his place beside “the ancient of Days” after suffering at the hands of the nations. If so, Jesus’s ascension becomes not only his vindication but also the vindication of God’s people. As such, Acts 1:9–11 becomes “the direct answer to the disciples’ question of 1:6,”33 and the entire section has to be read within the expectation of Israel being restored. The concern with Israel’s restoration continues in 1:8, a verse that is often considered to be the programmatic statement of Acts. The significance of the various parts of this complex verse can be appreciated only when situated within Israel’s prophetic traditions concerning the future restoration of God’s people.34 When the first part of the verse, “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you,” is read together with its parallel in Luke 24:49 that points to this power coming “from on high,” it becomes clear that these verses point back to the promise embedded in Isaiah 32:15 (LXX): “until the Spirit comes upon you from on high.”35 In its context, Isaiah 32 depicts the arrival of the Spirit that brings to an end the desolation of Judah when God begins to restore his people. The second part of 1:8 that identifies the apostles as God’s “witnesses” likewise finds its closest parallel in Isaiah (43:10, 12), where the blind and deaf people of God may serve as God’s witnesses when they are restored through divine grace (cf. Isa 40:1–2, 42:18, 43:8). The final section of Acts 1:8 that points to the three stages of the mission of the apostles also reflect the three-stage program in the prophetic expectation of Israel’s restoration. “Jerusalem” lies at the center of God’s salvific work when he restores his people (cf. Isa 40:1–2). “Judea and Samaria” evokes the divided people yearning to be restored as one people of God (cf. Isa 11:13, 40:9–11). Finally, the phrase “to the ends of the earth” should not simply be understood 33. N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 655. 34. For a more detailed defense of the following reading, see Pao, Acts and the Isaianic, 91–96. 35. Thus also, I. Howard Marshall, “Acts,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 528.

144

JESUS’S ASCENSION AND THE LUKAN ACCOUNT

in geographical terms. The exact Greek phrase (ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς) appears only five times in ancient Greek literature, four of which are in Isaiah (8:9, 48:20, 49:6, 62:11).36 Of these references, Isaiah 49:6 is the most noteworthy since it is explicitly quoted elsewhere in the Lukan writings (Acts 13:47). According to Isaiah 49:6, “the ends of the earth” refer to the Gentiles,37 who will be able to see the salvation of God when he “restores the tribes of Judah.” The three parts of Acts 1:8 therefore point to the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel: salvation will come to Jerusalem, and God will then restore his divided people before the Gentiles can join this restored people of God. Rather than simply providing a geographical outline of Acts, this programmatic statement outlines the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel. What immediately precedes the ascension narrative of Acts 1:9–11, therefore, is a consistent concern for the restoration of God’s people. The importance of the restoration of Israel program for the understanding of Jesus’s ascension in Acts is also underlined by the passage that directly follows the ascension narrative in Acts 1:9–11. The account of the election of an apostle to replace Judas in 1:12–26 does not aim to introduce Matthias, a character absent for the rest of the Lukan narrative. The focus is, instead, on the completion of the number twelve, a number that symbolizes the people of God. The significance of this number is noted when Judas is introduced as the one who “was numbered (κατηριθμημένος) among us” (1:17). Similarly, this account is concluded with the note that Matthias “was added to the eleven apostles” (1:26). As the depiction of Judas recalls Luke 22:3 where he was described as the one “who was numbered among the twelve (ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν δώδεκα),”38 the significance of the

36. The fifth occurrence is in Psalms of Solomon 1:4, a work that is also influenced by Isaiah. 37. In Isa 49:6, “so that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth” serves as a parallel to the previous clause, “I will make you a light to the Gentiles.” Therefore, “the ends of the earth” is best taken in an ethnic sense (in reference to the Gentiles) rather than a geographical sense. That the “ends of the earth” in Acts 1:8 refers to the Gentiles is also confirmed by the parallel in Luke 24:47, where the disciples are called to proclaim the gospel “to all nations/Gentiles, beginning from Jerusalem.” See also, Jacques Dupont, The Salvation of the Gentiles: Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, trans. J. R. Keating (New York: Paulist, 1979), 18–19; and Pervo, Acts, 44–45. 38. Cf. Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, KEK 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1998), 124–25; Marguerat, Les Actes des apôtres 1–12, 60.

145

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

twelve is also illustrated by Luke 22:30 where the twelve disciples represent Israel in that they “will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” This account of the election of Matthias therefore centers not on the structure of early Christian leadership but on the restoration of Israel.39 The reconstituted Twelve represent Israel, and the continued work of God among this community signifies his act of restoring his own people at the end of times. It is only after this significant account of the reconstitution of Israel that Luke continues to describe the promised descent of the Spirit (Acts 1:2, 4–5, 8; cf. Luke 24:49). Embedded in a context saturated with concerns for the restoration of Israel, the significance of the account of Jesus’s ascension in Acts 1:9–11 should likewise be examined through this lens. Theologians have long recognized that “[Jesus’s] ascent to heaven, like his ascent to the cross, is a journey undertaken on behalf of God’s people and with a view to the realization of their kingdom hopes”;40 this same point should also be demonstrated in our examination of the Lukan narrative. A recurring symbol in the ascension narrative in Acts provides an entry point through which the significance of this narrative within Luke’s restoration of Israel program can be examined. In 1:10 alone, “heaven” (οὐρανός) appears four times as the two men converse with the disciples after Jesus’s ascent.41 This emphasis on the space above is complemented by references to Jesus being lifted up (1:2, 11 [ἀναλαμβάνω]; 1:9 [ὑπολαμβάνω]) to a different plane. This spatial movement signifies a temporal one as God is moving forward with his plan to fulfill his promises to Israel. References to the work and status of the exalted Lord in “heaven” will allow us a glimpse of how Jesus’s ascension relates to the wider story of Israel’s restoration.

39. Thus also, Charles Masson, “La reconstitution de college des douze d’après Actes 1:15–26,” RThPh (1955): 193–201. 40. Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 23. 41. For a detailed study of the “heaven” motif in Luke-Acts, see the recent work of Lukas Gao, “Heaven and Earth in Luke-Acts” (PhD diss., Trinity International University, 2015).

146

JESUS’S ASCENSION AND THE LUKAN ACCOUNT

The Exalted Lord and the Restoration of Israel To study the significance of Jesus’s ascension in Acts is to examine Luke’s depiction of the work and status of the exalted Jesus. While examining every reference to the exalted Jesus in Acts would be impossible in this study, a brief discussion of three passages will be sufficient to demonstrate the significance of Jesus’s ascension for Israel’s restoration. We will begin with Acts 2:33–36, the first explicit discussion of the significance of Jesus’s ascension. This will be followed by briefer discussions on two related passages: Acts 3:19–21 and 10:34–36. Acts 2:33–36: Ascension, the Spirit, and Israel At the end of his Pentecost speech, Peter points to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit after the exaltation of Jesus (Acts 2:33), and he quotes from Psalm 110:1 (LXX 109:1) in explicating the significance of Jesus’s exaltation (Acts 2:34–35) when God made him “both Lord and Messiah” (2:36). While many have considered this text as a commentary on Jesus’s ascension, some have argued that the “exaltation” noted here is primarily a reference to Jesus’s resurrection. Among recent interpreters, Zwiep presents the most detailed defense of this reading:42 (1) “Luke reserves Psalm 110 exclusively for the interpretation of the Easter event;”43 (2) the ascension story in Acts 1:9–11 is to be understood as an Entrückung, and therefore should be read in light of Jewish rapture stories where exaltation is not the main function;44 (3) the conjunction οὖν of 2:33 should be taken narrowly as the conclusion of that which immediately precedes, that is, the resurrection of Jesus (2:32). Most, however, remain unconvinced by Zwiep’s attempt to expunge any reference to Jesus’s ascension from Acts 2:33–36. In response to Zwiep, in the only other explicit quotation of Ps 110:1 in the Lukan 42. See also Andy Johnson, “Resurrection, Ascension and the Developing Portrait of the God of Israel,” SJT 57 (2004): 146–62. 43. Zwiep, Ascension of the Messiah, 163. 44. Ibid.

147

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

writings (Luke 20:42–43), Luke does not make a strict distinction between the resurrection and ascension of Jesus in relation to his exaltation.45 Moreover, the literary context itself should provide the deciding factor on the use of a particular Old Testament text—this is not the first instance of Luke using a particular Psalm more than once in reference to different events in the life of Jesus.46 Second, formcritical considerations should not be the only deciding factor since an author is rarely constrained by the abstract demands of a genre.47 The need for Peter’s explication of the significance of Jesus’s exaltation in Acts 2:33–36 is sufficient to demonstrate that the original literary form of either the resurrection or the ascension story can fully explicate the meaning embedded in such an event. Third, the conjunction οὖν in the Lukan writings often does not point narrowly to that which precedes. In 2:30, for example, this conjunction is used not to explain the death of David noted in verse 29 but as a marker to introduce the next logical step of the argument.48 The flow of the arguments in the Lukan narrative also support the inclusion of Jesus’s ascension within Peter’s reference to Jesus’s exaltation in Acts 2:33–36. Since the Pentecost Sermon is meant to explain the manifestations of the arrival of the eschatological Spirit, and since the first chapter of Acts repeatedly linked this arrival with the future event of Jesus’s ascension (1:2, 4–5, 8; cf. Luke 24:49) rather than his resurrection, which has already taken place, this sermon failing to make any reference to Jesus’s ascension would be inexplicable. Moreover, understanding the conjunction οὖν as a marker to introduce the next logical step of the argument fits well with the 45. Cf. Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 373. See also David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, SBLMS 18 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 70. 46. For the discussion of the multiple uses of Psalm 118 in the Lukan writings, see J. Ross Wagner, “Psalm 118 in Luke-Acts: Tracing a Narrative Thread,” in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, ed., Early Christian Interpretation of the Scripture of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, JSNTSup 148 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 154–78. 47. Cf. Turid Karlsen Seim, “The Resurrected Body in Luke-Acts: The Significance of Space,” in Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body, and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity, ed. Turid Karlsen Seim and Jorunn Økland (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 242. 48. Some versions (e.g., NRSV) chose not to translate οὖν in 2:30, while many (e.g., NAB, NIV, NJB) use an adversative “but” instead to indicate this progression of thought.

148

JESUS’S ASCENSION AND THE LUKAN ACCOUNT

concluding parts of Peter’s sermon as he moves from the resurrection (2:25–32) to the ascension (2:33–36).49 As the climax of Peter’s argument, however, one must also not deny that Jesus’s resurrection is the beginning point of his exaltation since his exaltation is a process that extends from his resurrection to his ascension.50 When Acts 2:33–36 is considered as an “ascension” text, its relevance for understanding Jesus’s ascension within the context of God’s restoring his people cannot be missed. First, Jesus’s exaltation signifies his coronation as the final Davidic King who is to establish the eschatological kingdom. Ascended to and seated at God’s “right hand” (2:34 [Ps 110:1]), he becomes both “Lord” and “Messiah/Christ” (2:36). These two titles point to the fact that Jesus is not merely the powerful “Lord,” he is also the “Messiah” that fulfills the hope of Israel.51 The use of the Davidic royal psalm (Psalm 110) with the title “Messiah” further highlights the importance of Jesus’s ascension as the beginning of God’s fulfillment to the house of David (cf. 2 Sam 7:11–16). This focus on the house of David in Acts 2 is further confirmed by the three appearances of the name “David” (2:25, 29, 34) in the second half of this sermon. To claim that Jesus is the final Davidic King is to point to the arrival of a new age, especially when this Davidic King is superior to the historical King David as he rules from heaven with his enemies serving as his “footstool” (2:35 [Ps 110:1]). The full implication of the enthronement of this Davidic King is unveiled in Acts 15:16–18 with a quotation from Amos 9:11–12 (NRSV): After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; 49. This also corresponds to the use of the two psalms: Ps 16:8–11 in reference to Jesus’s resurrection (2:25–28), and Ps 110:1 in reference to his ascension (2:34–36; cf. David P. Moessner, “Two Lords ‘at the Right Hand’? The Psalms and an Intertextual Reading of Peter’s Pentecost Speech [Acts 2:14–36],” in Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips, ed., Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998], 215–32). 50. See O’Toole, “Luke’s Understanding,” 106–14, who also rightly points to the fact that when references are made to the resurrection of Jesus in the second half of Acts, the ascension is also implied in those references. 51. In texts that combine the titles “Lord” and “Messiah/Christ” (Luke 1:43, 2:11; Acts 2:36, 10:36), it is the salvation-historical significance of Jesus that is emphasized; cf. Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology, JSNTSup 110 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 27.

149

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up, so that all other peoples may seek the Lord— even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called. Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things known from long ago.

This enthronement has, however, already been anticipated at the beginning of the Lukan story of Jesus by a promise that Jesus will inherit “the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:32). It is within such a context that the relationship between Jesus’s ascension and the descent of the Spirit can and should be understood. The giving of the Spirit is not simply to fill the void created by the disappearance of the earthly Jesus, it is part of the wider restoration program as already reflected in the evocation of Isaiah 32:15 in Luke 24:29 and Acts 1:8.52 In Peter’s sermon, this giving of the Spirit is explicitly linked to the restoration program through the quotation from Joel 2:28–32 (LXX 3:1–5; Acts 2:17–21).53 Jesus’s ascension is linked with the giving of the Spirit because his enthronement initiates God’s work in restoring his people in the final age, and the giving of the eschatological Spirit symbolizes the presence of this final age. This connection between Jesus’s ascension and the giving of the eschatological Spirit is further secured by the link between the ascension text in 2:33–36 and the quotation from Joel 2:28–32 in Acts 2:17–21. In 2:33, the exalted Jesus is depicted as having “poured out” (ἐξέχεεν) the Holy Spirit, a verb that echoes God promises in Joel 2:28 (LXX 3:1; Acts 2:17): “I will pour out (ἐκχεῶ) my Spirit on all flesh.” The giving of the Spirit is therefore not an incidental consequence of Jesus’s ascension, it is part of a series of events that will take place when God restores his people through the exaltation of his Son. 54 52. See our discussion of the relationship between Isa 32:15 and Acts 1:8 above. For a concise statement on the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit within this Lukan restoration program, see also Max Turner, “Jesus and the Spirit in Lucan Perspective,” TynBul 32 (1981): 3–42. 53. The understanding of the giving of the Spirit as a sign of the arrival of the final age is also substantiated by the insertion of a phrase from Isa 2:2 at the beginning of the quotation from Joel: “in the last days” (Acts 2:17). 54. Darrell Bock (Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology, JSNTSup 12 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987], 184) further points to the link between the “Lord” (κύριος) in 2:10–11 and the “Lord” (κύριος) in 2:34–36 and argues that Jesus becomes “equal with God” when he ascended to heaven.

150

JESUS’S ASCENSION AND THE LUKAN ACCOUNT

Acts 3:19–21: Ascension, the Parousia, and the Restoration of All Things Linked with both the ascension narrative of Acts 1:9–11 and Peter’s commentary on Jesus’s ascension in 2:33–36 by the keyword “heaven” (οὐρανός), 3:19–21 provides a further discussion of Jesus’s ascension with an explicit reference to Jesus “whom heaven must receive until the times of the restoration of all things that God has spoken long ago through his holy prophets” (3:21). For our discussion, this passage serves two purposes: (1) confirming the link between the descent of the Spirit and the restoration of Israel, and (2) connecting both explicitly with Jesus’s ascension in view of his final return. Before drawing out these implications, the exact references behind “the times of refreshment” (3:19) and “the times of the restoration of all things” (3:21) need to be explored. “The times of refreshment”(καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως) is best taken to refer to the descent of the Spirit. In Symmachus’s translation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 32:15, the outpouring of the “Spirit from on high” (πνεῦμα ἀφ᾿ ὑψηλοῦ, LXX) is understood as the arrival of the “refreshment from on high” (ἀνάψυξις ἐξ ὕψους).55 Since Isaiah 32:15 is the verse to which Luke alludes in reference to the descent of the Spirit in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8, as we have demonstrated above, it is most natural to understand the “times of refreshment” as the period when the Spirit is present among his people.56 “The times of the restoration of all things” (χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων) reminds the readers of the disciples’ question in 1:6 concerning the time of God “restoring (ἀποκαθιστάνεις) the kingdom of Israel.” As such, it refers to the time of God’s fulfilling his promises to Israel during the time of the church, a time that is preceded by Jesus’s ascension and inaugurated by the presence of the eschatological Spirit. In regards to the relationship between the “the times of refreshment” 55. See William L. Lane, “Times of Refreshment: A Study of Eschatological Periodization in Judaism and Christianity” (ThD diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1962), 163. 56. The parallels between Acts 2:38 (repent, be forgiven, receive the Spirit) and 3:19–20 (repent, be forgiven, experience the times of refreshment) also point to “the times of refreshment” as the period of the presence of the Holy Spirit. See Pao, Acts and the Isaianic, 133.

151

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

and “the times of the restoration of all things,” it is best to recognize “the rhetorical doubling” and consider the two as synonymous.57 Both refer to the time of the church, which is the period of time when the exalted Jesus remains in heaven. It is only “after”58 the period when God’s people are restored and have experienced the presence of the eschatological Spirit that Jesus would return from heaven. In this reading, the descent of the Spirit (i.e., “the times of refreshment”) is explicitly linked with the commencement of the restoration of Israel (i.e., “the times of the restoration of all things”). Both are preceded by Jesus’s ascension, an event that signifies the beginning of the final fulfillment of God’s promises to his people. This fulfillment will culminate in the return of Jesus. The promise of the giving of the Spirit before the account of Jesus’s ascension (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:2, 4–5, 8) and the one of his return after this account (Acts 1:11), therefore, should not be considered as isolated implications of Jesus’s ascent. They are an integral part of the restoration program of Israel, and Jesus’s ascension is the sine qua non of this program. Acts 10:34–36: Ascension and the Mission to the Gentiles Embedded in the lengthy account of the conversion of the first Gentile (Acts 10:1—11:18),59 one finds the important christological affirmation: “Jesus Christ—he is Lord of all” (10:36). Though this affirmation does not appear in a sermon that explicitly makes reference to Jesus’s ascension, this too should be considered an ascension text. First, this note introduces a sermon that ends with a claim that Jesus has been 57. Pervo, Acts, 108. 58. This is to take the word often translated as “until” (ἄχρι) in 3:21 to mean “after,” in line with Lukan usage elsewhere when this temporal marker is followed by a plural noun as in this context (χρόνων, 3:21; cf. Acts 20:6; Carroll, Responses to the End of History, 145). 59. Although the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26–40) can be considered as the conversion of the first Gentile, what Luke highlights was not his ethnic identity (“Ethiopian,” 8:27), but his social identity (“eunuch,” 8:27, 34, 36, 38, 39). The conversion of this Eunuch therefore represents the inclusion of the outcasts into the people of God (cf. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic, 140–42), though the complexity of his identity cannot be denied (cf. Scott Shauf, “Locating the Eunuch: Characterization and Narrative Context in Acts 8:26–40,” CBQ 71 [2009]: 762–75). That the account of the conversion of Cornelius (10:1—11:18) represents the paradigmatic conversion of a Gentile/God-fearer is made clear by the threefold vision Peter received at the beginning of the account (10:9–16) and the significant proclamation at the end of the account: “Therefore, God has granted repentance that leads to life even to the Gentiles” (11:18).

152

JESUS’S ASCENSION AND THE LUKAN ACCOUNT

appointed as the “judge of the living and the dead” (10:42), a statement that evokes Daniel 7 as Acts 1:9–11 did.60 This appointment that follows the references to Jesus’s resurrection (10:40a) and his post-Easter appearances (10:41) should naturally be understood as a reference to his ascension. The emphasis on the authority of Christ therefore brackets this sermon, and both claims should be considered together as grounding on the same event. Second, outside of Acts 1–2 that describes and explains the significance of Jesus ascension, this account of Cornelius’s conversion is one that is most saturated with references to “heaven” (10:11, 12, 16; 11:5, 6, 9, 10). This should not entirely unexpected since it is the exalted Jesus who is seated in heaven that one can proclaim to be “Lord of all.” Third, the affirmation in 10:36 has to be understood in light of the ascension text of 2:33–36 noted above. In both, one finds all three names/titles: Jesus, Christ, and Lord. More importantly, the universal Lordship of Christ is affirmed in both. The exalted Lord whose enemies serve as his footstool (2:34–35 [Ps 110:1]) is naturally the “Lord of all” (10:36).61 Reading 10:36 as an ascension text, the implications of the ascension for the rest of the narrative become clear. In its immediate context, this statement paves the theological and christological ground work for the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God. As God sends “the Word” to “the people of Israel” (10:36), he also makes it possible that “all who believe in [Jesus] will receive forgiveness of sins through his name” (10:43). What is noteworthy, however, is not simply the continued expansion of the gospel, but how the inclusion of the Gentiles is part of God’s plan as he restores his people. This is made clear in the opening statement of Peter’s sermon: “God does not show favoritism” (10:34). This statement provides “a criticism of the Jewish theology of election”62 and it incorporates the Gentiles into God’s own 60. Cf. Eckhard Schnabel, Acts, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 503–4. 61. See Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 32, who sees such notes on Jesus “over all things” a definition of the status of Christ in terms “reserved for God’s unique sovereignty.” 62. François Bovon, “Israel, the Church and the Gentiles in the Twofold Work of Luke,” in New Testament Traditions and Apocryphal Narrative, trans. Jane Haapiseva-Hunter, PTMS 36 (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1995), 87.

153

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

“people” (cf. Acts 15:14). As Jesus becomes the “Lord of all” in his ascension, the remaining narrative on the mission to the Gentiles becomes part of this restoration program that is grounded in the ascension. In its wider context, the claim that Jesus is “Lord of all” also challenges the rulers and authorities of this age. For the audience of the Greco-Roman world, the ascension of Jesus may also be perceived as a challenge to the unique authority of the Roman imperial system.63 In its narrower context, where one finds a Roman centurion stationed in a Gentile city, the claim of “Lord of all” takes on added significance.64 Not only is Christ the savior of all, he is the exalted Lord to whom all authorities are to submit. At the very end of Luke’s narrative, it is based on the affirmation that Jesus is Lord of all that Paul could proclaim “the kingdom of God” and teach “the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness” in Rome, the center of the Roman Empire (Acts 28:31). Conclusion In this brief study, we have affirmed what previous Lukan scholars have concluded: the significance of Jesus’s ascension points the exaltation of the Lord Jesus who inaugurates the age of the church by giving his Spirit to those who follow him as they anticipate his return. What we have demonstrated, however, is that these isolated themes should best be understood within the wider context of God’s act of restoring his people “in the last days” (Acts 2:17). Moreover, the significance of Jesus’s ascension should also be extended to the second half of Acts as the followers of the risen Lord proclaim him to be “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36) among all nations, calling individuals to believe in this Jesus and challenging rulers and authorities to submit to his lordship. Reading this narrative in light 63. Thus Marguerat, Les Actes des apôtres 1–12, 47. 64. See Kavin C. Rowe, “Luke-Acts and the Imperial Cult: A Way Through the Conundrum?” JSNT 27 (2005): 279–300. Justin R. Howell (“The Imperial Authority and Benediction of Centurions and Acts 10.34–43: A Response to Kavin Rowe,” JSNT 31 [2008]: 25–51) further argues that 10:36 “emphasizes both the preclusion of allegiance to the emperor and the claim for allegiance to Jesus on the part of not merely Gentile neophytes, but Gentile authorities and benefactors in particular.”

154

JESUS’S ASCENSION AND THE LUKAN ACCOUNT

of Jesus’s command for his disciples to be his witnesses “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8), it becomes clear that even the mission to the Gentiles is implied in the program of Israel’s restoration as God has long declared through his prophet: It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth. (Isa 49:6 [NRSV])

Jesus, the suffering servant and the exalted Lord, fulfilled his mission when he died on the cross, ascended to heaven, and began his reign over all nations.

155

8

The Ascension and Spatial Theory

Matthew Sleeman

Introduction “When Jesus ascended into heaven, what happened to the sandals he was wearing?”

The question came to me, in more ways than one, out of the blue. It was posed by the late Carl Baron, then Senior Tutor at St. Catharine’s College, Cambridge. I was applying to read geography as an undergraduate and, in addition to a subject-specific interview, all candidates underwent a general interview with the Senior Tutor. Unwittingly or otherwise, spurred perhaps by an eighteen-year-old’s eagerly evangelical responses on an application form, Dr. Baron became the first person to help me link spatial theory and the ascension. I must have answered sufficiently well; I was accepted as an

157

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

undergraduate and, subsequently, for doctoral studies in geography. I never had the opportunity to ask Dr. Baron from where the question sprang or how he himself would have answered it. My answer reframed his question, querying whether it was the right question to ask—where are the sandals would be like asking when are the sandals—given that Jesus had passed out of space and time as we know it. I didn’t feel it was a sufficient answer, however, and I’ve gnawed on the question on many occasions since. What would Luke reply? At least, that wherever the sandals are, he—and I—would not be worthy to untie them (Luke 3:16). Such a pious answer might not, perhaps, gain admission to geography courses, nor does it foreclose further reflection. Such further reflection informed my second doctoral thesis, subsequently published in 2009.1 This present chapter revisits and continues to explore the connection between the ascension and spatial theory. The Ascension as a Spatial Relocation At its irreducible core, the ascension of Jesus in Luke and Acts is a spatial relocation. The accounts support this assertion in several ways. First, a repeated assertion of seeing, with four different verbs of visual perception being employed in Acts 1:9–11, sustains the emphasis in verse 9, “as they were watching.”2 This genitive absolute construction focuses attention on Jesus’s physical body, his visible ascension, a focus already established by verse 3, where “he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing . . . and speaking . . .” Second, the close of the pericope makes clear that Jesus “will come in the same way (οὕτως . . . ὃν τρόπον) as you saw him go into heaven” (v.

1. Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative In Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); also Matthew Sleeman, “Lukan Narrative Spatiality in Transition: A Reading of Acts 11.19—12.24 for its Spaces,” in Constructions of Space III: Biblical Spatiality and the Sacred, eds J. Cornelis de Vos, Karen J. Wenell, and Jorunn Økland (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, forthcoming). Written in 2009, this latter work completed my initial intention to read Acts 1:1–12:24 in light of Jesus’s ascension into heaven. 2. The four verbs are βλέπω (v. 9), ἀτενίζω (v. 10), ἐμβλέπω, and θεάομαι (v. 11). Similarly, four verbs of relocation are employed: ἐπαίρω (v. 9), ὑπολαμβάνω (v. 9), ἀναλαμβάνω (v. 11), and πορεύω (v. 11; cf. also ἔρχομαι).

158

THE ASCENSION AND SPATIAL THEORY

11). As Parsons and Culy comment, “The combination of the adverb and the relative expression makes the statement particularly emphatic.”3 Luke’s Gospel also sustains this emphasis on physicality (Luke 24:37–43) as the necessary precursor to the subsequent hermeneutical seeing, which itself anticipates the wider Acts narrative (Luke 24:44–49). Also, the Gospel’s briefer account of the ascension (24:50–51) stresses Jesus’s physicality: “lifting up his hands, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.” Framed in these various ways, the mode of Jesus’s ascension is physical and embodied, as is his promised return. Thus, regardless of sandals or other clothing, Jesus’s ascension carries human flesh into heaven. To parody and paraphrase Star Trek, Jesus bodily goes where no man or woman has been before: not just into heaven (in that regard, one might evoke, within a biblical schema, Enoch and Elijah as parallels) but also to the right hand of God (Acts 2:33), as Lord of all (10:36). As such, Acts projects this embodied Jesus as eternally seated on David’s throne, at God’s right hand, never to see decay or physical corruption (2:30–36). Whatever our understanding of space and place, Acts claims Jesus’s ascension as a paradigm-shifting relocation that alters the balance of space. Something new happens with Jesus’s ascension, but what is it? Acts invites further understanding of this restructuring, this innovation, not least given the implicit promise in 1:1 of more deeds and words from Jesus after his ascension. Such understanding has to be concerned with places and not just time, with the production and consumption of space, and not merely periodization and the demarcation of eras of time. The Ascension as a Realignment of Space Regarding what my previous paragraph terms “the balance of space,” I wish I’d known the work of Thomas Torrance when facing Dr. Baron.4 Without declaring himself to be a spatial theorist, Torrance’s 3. Mikeal C. Parsons and Martin M. Culy, Acts: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2003), 11. Their translational gloss is “in the very same manner” (ibid., 1). 4. Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Edinburgh: Handsel, 1976), 123–39.

159

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

understanding of space was both far ahead of comparable work by geographers of his time and theologically aware. On both counts, he provides a helpful initial framing for the question of what Acts assumes and communicates regarding the ascension’s impact on how we understand space. Comprehending space in relational terms, Torrance posits that particular kinds of space are available to particular kinds of bodies. Thus, in terms of the ascension, Jesus’s physical-but-glorified human body, in its localized particularity as such, enters into a place, a space, where no human has been before, thereby reordering what kind of space is available for human existence. Furthermore, Jesus remains there, by right of the status given him by God the Father. We cannot go there: his hiddenness from mortal earthly sight drives us back to the appointed witnesses (1:8) and their testimony concerning him. His particularity and its earthly consequences is known via no other way. This has an impact on our understanding of both embodied persons, humans, and our conceptions of earthly places where such bodies are to be found. Far from being a knotty but localized conundrum for a university admissions interview, the ascension of Jesus casts a shadow over all that a university explores. In sum, and in consequence, Jesus’s ascension into heaven is not an isolated or isolating event within Acts. Jesus does not simply disappear off the scene, entering into a cloud of inactivity. Rather, he remains active and formative within the Acts narrative. Indeed, his heavenly locality with its associated status drives this activity and formation on earth in the ensuing narrative. Further, that narrative lays claim beyond itself, to all times, all places, everywhere (for example, 3:21; 17:30–31). Distinctive practices and arrangements within space and place form within Acts precisely because of the ascension in Acts 1, with its promises of the Spirit and Jesus’s eventual return. Again, any understanding of Lukan productions of space needs to account for the ongoing, unfolding impact on earth—in places—arising from Jesus’s ascension into heaven. Ascension scholarship prior to my work had rarely probed—and far less sought to theorize—these ongoing

160

THE ASCENSION AND SPATIAL THEORY

implications that Jesus’s ascension accrues for earthly productions of space. The Ascension as Thirdspace Why bring spatial theory into engagement with the ascension? Because it helps draw connections between the ascension and other spaces, both within and beyond the Acts narrative. The question remains, however, as to how we can theorize—that is, articulate and explain—the realignment of space brought about by Jesus’s ascension. In my previous work, I used Edward Soja’s notion of thirdspace to focus this realignment. Here follows a brief reciting of that thesis, within four broad, interrelated arenas. First, in the schema of Acts, heaven—as the location of the ascended Jesus who, with the Father, pours out the Spirit—becomes the locus for all spaces and places on earth.5 Heaven and earth, as a dichotomous division between humanity and God, is breached and reformed—in and by and for the ascended and exalted Jesus. This previously neat and tidy demarcation of spaces is replaced; it is “thirded” by a new configuration of spatial relations. Edward Soja’s notion of thirdspace, a term that he describes as “purposefully tentative and flexible” posits “a critical strategy . . . that respond[s] to all binarisms, to any attempt to confine thought and political action to only two alternatives, by interjecting an-Other set of choices.”6 Here, thus understood, heaven inhabited by a fleshly, glorified, ruling particular human being—namely, Jesus—asserts an ultimate thirdspace to which all other thirdspaces are called to either submit or to resist. His location affirms his status, as Lord of all, enjoying an embodied existence we can only anticipate eschatologically and via him. But that anticipation reworks 5. An early impetus in this regard came from David Peterson, “The ‘Locus’ of the Church—Heaven or Earth?” Churchman 112 (1998): 199–213. Any work on the role of heaven within Acts also needs positioning alongside the role of heaven in other parts of the New Testament canon, e.g., Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul's Thought With Special Reference to His Eschatology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), and Jonathan T. Pennington, Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 6. Edward W. Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-And-Imagined Places (Malden: Blackwell, 1996), 2, 5.

161

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

the human body’s boundaries and its relation to lived space: the ascension also alters human thought, about ourselves and space, and, in so doing, human being is thoroughly recast and restructured. Space, when understood relationally, as well as being the medium within which the ascension occurred, is both its product and an instrument of change exerted by it and further, provides a means for both followers and opponents seeking to regulate the ascension’s impact on earth. Under this perspective, space is lively and formative, not simply static staging for history. Second, then, Jesus’s ascension into heaven affects earth. It relativizes all other places, spaces, and arrangements of space with all their claims for significance and influence. It relativizes all human productions of space in relation to Jesus’s spatiality, his territoriality, his production of space.7 Ultimately, Acts asserts, all people everywhere shall be judged by him (17:30–31). No longer can earthly places be mapped one against each other within a merely secular frame of reference, nor without relational consideration of this particular heaven—one inhabited by Jesus, who rules over all. All human geographies are placed on notice, disrupted, restructured, by virtue of the ascension with its promise of Jesus’s return. Thus, Jesus’s ascension triggers an inherently theological “thirding” on earth: a restless resolving and reframing of all human dichotomies and choices. Third, by linking Jesus’s ascension so closely with his future return to earth, the ascension in Acts asserts an eschatological tension that infiltrates all space and all time in the present human existence. This tension—one of both promise and reserve—comes from the ascension exalting Jesus to the right hand of God, but whilst casting him as still reigning in the midst of his enemies, until his return to earth. Psalm 110:1, quoted in Acts 2:34–35, makes this tension clear, especially when read in connection with the Psalm’s second verse, “Rule in the midst of your foes.” The absence of Jesus now (absence from an earthly standpoint, that is) both establishes the claim (he is at the right hand, 7. Noting an implicit Trinitarian quality to the spaces embodied and conceptualized (seen and heard, Acts 2:33), and lived (cf. Acts 2:41–47), in Jesus’s name.

162

THE ASCENSION AND SPATIAL THEORY

as ruler) and allows this tension (he has not yet returned as judge, and his rule is amidst his foes). Thus, the ascension is not merely departure, it is also a heavenly arrival—signaled by the obscuring cloud, which triggers connections with Daniel 7:13–148—that promises a future earthly return.9 Earthly places are lived between the tracks, we might say. The oncoming locomotive is not simply the expanding mission to the end of the earth (1:8) bearing the witness of Jesus:10 it is also Jesus’s impending return, which, as later Acts declares, heralds the judging of all with righteousness (17:30–31) and the restoration of all things (3:21). His return sustains a call to belief, repentance, and deeds in keeping with repentance. Even death does not foreclose this Jesus-shaped call on all earthly space: the tomb is no escape from it, but still exists within it, pending the resurrection of the dead, plural (17:32, 23:6, 24:21, 26:23; cf. 26:8), and the judgment of the living and the dead (10:42). Fourth, then, Jesus’s ascension affects believers and their everyday productions of space. Those who follow Jesus, seeking to “do deeds consistent with repentance” (Acts 26:20), will be conscious of the need for their embodied and cognitive practices to conform to Jesus’s will. 8. Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 22–26, esp. 23n33 regarding divine presence being connected with clouds in the Old Testament. 9. Arie W. Zwiep, Christ, The Spirit and the Community of God: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 65–67 helpfully probing some implications of my work. He asks how a focus on Lukan space influences Luke’s understanding of time, especially in relation to Luke’s understanding of the Parousia, and whether—in my schema—space replaces time. In response, building upon the eschatological and cosmic tension within Psalm 110 and Acts 2, rather than replacing time, space places time. Both are realigned by the ascension. A christological reserve, in the present (“present” understood both temporally and locationally), enables time and time, in turn, limits productions of space. Second, Zwiep asks whether Jesus’s physical absence on earth has any implications for the believing community within Acts. Within the ascension account, there is a desire to “see” Jesus that is rebuked and repositioned and replenished (Acts 1:10–11). This deserves more attention and consideration, especially since such desire is lived out in space and remains during the believers’ mortal existence prior to Jesus’s return. Third, Zwiep questions whether I ignore a Lukan qualitative distinction between the encounter with Jesus in 9:3–8 and the pre-ascension resurrection appearances in 1:3–9. Distinctions exist, but are not neat. Certainly the Damascus Road “establishes him [Saul] as a witness, but of the heavenly Jesus, not of the earthly Jesus as was stipulated in 1:21–2.” (Sleeman, Geography, 200). Nevertheless, the subsequent Christophany to Ananias (Acts 9:10–16) highlights both the heavenly Jesus’s authority over earthly space and the need for believers to ascertain what that authority entails for them on earth (ibid., 202–9). 10. The wider span of Acts (e.g. Acts 26:23) casts “my witnesses” (1:8, μου μάρτυρες) as both a subjective and objective genitive.

163

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

From this, it follows that Acts will inspire, inform, and infuse the resultant real-and-imagined places with the “and more” engendered by Jesus’s ascension, heavenly session, and promised return to earth.11 The witness commissioned in 1:8 and embodied and articulated in 2:14 (and so on) is catalytic in this regard. Heard and accepted, it results in space and place restructured—new distributions of goods, new gatherings within the temple and households, food shared with glad and generous hearts—in sum, practices that perform what it means to be “Christian” (11:26), and a world turned upside down. Expressed differently, earthly space, within the eschatological reserve of the present time and present space, is to be heavenized, that is, it is to be brought within and lived out within the remit of Christ’s rule over all things from heaven. This process is relentless and everyday, involving struggle and maintenance, its productions remaining provisional and not absolute nor automatically sustained, prior to Christ’s return.12 It is intentional, and it is opposed (14:22). Persecution can cast earthly space as minimal (as little as a human body’s space), but, as such, it befits a crucified and now absent Lord. 13 Thirdspace Revisited Without theorizing space in some way, the risk is that the ascension simply lurks in far history, leaps into far-off celestial geography, or fades into myth. Perhaps it happened somewhere, but does not have an impact anywhere or everywhere. The impulse and impetus of Acts, both in its account of the ascension and across the span of its narrative, clamors against such readings. In seeking to come to terms with the kind of space engendered by the ascension, spatial theory reaches beyond “in a very real sense” kind of pleadings, but the question 11. Cf. Soja, Thirdspace, 11, describing thirdspace as “simultaneously real and imagined and more.” 12. E.g. Jerusalem can be “lost”, but isn’t easily given away (e.g. Acts 8:1) and remains contested. See Matthew Sleeman, “Paul, Pentecost and the Nomosphere: The Final Return to Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Cities of God? An Interdisciplinary Assessmentof Early Christian Engagement with the Urban Environment(s), eds. Steve Walton, Paul Trebilco, and David Gill (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, forthcoming, 2016). 13. Regarding this minimal space, cf. William T. Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ (Malden: Blackwell, 1998), 253–81; Donald Fergus, “Lebensraum—Just What is this 'Habitat' or ‘Living Space’ that Dietrich Bonhoeffer Claimed for the Church?” SJT 67(2014): 70–84.

164

THE ASCENSION AND SPATIAL THEORY

remains, however, whether Soja’s thirdspace is a legitimate and sufficient interpretive lens for this task. The remaining part of this chapter examines three criticisms raised against thirdspace, leading to a continuing but repositioned role for it in understanding the ascension. Anachronistic? Is a postmodern spatial theory such as thirdspace inherently anachronistic and distorting of an ancient text such as Acts? A threefold response is needed. First, more comparative work is needed. In isolation, my previous work, as “an internal analysis of narrative-theological space within Acts,” risked casting spatial theory as an anachronistic imposition on the text, even while signalling itself as “a prior necessity for wider comparative readings.”14 This prospect is helped by proliferating studies of how ancient space is produced and presented in biblical texts15 and in other texts and practices.16 Such comparative work will illustrate where Acts converges with, and diverges from, other ancient constructions of space. Both these tendencies are likely, but neither should reduce space once again to simply a receptacle, the staging, or the verification for the true action of history. Instead, especially noting the ancient absence of clear demarcations between history and geography,17 this comparative work should help dispel any lingering dichotomizing of the two, or any latent marginalizing of space. Second, recent spatial theory is a helpful lens for reading ancient texts.18 While sometimes taking issue with some of the detail, most 14. Sleeman, Geography, 55n166. 15. Eric C. Stewart, “Readers’ Guide: New Testament Space/Spatiality,” BTB 42 (2012): 139–50, and Patrick Schreiner, “Space, Place and Biblical Studies: A Survey of Recent Research in Light of Developing Trends,” CBR (forthcoming) provide helpful surveys of biblical spatialities. 16. E.g., Michael Scott, Space and Society in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Key Themes in Ancient History) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Kate Gilhuly and Nancy Worman, eds., Space, Place, and Landscape in Ancient Greek Literature and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); Klaus Geus and Martin Thiering, eds., Features of Common Sense Geography: Implicit Knowledge Structures in Ancient Geographical Texts (Berlin: LIT, 2014). 17. Katherine Clarke, Between Geography and History: Hellenistic Constructions of The Roman World (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999). 18. See above, especially notes 15 and 16.

165

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

reviewers of my previous work acknowledged this overall gain of insight. Also, an ongoing and broadening use of interpretive lenses can only better position and enhance further our appreciations of how ancient texts produce space, allowing us to “see” the ascension (and its connections with the rest of Acts) more clearly.19 This is to be welcomed. Dangers of anachronism are present, but they do not render the approach itself anachronistic. In sum, clearly, we need both approaches, ancient constructions of space and recent constructions of ancient space, working in tandem and in tension with one another. Future work can enlarge these opportunities, and the ascension will be one area among many that will benefit from it: “the question is how far this will spread within biblical discourses, not whether it will survive. . . . Space is not an optional extra, and critical spatial theory need not be a niche nor a constraining label; instead, it can be a coalescing locus.”20 Third, and briefly stated, space is unavoidable in reading Acts. Judging Luke to be a geographer, an author who writes the earth,21 is not to sign him up to a particular genre or form, and it is only radical to the extent that we have ignored space as a constituent element of his texts. Theologically Distorted? Theory inevitably reflects the theorizer, and it is important to consider the theological presuppositions underpinning thirdspace in appraising its exegetical usefulness. Does it require adjustment in order to cast explanatory light within Acts, and indeed, how does Acts (and the ascension in particular) critically appraise thirdspace as a lens for reading space? My doctoral work anticipated this reverse angle, which I have further outlined since.22 Here, I summarize and advance further 19. Matthew Sleeman, “Critical Spatial Theory 2.0,” in Constructions of Space V: Place, Space and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean World, ed. Gert T. M. Prinsloo and Christl M. Maier (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 49–66. 20. Ibid., 65. 21. Sleeman, Geography, 264. 22. Ibid., 259n11, cf. Sleeman, “2.0.”

166

THE ASCENSION AND SPATIAL THEORY

this clarification of thirdspace, as propounded by Soja and Henri Lefebvre.23 Elsewhere, I’ve highlighted how Soja’s occasional and fragmented engagements with theology demonstrate a deistic relation between God and the world that falls short of engaging with the particularities of biblical tests and with eschatological themes.24 As a theory of space, thirdspace does not require such an absentee theology and, when brought into engagement with the ascension in Acts, acquires a very different providential outlook. Similarly, the ascension ignites the thirding impetus of thirdspace within a particularist eschatology. This transposes any postmodern ambivalence regarding any closure of space, questioning Soja’s endlessly denied telos, his perennial “to be continued.”25 Jesus’s ascension in Acts, as already expounded, is clearly telic and challenges such an endlessly delayed eschaton. It signals a “to be completed,” not simply a “to be continued.” This inscribes an evaluative dimension within any spatial theory that is going to provide explanatory power regarding the ascension. Turning to Henri Lefebvre, this theological dimension is sharpened further. Lefebvre was much more vociferous a critic of religion than Soja, particularly of the Roman Catholicism he rejected in his youth. Yet, however much Lefebvre struggles to remove its traces, a Christian foundation stubbornly invades, even informs, his productions of space.26 He rages against it, and hopes to escape it, but acknowledges that he cannot.27 His own worldview, when viewed theologically, 23. Soja, Thirdspace, 26–92 expresses a formative debt to Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991). 24. See Sleeman, “2.0,” 54–58. E.g., Edward W. Soja, “Taking Space Personally,” in The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Barney Warf and Santa Arias (London: Routledge, 2009), 11–35, [28]: “I had become aware that my work was being widely used in Bible [sic] studies . . . but eschatology? What was going on here? . . . The Spatial Turn had seemingly reached its outer limits.” Soja does not expand further, but I wonder whether this reflects a conversation with him in November 2005 that elicited his surprise regarding the connections I was drawing between his theory and the heavenly Christ in Acts. 25. Capitalized, in bold, and followed by an ellipsis, these are the final words of Soja, Thirdspace, 320. Cf. my initial comments on this point, in Sleeman, Geography, 259. 26. Roland Boer, Criticism of Heaven: On Marxism and Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 161–214. Cf. my more cautious assessment of Lefebvre (Sleeman, “2.0,” 52–53), prior to encountering Boer’s illuminating close reading of Lefebvre. 27. See, e.g., Henri Lefebvre, Critique of Everyday Life, One-Volume Edition (London: Verso, 2014), 159–61, 221–47 (especially 246), 733, 735–36. Cf. Boer, Criticism, 203.

167

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

remains a Marxist-Nietzschean distortion of the biblical creation-fallredemption-consummation framework. Organized religion becomes a function of the fall, and consummation suggests a romanticized space, presently glimpsed through carnival and festivals, which revalues difference and lived experience.28 But the ascension still stalks Lefebvre’s search for a humanistic “measure of the world,”29 especially given the stubbornly regenerative perseverance of Christian practice. Within Lefebvre’s own schema, all beliefs and ideologies undergo “trial by space,” whereby “ideas, representations or values which do not succeed in making their mark on space, and thus generating (or producing) an appropriate morphology, will lose all pith and become mere signs, resolve themselves into abstract descriptions, or mutate into fantasies.”30 Within and beyond Acts, “the events that have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1) have been vindicated by such a trial. As such, Lefebvre’s limited, stilted, distorted view of heaven as “an intellectual heaven where the ghosts of former gods battle on”31 is ideologically drawn, impoverished in relation to the rhetorical claims of Acts, and fails to take account of its actual productions of space. 32 As such, Lefebvre cannot escape Jesus’s ascension and the productions of earthly space cascading from it. They remain as inescapable as the vision of the crucified sun that troubled him as a teenager.33 For the young Lefebvre, the sun symbolized pagan, preChristian social life, its spontaneity quashed by the church’s vision 28. It is hard to find a clear and sustained view of Lefebvre’s eschaton. Here, I draw upon Henri Lefebvre, Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time and Everyday Life (London: Continuum, 2004). 29. Ibid., 83. 30. Lefebvre, Production of Space, 416–17. Ibid., 417: “The ‘world of signs’ clearly emerges as so much debris left by a retreating tide: whatever is not invested in an appropriated space is stranded, and all that remain are useless signs and significations. Space’s investment—the production of space—has nothing incidental about it: it is a matter of life and death.” Regarding the trial by space won by Acts 11:26, see Sleeman, “Lukan Narrative.” Lefebvre would be well served, if he could see behind the Roman Catholicism of the France of his day, to look within Acts at Paul’s arrival in Rome, and to appraise the eventual impact of Christianity on its urban fabric and everyday life (cf. Richard Jenkyns, God, Space, and City in the Roman Imagination [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013], 193, 203–4). 31. Lefebvre, Critique, 161. Heaven never makes the indexes of Lefebvre scholars; like Lefebvre’s continuing religious/theological impulses, it remains on the margins, largely unexplored. 32. Reserving his vitriol for the French Roman Catholicism of his day, Lefebvre gives “hardly a nod to the Bible” (Boer, Criticism, 214). 33. Regarding this vision, see Boer, Criticism, 204–5.

168

THE ASCENSION AND SPATIAL THEORY

of the crucified Son of God. But rejecting the crucified Son requires consequent refusal to accept an exalted Jesus. What if only this Jesus heralds the hope Lefebvre longs for? Thus, the ascension troubles and unsettles Lefebvre’s theorizing of space: a genuinely human, genuinely heavenly Christ is thoroughly “other” to Lefebvre’s schema, but also proves ultimately inescapable within it, given Lefebvre’s search for the “total man.”34 On this basis, Lefebvre’s observations regarding the dynamic of space are not irrevocably tied to his atheistic assumptions; his insights regarding space invite fruitful transposition into a Christocentric, ascension-ordered, production of space. Obscurantist? Even allowing spatial theory a legitimate place within exegesis, is thirdspace simply too obscurantist, thus compromising its explanatory power? Certainly this risk is present,35 and so some further comment is required here. First, using thirdspace in connection with the ascension requires a consciously dual use of the term. There is heavenly thirdspace, located where Jesus is, and also earthly thirdspaces, located in the everyday productions of space fabricated by his followers. Heavenly thirdspace enables and critiques all earthly thirdspaces, while the latter’s “Christian” expressions should ground and channel the former’s continuing presence and impact on earth. Both are eschatological and both, albeit with differing tensions, await the eschaton bringing the full submission of Jesus’s enemies (Acts 2:35) and the restoration of all things (3:21). One way to distinguish them, in print at least, is to

34. Lefebvre’s diatribe against the Church subsides suddenly into a desire for the Marxist “total man” (Lefebvre, Critique, 246–47). This fails to account for the seemingly endless regeneration of Christianity (dressed in the Marxist guise of “religion”), which concludes his diatribe. A genuinely ascended Jesus is anathema to Lefebvre’s history of spaces, but still haunts it. For an alternative history of spaces, one cognizant of Jesus’s ascension, cf. Douglas Farrow, Ascension Theology (London: T&T Clark International, 2011), 2–14. 35. Sleeman, Geography, 256.

169

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

refer to earthly “third spaces.”36 This enables clearer articulation of how thirdspace plays out in Acts. Second, how narrative texts aimed at persuasion function within the production of space requires closer examination. Internally, narratives generate dynamic and multiple renditions of space, each with varying conceptual depth and differing degrees of explicit articulation of space. Sensibility to the poetics of particular narratives is required.37 Space is everywhere within narrative, but not everywhere evenly expressed. A multifocal “complex ‘optical instrument’” is needed to read space.38 Therefore, I remain uneasy about reducing Acts merely to a documenting of secondspace. This is, I think, an unhelpfully limiting trajectory within Lefebvre’s and Soja’s presentations of space. A better way forward is required, and to my mind, this is the biggest weakness with thirdspace, exceeding any more immediate concern with its intelligibility.39 I’m cautioned by geographer Derek Gregory’s observation that, while “wonderfully suggestive,” Lefebvre’s The Production of Space does not survive “a close encounter with the archive or the field.”40 Perhaps neither does it survive unchanged its encounter with narrative. Thirdspace needs to be used as a heuristic tool, not as 36. I initially employed this differentiation in Sleeman, “Spatiality in Transition,” noting that the shift also allows clearer connection with wider examinations of third space thinking beyond that provided by Soja. 37. Spatial theory should not become the new chokepoint within the art of narrative. Cf. Mikeal C. Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 21: “Narrative criticism seeks to loosen the grip of the historian and the redaction critic from around the neck of the story-teller, at least long enough for him to whisper his tale.” Cf. the risks of obfuscation identified by Jeremy M. Hutton, review of Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts, by Matthew Sleeman, ThTo 68 (2011): 181–83 [183]. 38. Cf. John A. Darr, Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism and Lukan Characterization (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 47, looking towards reading for characterization. 39. “In literature, as in life, spatialities exist in complex interrelationship.” Claudia V. Camp, “Storied Space, or Ben Sira ‘Tells’ a Temple,” in ‘Imagining’ Biblical Worlds: Studies in Spatial, Social and Historical Constructs in Honor of James W. Flanagan, ed. David M. Gunn and Paula M. McNutt (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic 2002), 64–80 [66]. See, further, ibid., 66–69, and cf. Gert T. M. Prinsloo, “From Watchtower to Holy Temple: Reading the Book of Habakkuk as a Spatial Journey,” in Constructions of Space IV: Further Developments in Examining Ancient Israel’s Social Space, ed. Mark K. George (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 132–54 [136–37]. I do not think a further parsing out of “remembered space” as “fourthspace” is helpful (cf. Victor Matthews, “Remembered Space in Biblical Narrative,” in Constructions of Space IV: Further Developments in Examining Ancient Israel’s Social Space, ed. Mark K. George [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013], 61–75 [62]). Fourthspace obscures or loses the trialectic of space that is the gain achieved by Soja’s and Lefebvre’s schemas. 40. Stuart Elden, Derek Gregory and Álvaro Sevilla-Buitrago, “Spaces of the Past, Histories of the Present: An Interview with Stuart Elden and Derek Gregory,” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 10 (2011): 313–39 [315].

170

THE ASCENSION AND SPATIAL THEORY

an iron law that flattens out the complexities or messiness of narrative space.41 Thirdspace in Prospect In light of the preceding discussion, thirdspace, although opening up rich insights regarding space, needs to be used more pluralistically. Other approaches to read and heed space should supplement, perhaps even supplant, its insights. This is something I’ve anticipated as part of a “Critical Spatial Theory 2.0.”42 Thus, for example, I’ve used Lefebvre’s notion of “the right to the city”43 and David Delaney’s notion of the nomosphere44 as spatial lenses for reading Acts 21–22.45 The resultant exegesis connects back to the ascension as foundational for subsequent productions of space in Acts. It builds upon thirdspace, but without being slavishly tied to it.46 Above all, it is Jesus’s ascension, not a particular form of spatial theory, which is key. That said, widening the aperture of spatial theory for reading the ascension will help facilitate a widening of the kinds of spaces upon 41. This balanced consideration of spatial theory is analogous to the place of social-scientific models within historical reconstruction discussed by Bengt Holmberg, “The Methods of Historical Reconstruction in the Scholarly ‘Recovery’ of Corinthian Christianity,” in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church, ed. Edward Adams and David G. Horrell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 255–71 (267–71). 42. Sleeman, “2.0.” 43. This “right to the city” indicates a spatial politics that enables the city’s residents to form and inhabit urban space according to their everyday autogestion, that is, their self-production of lived space, which pursues a politics of difference liberated from the closures imposed by the state, technology and capital accumulation. See Chris Butler, Henri Lefebvre: Spatial Politics, Everyday Life and the Right to the City (London: Routledge, 2012). Transposed via Jesus’s ascension, such a right to the city is driven by the heavenly Jesus’s productions of earthly space (cf., e.g., Acts 18:10) that allow Jews to remain Jews and gentiles to remain gentiles within lived Christian fellowship. As with the variegated languages of Pentecost signaling the enthronement of a heavenly Davidic king over the nations, difference is both preserved and connected properly in him. 44. Just as the biosphere conceives an overarching schema for isolating certain processes and events at varying scales of analysis, so the notion of “nomosphere” illuminates what is performed and maintained or challenged as normative in particular everyday settings, and how such normativities are lived out in space and place. See David Delaney, Nomospheric Investigations: The Spatial, the Legal and the Pragmatics of World-Making (London: Routledge, 2010). Jesus’s ascension provides the nomospheric disturbance par excellence, which continues to disrupt and reorder the nomosphere until his return. 45. Sleeman, “Nomosphere.” 46. Spatial notions of displacement and implacement provide another promising lens for reading the persuasive rhetoric of space within Acts. Cf. Christopher M. Jones “‘The Wealth of Nations Shall Come to You’: Light, Tribute, and Implacement in Isaiah 60,” VT 64 (2014): 611–22.

171

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

which Jesus’s ascension has an impact. One obvious example is the rise of digital space. Digital spaces are new and their status as spaces is debated,47 but cyberspace already expands and challenges our notions of space. At this point, we can again reverse the angle: how does Jesus’s ascension itself function to inform a theory of digital spaces?48 The exaltation of Jesus as Lord of all, which Acts proclaims, casts his territoriality as including the emerging convergences of physical, mental, and digital spaces sometimes known as the metaverse.49 Digital spaces in all their hybrid manifestations form another arena for lived experience on the way to the end of the earth, anticipated in 1:8. As well as inviting constructive Christian place-making in the digital sphere, existing works theologizing the metaverse from other frames of reference invite ascension-driven responses.50 Jesus’s ascension also begins to work back into other areas of contemporary spatiality, such as mobility studies.51 Further two-way exchanges of insight beckon. If reading the ascension as rendering passive absentee Christology is too sedentary, that is, too immobile and fixed in one place, then what kind of christological mobilities result from the ascension? In the other direction of exchange, as the ultimate act of human mobility, and one unique to him, Jesus’s ascension—with its integral mission calling for mobility and rootedness on the part of his followers—relativizes, positions, and evaluates all other human mobilities. In terms of spatial theory, then, the ascension of Jesus is not exhausted by, nor coterminous with, thirdspace. Many other spatial

47. Julie E. Cohen, “Cyberspace as/and Space,” Columbia Law Review 107 (2007): 201–56. 48. If it is a lively theological text, Acts should be able to speak and spark forwards into contemporary spaces. Given that human geographers often lack ancient historical sensibility and skills in ancient languages, and remain characteristically phobic regarding large and specific faith claims, it remains likely that such connections will be drawn from beyond the scholarly discipline of geography (see further, Sleeman, “2.0”). 49. http://tinyurl.com/hnmo6qt. 50. See, e.g., Tutsy Navarathna’s 2011 machinima, A Journey into the Metaverse; https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=c2ha8H2DRBs. 51. Mimi Sheller and John Urry, “The New Mobilities Paradigm,” Environment and Planning A 38 (2006): 207–26 provides a catalyst and agenda for this emergent field of inquiry. Cf. the directions and developments mapped by James Faulconbridge and Allison Hui, “Traces of a Mobile Field: Ten Years of Mobilities Research,” Mobilities 11 (2016): 1–14.

172

THE ASCENSION AND SPATIAL THEORY

lenses and arenas present themselves, given the comprehensive claim on space made by the ascension.52 Conclusion Jesus’s ascension is foundational and pivotal for reading space more widely across the Lukan narratives, from “the events that have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1) to “without hindrance” (Acts 28:31), and beyond. Thirdspace remains a helpful heuristic for understanding the ascension and its impact upon human productions of space. Other spatial theories will supplement and nuance its insights. Simultaneously, Jesus’s ascension also influences—or can and should influence—how we understand and evaluate wider human productions of space. Not just geography, but the whole university project comes under its shadow. This might bring us, with Cicero, to see geography as a difficult business that might offer nothing for certain,53 but it offers something life-sized, even if that something is the richly and inevitably spatial s(c)andal of particularity.

52. Sleeman, Geography, 263: “this study is . . . located within a wider paradigm shift which is still under way . . . the task of reading for space within Acts is only just begun.” 53. Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum., XXX 2.4, cf. XXXII 2.6.

173

9

Lukan Cosmology and the Ascension

Charles Anderson

Introduction: Cosmology from the Side On an episode of the television show The West Wing, White House Press Secretary C. J. Cregg meets with the Organization of Cartographers for Social Equality.1 They want President Bartlett to support legislation for schools to discard the Mercator Projection map in favor of the Peters Projection. Their reason? The traditional map distorts the relative size of countries and continents and thus fosters European imperialist attitudes. Cregg is skeptical, until the cartographers point out that

1. Season 2, Episode 16. The scene can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=OH1bZ0F3zVU. Mikeal Parsons (“The Place of Jerusalem on the Lukan Landscape: An Exercise in Symbolic Cartography,” in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson, ed. Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998], 155–71) began his 1998 essay on Jerusalem in Luke-Acts with the story of a 1976 New Yorker cover of a world map with New York at the center. Readers may draw larger conclusions from the shift in twenty years from literary magazine to YouTube clip.

175

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

despite their similar size on the Mercator map, Africa is 14 times larger than Greenland. The cartographers show the press secretary the Peters Projection map, which Cregg greets with the befuddled, “What the hell is that?” The answer: “It’s where you’ve been living this whole time.” The crowning blow comes when Cregg sees a map with the Northern Hemisphere on the bottom. She objects, “You can’t do that.” “Why not?” they ask. “’Cause it’s freaking me out.” It’s a small yet striking moment. The Cartographers for Social Equality turn the world upside down, and it unsettles Cregg. Suddenly, nothing is where she thought it was. Even more, these crusading cartographers want school maps changed, because the power to shape space, in turn, is the power to shape how we live in that space. Maps have power. People put the world together, whether on visual maps, in mental maps, or through texts, and that world construction both reflects and influences attitudes and actions. Maps depict and interpret the world. But today they typically only show this earth. A cosmology goes further and includes not just the earth but what exists beyond the earth, the whole universe, including perhaps realms like heaven and hell and their inhabitants.2 Often, cosmologies tell not just how the universe exists now but how it came to exist, if it did (that is, if it is not understood to be eternal). We may generally define a cosmology as something that sets out the order of the universe, its parts and how they relate, and how it came to be. But what constitutes a cosmology? Some texts are cosmologies proper, that is, their subject matter focuses on the order of the universe; think, for example, of Plato’s Timaeus,3 or Aristotle’s De Caelo, to contemporary accounts such as Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. Yet a text does not have to be a cosmology to present a cosmology. While its purpose may not be to explain the order of the

2. Contemporary classification often differentiates physical and religious cosmologies on the basis of whether they include anything more than scientific laws and material processes. 3. On the significant influence of the Timaeus in antiquity, see David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, Philosophia Antiqua 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 38–57.

176

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

universe, a text may nonetheless present such an account along the way, perhaps piecemeal, or from the side. The two volume Luke-Acts is, of course, not a cosmology. It offers no sustained account of the origins of the universe nor detailed descriptions of its parts. Indeed, while Luke presents a three-tiered universe of heaven, earth, and Hades, scholars have noted his relative disinterest in describing the top and bottom tiers.4 That does not tell the whole story, though. Luke may not present a frontal, orderly account of the order of the universe, but his writings are suffused with cosmological claims. God is acclaimed as creator of everything, heaven frequently advances the story, angels and demons show up regularly, and the action spans to the ends of the earth. Most notably, the ascension is a cosmological event. Jesus moves from earth to heaven, with the promise of a future move from heaven to earth. LukeActs is not a cosmology, but it does do cosmology from the side. The ascension, in particular, points to the need for grasping Luke’s cosmology.5 This cosmology provides the necessary context for understanding the ascension properly. In other words, we need to ask: what must be true about heaven and earth, about the structure of the universe in Luke-Acts, in order to make sense of the ascension? Given the cosmological nature of the ascension, it is surprising how little attention interpreters typically give to Luke’s cosmology. Recent theological treatments of Luke-Acts only rarely touch on cosmological topics.6 There is clearly a gap in considering the wider cosmology, which inhibits understanding the ascension properly. This chapter will not conduct an overall survey of the cosmology of 4. See Parsons, “Place of Jerusalem on the Lukan Landscape,” 161 and Ute Eisen, Die Poetik der Apostelgeschichte : eine narratologische Studie, NTOA; SUNT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: Academic, 2006), 166n84. 5. “Luke’s cosmology” is shorthand for the cosmology narrated in the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles rather than strictly an ascription to the author Luke. 6. E.g., the following theologies have, at best, only scattered references in their subject indexes to creation, cosmology, earth, heaven, or world: Darrell L. Bock, A Theology of Luke and Acts. God’s Promised Program, Realized for All Nations, Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012); François Bovon, Luke the Theologian, rev. ed., trans. Ken McKinney (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006); Joel B. Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); I. Howard Marshall and David G. Peterson, ed., Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

177

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Luke-Acts,7 but instead, will utilize the cosmological elements as a lens for looking at its overall narrative theology. That will more effectively draw out how the ascension fits within the Luke-Acts cosmology. There are multiple vantage points for understanding Lukan theology: promise and fulfillment, the plan of salvation, Christology, pneumatology, and so on. Cosmology should take a place alongside them because of how it appears in key points of the narrative and can tie together major themes. This essay will argue for an implicit Lukan cosmology that tells of a world in disorder that is being reversed and restored to its right order by the heavenly, ascended Lord Jesus so that heaven and earth are joined. Such an account can help situate Luke’s ascension stories and give a fuller sense of their meaning. But someone might object: does this theological approach to Lukan cosmology distort the matter and distract from getting at how the stars and the earth relate? Actually, it matches the intent of ancient cosmology. The purpose of giving an orderly account of the universe was to address the ethical-social order of the person and the community.8 For Plato, the universe’s harmonious movements should serve as the model for the rational soul’s own order (Tim. 90b–d);9 what proves just in the individual soul should be the same order for the polis (Resp. 434d–e). Plato’s predecessors, the pre-Socratics, wrote some of the earliest Greek cosmologies “to provide an explanation for the present social and natural order and a guarantee that these orders will remain as they are.”10 The Stoics defined “nature” (φύσις) as the active principle in reality that creates, rationally directs, and sustains everything that exists.11 They famously built their ethics on 7. See Steve Walton, “‘The Heavens Opened’: Cosmological and Theological Transformation in Luke and Acts,” in Cosmology and New Testament Theology, ed. Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough, LNTS 355 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 60–73; and more briefly, Eisen, Die Poetik der Apostelgeschichte, 166–68. 8. This paragraph draws partly on Charles A. Anderson, Philo of Alexandria’s Views of the Physical World, WUNT 2.309 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 3, 107–8. 9. See, representatively, Gabriela Roxana Carone, “The Ethical Function of Astronomy in Plato’s Timaeus,” in Interpreting the Timaeus – Critias. Proceedings of the IV Symposium Platonicum Selected Papers, ed. Tomás Calvo and Luc Brisson, International Plato Studies 9 (Sankt Augustin: Academia, 1997), 341–50. 10. Gerard Naddaf, The Greek Concept of Nature (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005), 2. 11. SVF 2.912, 937, 945, 1024, 1027 (Ioannes Ab Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragments, 4 vols., Sammlung Wissenschaftlicher Commentare [Stuttgart: Teubner, 1968]). On Stoic cosmology, see Michael J.

178

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

this cosmological principle, so that the telos, the proper goal of human existence, was life according to nature (τὸ ὁμολογουμένως τῇ φύσει ζῆν; Diogenes Laertius 7.87).12 In turn, they employed their concept of “nature” first to critique social-economic power structures and then later to support the prevailing order; Cicero, for example, averred that nature binds people together, so the wise man will follow its lead and engage in politics and take a wife in order to have children.13 This idea that the moral order should reflect the cosmological order shows up, at a popular level, in Acts 28. The Maltese think the viper that bites Paul proves that he is a murderer; the storm and shipwreck should have taken his life, but failing that, Justice has sent a snake.14 When Paul survives, the Maltese conclude that he must be a god (Acts 28:3–6). They expect these “natural” acts to enforce moral order. When they do not, they revise what the moral order evidently must be. To approach Lukan cosmology, therefore, as a way of understanding the theological (and ethical) vision, is in keeping with the very purpose for which people do cosmology. As Jonathan Pennington puts it, cosmological language is “ethical before it is scientifically descriptive.” 15 Our exploration of this cosmological theology will start with Luke’s depiction of a disordered world in darkness. But God, specifically in heaven, has begun to set the world right, which comes as a reversal, yet White, “Stoic Natural Philosophy (Physics and Cosmology),” in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, ed. Brad Inwood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 124–52. 12. On Stoic ethics, see Gisela Striker, “Following Nature: A Study in Stoic Ethics,” in Essays on Hellenistic Epistemology and Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 221–80; Brad Inwood and Pierluigi Donini, “Stoic Ethics,” in The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. Keimpe Algra, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 675–738. 13. Cicero, Fin. 3.62–68. On this point, see Heinrich Simon and Marie Simon, Die alte Stoa und ihr Naturbegriff; ein Beitrag zur Philosophiegeschichte des Hellenismus (Berlin: Aufbau, 1956), 74–84; Edward Adams, Constructing the World: A Study in Paul’s Cosmological Language, SNTW (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 71–74. 14. On the possible Greco-Roman beliefs manifested here, see Gary B. Miles and Garry Trompf, “Luke and Antiphon: The Theology of Acts 27–28 in the Light of Pagan Beliefs About Divine Retribution, Pollution and Shipwreck,” HTR 69 (1976): 259–67; David Ladouceur, “Hellenistic Preconceptions of Shipwreck and Pollution as a Context for Acts 27–28,” HTR 73 (1980): 435–49. They argue with respect to Luke’s audience, whereas the evidence is applied here to the Maltese characters. On the difficulties of the exegetical-theological argument about Paul’s innocence adduced from this evidence, see Joshua W. Jipp, Divine Visitations and Hospitality to Strangers in Luke-Acts: An Interpretation of the Malta Episode in Acts 28:1–10, NovTSup 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 11–12. 15. Referring particularly to the Bible. Jonathan T. Pennington, “Heaven in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts,” in Heaven, ed. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, Theology in Community (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 81.

179

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

also a restoration. That restoration is impelled by God as creator and can be represented as the union of heaven and earth, which has now begun in Jesus’s resurrection-ascension, the focal point of this theocosmological vision. A Dark World Disordered The problem with the world in Luke-Acts, in an obvious, important way, is sin.16 From a more cosmic angle, the problem can also be diagnosed as spiritual, demonic darkness. Satan has a kingdom (Luke 11:18); indeed, he claims authority over all the kingdoms of the world (Luke 4:5–7). The use of οἰκουμένη in 4:6 points to how that authority consists particularly over people. When Jesus encounters a woman crippled and bent over, he describes it as Satan having bound her for 18 years (ἔδησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς, Luke 13:16). That may be extended to all who suffer under demonic powers whom Jesus and the disciples so frequently encounter (e.g., Luke 4:33–35; 8:2; 9:1; 10:17, 20; 13:32; Acts 8:7, 16:16–18, 19:12). Satan has a house with possessions worth plundering (Luke 11:21–22) precisely because he has authority over people. So the problem in the world is beyond individuals themselves and also a function of this cosmic, evil spiritual power’s hold on them. This kingdom of Satan is particularly characterized by darkness. Paul describes his mission from the Lord as turning people from darkness (σκότους) and the authority of Satan (τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ Σατανᾶ; Acts 26:18). Ten times, Luke uses a form of “darkness,” and never positively.17 The magician Elymas is blinded for a time and under darkness for his opposition to the Lord (Acts 13:11), but that only represents visually what is true for all: everyone lives in darkness under the shadow of death (Luke 1:78–79). Satan’s reach extends universally over all peoples. The use of 16. See, e.g., Acts 2:40; Luke 1:77, 22:20 (connected to Jer 31:34). On sin and the fallen human condition in Luke-Acts, see Christoph Stenschke, “The Need for Salvation,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David G. Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 125–44. 17. Σκότος, Luke 1:79, 11:35, 22:53, 23:44; Acts 2:20, 13:11, 26:18. Σκοτία, Luke 12:3. Σκοτεινός, Luke 11:34, 36.

180

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

“kingdoms of the world” (τὰς βασιλείας τῆς οἰκουμένης, Luke 4:5) points to that,18 as does the way that Luke levels Jews and Gentiles alike under this problem. As the believers pray in Acts 4, they identify their opponents by means of Psalm 2 as the raging nations and the kings of the earth (Acts 4:26). Luke glosses that as the chief priests and elders who have just interrogated them (4:23), along with Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem (4:27). This inclusion puts all human authorities, Jew or Gentile, on the same plane: they all comprise the nations who rage against the Messiah, the one who sits cosmically enthroned in authority (2:33–36).19 Similarly, Stephen’s charge of idolatry against the wilderness generation, for the golden calf and astral worship (7:41–43), connects Israel to the fundamental Gentile problem of wrongly apprehending God and the world he has made.20 Even more, this “host of heaven” (τῇ στρατιᾷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, 7:42) they worship may include a demonic element.21 The temple too has become ensnared in this domestication of God, because it is only a house made by human hands (χειροποιήτος, 7:48), a term appearing in Paul’s critique of pagan idolatry in Athens (17:24), drawing on an Old Testament (OT) usage where it is uniformly applied against idolatry.22 The problem is universal and conceived cosmologically as opposition to the exalted Messiah and worship of what God has created. There is a disorder to this world. The political authorities and nations belong to Satan’s kingdom, rather than God’s. Darkness covers the people instead of life. They have rebelled against divine authority and chosen to worship created things. Satan even invites Jesus to worship “before me” (ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ, Luke 4:7), turning on its head this distinctive Lukan phrase for relating to God.23 This spiritual darkness 18. Cf. François Bovon, A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, 3 vols., trans. Christine M. Thomas, Donald S. Deer, and James Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002–13), 1:143n40. 19. Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts, SNTSMS 215 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 117. 20. Cf. David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, WUNT 2.130 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 206–8. 21. Pennington, “Heaven in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts,” 67–68. Old Testament texts that closely associate worship of idols and stars include Deut 4:19, 17:3; 2 Kgs 17:16, 21:3, 23:4; 2 Chr 33:3, 5; Jer 8:2, 19:13. One of the clearest texts for the double referent for angelic beings and stars is Dan 8:10–11. 22. Lev 26:1; 30; Isa 10:11, 16:12, 19:1, 21:9, 31:7, 46:6. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic, 195.

181

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

and inversion of the world’s right order emerges especially in the final week of Jesus’s ministry in two events: the prediction of the temple’s destruction and the crucifixion. Some people—presumably disciples—admire the beauty and grandeur of the temple with its appearance of order and stability (Luke 21:5).24 But Jesus predicts that the temple will be dismantled until every stone is thrown down (21:6). The disorder Jesus has been confronting—and which will shortly take his life—will burst forth and destroy this impression of order. The interpretive questions surrounding this passage and its parallels are, of course, voluminous. The point for our purposes is the cosmological dimension.25 Alongside the disorder of war and persecution will be “dreadful portents and great signs from heaven” (φόβητρά τε καὶ σημεῖα ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ μεγάλα; 21:11), signs in the sun and moon and stars (σημεῖα ἐν ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ καὶ ἄστροις; 21:25); even “the powers of the heavens will be shaken” (δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν σαλευθήσονται; 21:26).26 This language draws on a convention of representing eschatological events with cosmological distress.27 The judgment on the current world order, which is disorder from God’s perspective, is illustrated by disorder in the skies. It is the visual undoing of this world as the transition for the reordering to a new world. The created order is reversed with a “return to chaos,”28 but only because that manifests what is already the case. But this cosmological disorder will itself be reversed by another cosmological event: the Son of Man coming in the divine glory-cloud from heaven 23. Cf. Sleeman, Geography, 237–38. See Luke 1:19, 12:9, 16:15; Acts 4:19, 7:46. 24. Luke identifies them only as τινων, but the most recent known people whom Jesus addresses in the narrative are the disciples (20:45), and the Marcan parallel calls them disciples (Mark 13:1). 25. Edward Adams, The Stars Will Fall from Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in the New Testament and Its World, LNTS 347 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 133–81 makes a cogent argument that the language is not figurative for historical events but does refer to cosmological catastrophe. 26. Scriptural quotations come from the NRSV, unless otherwise noted. 27. See, e.g., Isa 13:10–13; 24:1–6, 18b–23; 34:4; Jer 4:23–28; Ezek 32:7–8; Joel 2:10, 30–31; 3:15–16; Amos 8:9; Hag 2:6, 21; 4 Ezra 5:4; 13:30–32; 1 Enoch 80:4–7; Testament of Levi 4:1; Assumption of Moses 10:5; Sibylline Oracles 3:796–803 (references drawn from David P. Pao and Eckhard Schnabel, “Luke,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], 378, and G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004], 212–13). 28. Joseph A. Fitzmyer S. J., The Gospel According to Luke, 2 vols., AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981–85), 2:1350.

182

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

(21:27). Jesus then gives a final, supra-cosmological guarantee that although heaven and earth may pass away, his words will not (21:33). The second, more immediate instance of disorder then begins to come to a head. Luke narrates that Satan enters Judas, who then immediately offers to the temple authorities to betray Jesus (Luke 22:3). They come at night to arrest Jesus, who points out the disorder in that although he teaches in the temple during the day, they lay hands on him now in their hour, “the authority of darkness” (ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους; Luke 22:53). David Bryan points out how this phrase ties together Luke 4:6 and Acts 26:18 to show Satan’s role in this arrest.29 Like with the temple destruction, the disorder at the place of the Skull is visualized when darkness comes over the land (Luke 23:44–45). Disorder in the heavens illustrates the disorder of crucifying Jesus. But the crucifixion also reveals disorder at the human level. The apostles in Acts consistently represent Jesus’s death as a miscarriage of justice, the murder of an innocent man, responsibility for which falls on the leaders, both Jewish and Gentile, and the people (3:13–15, 17; 7:52–53; 13:28). Luke’s depiction of cosmic disorder, of a world in darkness and in thrall to Satan (in some measure), may explain why he uses κόσμος so rarely. It appears only four times (Luke 9:25, 11:50, 12:30; Acts 17:24), an intriguing infrequency, given how Luke writes for a Greco-Roman setting. Perhaps it is a case of Septuagintal influence.30 But perhaps it reflects a desire to avoid the term, precisely because he writes for a Greco-Roman setting. The word κόσμος encoded for a Greco-Roman audience a positive view of the world, emphasizing particularly its order.31 The bonds that hold heaven and earth, gods and men, together 29. See ch. 4 in this volume, “A Revised Cosmic Hierarchy Revealed: Apocalyptic Cosmology and Jesus’s Ascent in the Luke’s Gospel.” Cf. Bovon, Luke, 3:219. 30. So Walton, “‘The Heavens Opened’,” 61. The standard Old Greek expression for the universe is “heaven and earth” (οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ for ‫)השׁמים והארץ‬, appearing approximately 70 times (e.g., Gen 1:2, 2:4; Deut 30:19; Ps 120:2; Isa 37:16, 65:17). 31. See particularly Adams, Constructing World, 41–77; Hermann Sasse, “κοσμέω, etc.,” TDNT 3.868–80. Multiple terms could denote the universe, like πᾶν (e.g., Plato, Phileb. 28c, Tim. 92c; Aristotle, Phys. 196a25–29; Philo, Abr. 161), ὅλον (e.g., Plato, Gorg. 508a; Aristotle, Cael. 301a16–19; Philo, Plant. 10), and οὐρανός (e.g., Plato, Pol. 269d, Tim. 28b). They overlapped significantly, but some distinction in semantic domain is discernible, though what the distinction consists in, differs among writers

183

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

make it appropriate to “call the whole of this world by the name of order, not of disorder or dissoluteness” (Gorg. 508a).32 The orderliness of the world, rightly described by κόσμος, was so widely attested from the Pre-Socratics on as to become commonplace.33 And because the universe was orderly, it was beautiful: “the fairest of all things that have come into existence” (Tim. 29a).34 Luke may have used κόσμος so little in order exactly to avoid evoking this view of the world. For a world under the authority of Satan, lost in darkness, that had crucified the Lord, was not well-ordered and beautiful. His limited usage of κόσμος tends more to “inhabited world” rather than universe (Luke 9:25, 12:30).35 He could have used κόσμος for “hosts of heaven” in multiple places (as the Old Greek sometimes does), particularly at Acts 7:42 (στρατιᾷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), since the allusion may be to Deuteronomy 4:19 (πάντα τὸν κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), but he does not.36 Perhaps the key evidence is the verse that seems to belie our point, Acts 17:24. Paul acclaims God as the maker of the κόσμος and everything in it, the Lord of heaven and earth (ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσμον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὗτος οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὑπάρχων κύριος).37 This represents one of the most positive occurrences of κόσμος in the entire NT.38 Yet, this makes and schools (e.g., Sextus Empiricus, Ag. Phys. 1.332 [= SVF 2.524]; Aristotle, Metaph. 1024a1–4; Philo, Somn. 2.45; Opif. 89). 32. Καὶ τὸ ὅλον τοῦτο διὰ ταῦτα κόσμον καλοῦσιν . . . οὐκ ἀκοσμίαν οὐδὲ ἀκολασίαν. English translation from Plato, Dialogues, trans. H. N. Fowler et al., 12 vols., LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914–35). 33. E.g., Parmenides, fr. 8.52 (= Diels-Kranz 1:239); Plato, Tim. 30a; Pol. 273b; Aristotle, Eth. eud. 1216a14; Stoics, Diogenes Laertius 7.137 (= SVF 2.526); Philo, Spec. 3.187; Leg. 3.99. 34. Also, Tim. 68e; Pseudo-Aristotle, Mund. 397a; Philo, Opif. 25; Plant. 131; Deus 106. 35. Cf. Sasse, “κοσμέω,” TDNT 3.888. Mark 8:36 and Matt 16:26 parallel Luke 9:25. The parallel to 12:30 in Matt 6:32 omits κόσμος. On the other hand, Matt 4:8 has κόσμου, whereas Luke 4:5 has οἰκουμένης. 36. Also Luke 2:13 (στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου); 21:26 (δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν). I. Howard Marshall, “Acts,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 565 sees Deut 4:19 as the closest OT parallel for Acts 7:42. The Hebrew original parts of the OG only use κόσμος cosmologically when translating ‫“( צבם שׁמים‬host of heaven”), and even then only in some instances: Gen 2:1; Deut 4:19, 17:3; Isa 13:10, 24:21, 40:26. Elsewhere, δύναμις (Ps 33:6; LXX 102:21, 148:2; 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3; 23:4, 5), στρατία (1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chr 18:18; 33:3, 5; Jer 8:2, 19:13; Zeph 1:5; Dan 8:10; Neh 9:6), or ἄστηρ (Isa 34:4, 45:12). Κόσμος is also used in a noncosmological sense for “adornment”: e.g., Exod 33:5–6; Prov 20:29; Isa 3:19–20; Ezek 23:40; Jdt 1:14; 1 Macc 2:11; Sir 6:30; 21:27. 37. Claims of God creating the κόσμος occur much more commonly in Second Temple Judaism: 2 Macc 7:23, 13:14; 4 Macc 5:25; Wis 9:9, 11:17; Aristobulus 13.12.3, 5; Josephus, Ant. 1.26, 31; Testament of Abraham (rec. A) 10:14; Philo, Leg. 2.3; Deus 30; Mut. 30. Similarly, Philo connects God as maker and Lord at Mos. 2.100. 38. Cf. Sasse, “κοσμέω,” TDNT 3.886 who, nonetheless, overplays this view. The world’s role in

184

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

good sense in light of Paul’s audience. These philosophically minded hearers, who “spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas” (17:21; NIV), are exactly the kind of people for whom a positive use of κόσμος would potentially build bridges. It is a different claim, to be sure, outside the mainstream philosophical tradition but, nonetheless, intelligible to them.39 In the right setting, therefore, Luke employs κόσμος in a fully cosmological sense, along with its connotations. Outside of this evangelistic defense, however, Luke largely avoids κόσμος, perhaps because he does not endorse the worldview it represents. So, this one exception buttresses the overall case, precisely because of its singularity. On the other side, Luke also does not use κόσμος in a negative sense, like Paul and John sometimes do.40 He does not describe a κόσμος under judgment and condemnation (John 12:31; Rom 3:6; 1 Cor 11:32), which hates Jesus and his disciples (John 7:7; 15:1, 19), and whose basic principles enslave and deceive (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου; Gal 4:3; Col 2:8). By comparison, Luke is more restrained than John in describing Satan as the ruler of this world (ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων; John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). While some of this negative usage of κόσμος might fit conceptually in Luke-Acts, perhaps he avoids that idiolect so as not to trigger the cognitive dissonance that might provoke. An audience accustomed to perceiving a positive viewpoint in κόσμος could find such usage more alienating than helpful. This proposal is necessarily tentative, being partly an argument from silence, but this relative absence of κόσμος fits with the larger revealing the divine power and nature (Rom 1:20) is positive, as is κόσμος to refer to the future, eschatological world (Rom 4:13; contra Sasse, “κοσμέω,” TDNT 3.888; so Adams, Constructing World, 167–71). 39. The standard philosophical position designated the κόσμος as divine: e.g., Plato, Tim. 34b, 68e, 92c. The Stoics especially liked this identification: Cicero, Nat. d. 1.39; 2.21; Sextus Empiricus, Math. 9.81–85; Diogenes Laertius 7.137–138, 148. Jewish writers subordinated the κόσμος to and distinguished it from God: e.g., 2 Macc 7:9; 8:18; 12:15; Wis 9:3; 11:22; Aristobulus 8.10.9; Philo, Leg. 1.44; Plant. 126; Ebr. 75; Her. 97–99; Decal. 58. This note draws on Anderson, Philo’s Views of the Physical World, 81, 83. 40. On this usage, see still Sasse, “κοσμέω,” TDNT 3.889–95, despite his over-reading of the evidence. Adams, Constructing World, 68 rightly points out just how uncommon such negativity is in the wider Greco-Roman discourse. Even in Jewish texts, it is relatively rare; mainly at Testament of Issachar 4:6; Testament of Abraham (rec. A) 1:7; 16:4, 12; 17:5; 19:7; (rec. B) 4:9, 12.

185

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Lukan depiction of a disordered world. The inhabited world lies under the authority of Satan, disordered and dark, in need of salvation. 41 Setting the World Right Heaven Drives the Action The story of Jesus in his earthly ministry and in his continuing ministry by the Spirit through the church can be told as a cosmological story of setting the world right, of rescuing it from the domain of Satan and reclaiming it for its maker. That story is driven, in significant measure, by heaven. Again and again, at key points in the narrative, Luke invokes heaven, thus explicitly joining cosmology and theology. Parsons’s observation that Luke is not very interested in describing heaven is true as far as it goes;42 yet a lack of description does not necessarily entail a lack of significance.43 Matthew Sleeman has shown the crucial role that heaven—specifically, the ascended, heavenly Christ—plays in Acts 1–11. That insight can be extended back into Luke and through the rest of Acts to show how the narrative-theology is cosmologically impelled. A concentrated survey of this heaven language can help show just how crucial a role it plays. The word οὐρανός can denote both the visible sky and the non-visible realm where God dwells,44 and it is the latter sense that concerns us here.45 Heaven is where God and everything that belongs to him dwells.46 The angels acclaim glory to God in the highest heaven (Luke 2:14), and Stephen draws on Isaiah 66:1 to affirm that heaven is God’s throne (Acts 7:49).47 Heaven is so identified with God that it can be used 41. This authority is not total, since it is circumscribed by God’s greater authority; on which, see below. 42. Parsons, “Place of Jerusalem on the Lukan Landscape,” 161. 43. Sleeman, Geography, 9. 44. See n. 101 for an explanation of the word “non-visible.” 45. We will return to these other definitions below. 46. Eisen, Die Poetik der Apostelgeschichte, 166: “Dem Himmel gehören Gott und alles, was zu ihm gehört, an.” 47. On this common identification in Jewish literature of heaven as God’s dwelling place, see Jonathan T. Pennington, Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew, NovTSup 126 (Leiden: Brill, 2007; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 37–76 and Bryan, “Revised Cosmic Hierarchy,” in this volume.

186

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

as metonymy for God. Jesus’s promise that those who are persecuted have a great reward in heaven is about both the place and the person, where the reward lies and who gives it (Luke 6:23; cf. 12:33).48 This close identification of God and heaven advances Luke-Acts at key junctures. The narrative begins with an angel of the Lord appearing to Zechariah in the temple (1:11), yet it delays identification until Zechariah doubts the announcement of John’s birth. Then, readers learn that here is Gabriel who has come from the presence of the Lord (1:19). That heavenly location for the angels is made explicit at 2:13, 15 amidst the flurry of their activity that heralds the birth of God’s Son.49 The angels sing, “Glory to God in the highest place” (δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ; 2:14).50 Zechariah’s song proclaims God’s mercy coming as “the dawn from on high” (ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους) to shine on those in darkness (1:78–79). This cosmological imagery identifies Jesus as the sun from heaven that dispels darkness.51 Jesus’s baptism by John marks the beginning of his public ministry, and heaven opens for the Holy Spirit to descend on him and for a voice to affirm his divine sonship (Luke 3:21–22). This empowerment and declaration of God’s love gives heaven’s imprimatur from the outset for Jesus and his work. The transfiguration features heaven prominently, even without using the word οὐρανός itself (9:28–36). Jesus’s clothes and face change in brightness, Moses and Elijah show up, the divine glory cloud envelops the disciples, and a voice again speaks to affirm Jesus’s sonship. This scene comes at a key juncture in the narrative, right after Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah and Jesus’s redefinition of that vocation (9:21–27). It previews the kingdom and the Son of Man 48. Metonymy is a helpful category, so long as it is not viewed just as a synonym, where God could have been used without any alteration in connotation. Pennington, “Heaven in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts,” 66–67 perhaps does not make that sufficiently clear. 49. Cf. parallel phrases χαρὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἔσται ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι (15:7) and χαρὰ ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι (15:10); and 22:43. 50. Ὕψιστος typically refers to God (Luke 1:32, 35, 76; 6:35; 8:28; Acts 7:48; 16:17), but here and at the parallel 19:38, it has a spatial reference. Cf. Matt 21:9; Mark 11:10 as parallels to Luke 19:38. Also, Job 16:19; Ps 148:1; Psalms of Solomon 18:10; Diogenes Laertius 8.31 (references from Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000], 1045a). 51. For ὕψος as heaven, Luke 24:49; Eph 4:8 (from Ps 67:19 OG).

187

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

coming in the glory that belongs to him, the Father, and the holy angels (9:26).52 Jesus appears in that glory temporarily in the transfiguration, prefiguring his entry into it forever at the ascension.53 These pivotal points where Jesus’s identity needs affirmation, like the beginning of his ministry and the first prediction of his death and resurrection, are matched by the appearance of heaven as a way of bolstering him. 54 Shortly after Peter’s confession and the transfiguration, Luke signals a shift in direction for Jesus, when the days of his being taken up came to an end (ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήμψεως αὐτοῦ, 9:51). Only Luke uses συμπληρόω in the NT, and the parallel construction at Acts 2:1 for Pentecost helps signal that something momentous is about to happen.55 This is Luke’s narrative framing; it may not necessitate calling this section up to 19:28 one unit, but it does help orient the overall story from this point onward.56 The noun ἀνάλημψις is a NT hapax legomenon, but the use of it and its cognate verb ἀναλαμβάνω in the OT and Second Temple literature points to it as “a semitechnical term in Judaism for being taken up into heaven.”57 Moreover, Luke and others often use ἀναλαμβάνω for the ascension.58 Jesus heads toward Jerusalem, presumably to his death in line with his predictions of 9:22, 44—which are not geographically specific—but the purpose focuses on his ascension. Likely this encompasses the nexus of events, but the 52. English translations (e.g., NIV; NRSV) have to obscure the parallelism of ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων for the sake of readable prose. 53. J. G. Davies, “The Prefigurement of the Ascension in the Third Gospel,” JTS 6 (1955): 228. 54. Cf. Markus Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 127. 55. The other instance, Luke 8:23, uses it as a technical, nautical term (Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols. [New York: United Bible Societies, 1988–89], 54.14). 56. On this section, see David P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989; repr., Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998). Douglas P. McComiskey, Lukan Theology in the Light of the Gospel’s Literary Structure, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Bletchley, UK: Paternoster, 2004), 204–84 identifies a cyclical structure with the cross and ascension “as a subtle but definite backdrop” as Jesus progresses to Jerusalem (288). 57. James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 296. See 2 Kgs 2:11; 1 Macc 2:58; Sir 48:9; 49:14; 4 Ezra 6:26; 8:20; Testament of Levi 18:3; Testament of Job 39:12; Mos. 2.291; Assumption of Moses 10:12; 2 Baruch 46:7. In a few cases, it refers to death: Testament of Abraham 7:8; Psalms of Solomon 4:18. See also the analysis at Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, NovTSup 87 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 81. 58. Acts 1:2, 11, 22; Mark 16:19; 1 Tim 3:16. In Acts 10:16, the sheet is taken up into heaven. Other nonascension usage: Acts 7:43; 20:13, 14; 23:31.

188

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

emphasis, by way of the verb choice, falls on the ascension.59 This framing makes the crucifixion and resurrection preparatory for the ascension and prioritizes heaven, rather than Jerusalem, as the goal of Jesus’s redemptive journey.60 That may actually extend one step further when taking into account the reference to the “exodus” (ἔξοδος; 9:31) which Jesus, Moses, and Elijah discuss. Some commentators have linked 9:31 and 9:51, but without teasing out the typology, especially its spatial sense.61 If Jesus’s exodus refers to his coming death,62 then typologically, it leads God’s people out of their enslavement to sin. But that deliverance does not complete the journey. They still need to enter the promised land. Jesus’s being taken up into heaven completes that salvation journey, as he leads the way into the promised land. The ascension is the necessary conclusion of what happens in Jerusalem, even the point of it, in this exodus typology.63 This puts heaven—and Jesus taking his place there—as a narrative crux. On the other end of Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem, heaven attends his entry. The people cry out, “Peace in heaven, / and glory in the highest heaven” (ἐν οὐρανῷ εἰρήνη / καὶ δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις. 19:38), echoing the angels who greeted Jesus’s birth at 2:13. His coming into the world is linked with his coming into Jerusalem, encouraging readers to interpret them in light of each other. And in both cases, heaven is present. Heaven, too, is the source of John’s authority, and, mutatis 59. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991), 162 and Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:828 opt for the whole set of events. Pace I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978), 405 who reverses it and sees the emphasis on death. 60. Cf. Zwiep, Ascension of Messiah, 86 on framing the ascension as the goal; also, Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts, SBLMS 20 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), 115. Pace Bovon, Luke, 2:6 who sees the road leading to the passion. 61. E.g., Darrell L. Bock, Luke, 2 vols., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994–96), 2:968; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:826; Johnson, Luke, 164; Zwiep, Ascension of Messiah, 86. 62. Marshall, Luke, 384–85 points to Wis 3:2, 7:6; 2 Pet 1:15 for ἔξοδος referring to death (Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:800 adds Ant. 4.189). It may be that this refers to the entire salvation event (per, e.g., Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:800; Johnson, Luke, 153), but this typology certainly emphasizes the death. 63. Alternatively, Bovon, Luke, 1:376 sees Luke narrating the ascension as an exodus, on the basis of ἐξάγω in Luke 24:50. He could have strengthened his case with an appeal to Acts 7:36, 40; 13:17 where ἐξάγω is used for the exodus. This reading fails to convince, though, since Jesus in Luke 24:50 leads the disciples out of Jerusalem as preparation for the ascension rather than in reference to the event itself.

189

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

mutandis, of Jesus’s (20:3–4). That situates all that Jesus says and does as deriving its authority from heaven, where God reigns.64 Heaven thus functions as an overarching legitimation for Jesus in his mission. Clearly, heaven plays a critical role in the ascension and thus the narrative, but we will treat that below. On the other side of the ascension, as Sleeman has shown, heaven recurs regularly to shape the narrative of Acts. A violent wind blowing from heaven signals the coming of the Spirit (2:2).65 Coming so soon after the ascension, this reference connects back to Christ in heaven and points forward to his link with the Spirit.66 Because Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the Father, he can now pour out the Spirit (2:33). That Spirit will reach to everyone under heaven (2:5), which says more than just the whole inhabited world but also triangulates everyone with respect to the ascended Christ.67 Heaven is the necessary spatial reference point for the epoch-changing gift of the Spirit to all peoples. 68 Part of that shift comes in the realization that Jesus has become the only locus in salvation, “for there is no other name under heaven given by mortals by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Salvation history has shifted: the God of Israel still saves, but now “the name of Jesus is the exclusive means by which God’s saving power can be invoked and experienced.”69 This new stage is accompanied by heaven. Again, like 2:5, it probably denotes the universal, earthly reach of Jesus, but the connotation, in the flow of the narrative, includes divine authority and orients the action cosmologically. Jesus healing a paralytic in Luke 5 64. On the metonymy, see Pennington, “Heaven in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts,” 66; Eisen, Die Poetik der Apostelgeschichte, 166. On the evocation of authority as God’s throne in this passage, see Bryan, “Revised Cosmic Hierarchy.” 65. Also Luke 11:13. Pennington, “Heaven in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts,” 66n9 argues that ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον is better understood as locating the Spirit rather than the Father. 66. Sleeman, Geography, 94–96. 67. Ibid., 96–98. 68. The Spirit figures prominently in Luke-Acts, in Jesus’s conception (Luke 1:35) his life (3:22; 4:1, 18; Acts 10:38); conversion (8:15–17, 10:44–46, 19:1–7), individual believers (e.g., Peter, Acts 3:8; Stephen, 6:5, 7:55; Barnabas, 10:24; Paul, 13:19), and events (e.g., 10:19–20; 13:2, 4; 16:6; 20:22–23). The Spirit’s activity shows God’s involvement in what he has made, that this is not a cosmology of divine absence. On the Spirit in Luke-Acts, see Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). 69. David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 192. He draws attention to Paul’s similar challenge to Gentiles at 17:30–31. Ibid., 193.

190

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

demonstrated that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (5:24). Post-ascension, Peter and John healing a lame man at the Temple gate extends his salvation authority under heaven. 70 Heaven plays a critical role in Stephen’s encounter with the Sanhedrin and thus the subsequent scattering to mission. Stephen declares that he sees heaven open and “the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (7:56), not as an add-on to his speech, but its capstone, like Peter’s instructions at Pentecost in 2:38–40.71 He begins with the divine glory appearing to Abraham and closes with Jesus sharing in that glory.72 To this point, although the Sanhedrin reacted furiously, the trial continued on. But this heavenly vision drives the audience from rage to murder and turns a court case into a lynch mob. As he dies, Stephen prays to Jesus in a way that alludes to Jesus’s prayer on the cross: both ask for forgiveness for their murderers (Acts 7:60; Luke 23:34) and for the Lord to receive their spirit (Acts 7:59; Luke 23:46). The difference, of course, is that Jesus prayed to the Father while Stephen prays to Jesus. Because Jesus has ascended into heaven, he now shares the divine rule such that believers appropriately pray to him for God to act.73 In turn, Stephen’s death scatters believers from Jerusalem and impels some of their first cross-cultural mission, as the good news begins to come to Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1), echoing the programmatic verse 1:8. So, the vision from heaven, and its direct aftermath, moves the narrative forward. Paul encounters Jesus on the road to Damascus, and the narrative repeatedly calls attention to the heavenly character of the meeting. Paul saw a light from heaven (9:3, 22:6, 26:13), which shined like no earthly light: its considerable brightness blinded Paul (22:6, 11) because it shone brighter than the sun (26:13). Paul does not just see a light from heaven, he hears the voice of Jesus (9:27, 22:7, 26:14). Although the voice is not located, it is unmistakably Jesus who speaks, not just 70. 71. 72. 73.

Sleeman, Geography, 107. Ibid., 141. Peterson, Acts, 266. On a divine identity Christology, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: ‘God Crucified’ and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008).

191

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

God undifferentiated (9:5, 22:18, 26:15). Given the ascension, to hear Jesus means to hear him from heaven at God’s right hand. This heavenly vision exerts a huge influence on Acts because it decisively orientates the rest of Paul’s life. Jesus makes clear the purpose for which he appears to Paul (εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὤφθην σοι): to send him to tell Israel and the nations what he has heard and seen (26:16–17). Similarly, to the people in Jerusalem, Paul recounts Ananias’s commission that God has chosen him “to see the Righteous One and hear his voice from his mouth that you may witness for him to all the peoples what you have seen and heard” (22:14b–15).74 The content of the heavenly vision determines Paul’s mission. And Paul responds to that charge. He tells Agrippa, “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” (οὐκ ἐγενόμην ἀπειθὴς τῇ οὐρανίῳ ὀπτασίᾳ, 26:19) but, instead, goes to Damascus, Jerusalem, Judea, and the Gentiles with this message, a sequence that recalls Acts 1:8 for readers. Heaven sets the course for Paul’s life and ministry, which, in turn, largely shapes and carries forward the Acts narrative too.75 Heavenly visions drive the narrative of Acts, not just with Stephen and Paul, but also with Peter. Peter brings the gospel to Cornelius, and that event, and particularly its explanation and justification to believers in Jerusalem, opens the door for witnessing to Jesus to the ends of the earth. And that starts with heaven. Peter has a vision of a sheet with animals coming down from an opened heaven, with a divine voice speaking, and at the end, the sheet goes back to heaven (10:11–16). In Caesarea, heaven already has come to Cornelius too, though that remains an inference, since an angel appears to him and speaks of his prayers and alms coming before God (ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ, 10:3–4).76 These heavenly visions complement one another and, along with the Holy Spirit commanding Peter (10:20) and then coming upon the hearers (10:44), show in an almost exaggerated fashion how heaven 74. Author’s translation; ἰδεῖν τὸν δίκαιον καὶ ἀκοῦσαι φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἔσῃ μάρτυς αὐτῷ πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὧν ἑώρακας καὶ ἤκουσας. 75. Cf. Sleeman, Geography, 206. 76. On angels and heaven, see above. On ἔμπροσθεν, see Luke 12:8 before angels and 21:36 before the Son of Man.

192

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

directs the whole sequence. Moreover, when Peter recounts the story in Jerusalem, he magnifies its heavenly dimension.77 Again, heaven acts as an inclusion for the vision (11:5, 10), but now not just the sheet but the voice too comes explicitly from heaven (11:9). Moreover, the end of the heavenly vision and the arrival of the visitors are synchronized (“at that very moment,” ἰδοὺ ἐξαυτῆς, 11:11). This narrative development between the event and its retelling highlights the importance of heaven for legitimating key events. Heaven directs the inclusion of Gentiles and its justification to Jewish believers. Finally, all of this action is framed by the angelic promise that Jesus will come back from heaven the same way that he left (1:11). As Jesus himself says, the Son of Man will come in a cloud with power and great glory (Luke 21:27), signifying God’s own presence. Heaven, therefore, plays a crucial role throughout Luke-Acts. It heralds Jesus’s birth, declares and confirms his divine identity and vocation, frames the purpose of his death, grants his authority, receives him in glory, sends the Spirit, impels over and over the expansion of the gospel and God’s people, and eventually will send him back. Much of this could have been narrated without invoking place. Luke could have told the story with just God, but, repeatedly, it is not simply who but where that matters. This emphasis makes cosmology integral to the narrative and thus to the theological vision of Luke-Acts. That may be to corroborate and set the context for heaven’s centrality with regards to the ascension, to which we will come shortly. Reversal to Right Order The problem of the world’s disorder, under the sway of darkness and the demonic, must be changed. One way that Luke narrates God rightly ordering the world is as reversal, overturning the current state of affairs. Satan’s authority must be confronted and overcome. Paul’s speech before Agrippa captures this reversal well. The resurrectedascended Christ calls from heaven to Paul and charges him to go to 77. Ibid., 248.

193

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Israel and the nations “to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:18). Jesus had to shine brighter than any sun to open Paul’s eyes, and in turn, he sends Paul to do the same.78 Right order comes when people are rescued from darkness and Satan’s authority (ἐξουσίας). This is an eschatologically-shaped, cosmologically-framed reversal. Notice, too, the spatial language: God moves people from under the authority—sovereignty conceived in terms of place—of Satan to a place (κλῆρον) in Christ (26:18). What Paul explains before Agrippa, he exemplifies in his ministry on Cyprus, where he confronts the sorcerer Elymas (13:6–12),79 and again on Malta, when he shakes off the viper’s bite (28:4–6).80 Even more, it reflects Jesus’s parable where he, as the stronger man, overpowers Satan, ties him up, takes his armor, and plunders him (Luke 11:21–22). Salvation reverses the current, distorted, demonic, cosmic order. Cosmological signs of reversal accompany this change. We saw above the disorder at the destruction of the temple with signs in the sky and the heavenly powers shaken, as well as the darkness over the land at the cross. These cosmological disturbances visualize the disorder below. They make cosmologically apparent the divine disapproval of events. The signs from Joel 2 that Peter quotes at Pentecost are similar: “portents in the heaven above and signs on the earth below,” the sun turned to darkness, the moon to blood (Acts 2:19, 20). Yet they function in a slightly different way. Greg Beale argues that this OT cosmological disruption language is usually figurative for the destruction of one political order and the emergence of another.81 That same dynamic plays out in Joel 2 and Acts 2, though the change to a new order is not just a political configuration but the supra-political kingdom of God. The cosmological signs show the breaking apart of the 78. C. Kavin Rowe, World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 86 captures this reversal well but highlights only the resurrection, rather than explicitly bringing the ascension into the picture too. 79. Pao, Acts and Isaianic, 201–2 draws from this incident a definition “of the Pauline mission as one that defeats the power of evil and challenges false claims of deity.” 80. On Paul’s victory over the demonic here, see Jipp, Divine Visitations and Hospitality in Luke-Acts, 261–64. 81. Beale, Temple and Church’s Mission, 212. Isaiah 24 particularly shows this dynamic.

194

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

old order and the coming of the new order, when the Spirit is poured out and “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21). These signs, therefore, show cosmologically the reversal of disorder, how God now comes to begin to set things right. The earthquake in Philippi functions in a similar way. Paul and Silas lay in prison, singing hymns, when an earthquake shakes the prison, unchaining the prisoners (Acts 16:25–26). Perhaps this represents a reversal of the magistrates beating and imprisoning them, an injustice at multiple levels in the narrative. God frees Paul and Silas because they legitimately should go free. The earthquake stands against the underlying social-moral disorder that imprisoned the missionaries, but it also reverses it, not least because it opens up the way for salvation to come to the jailer and his household.82 This theo-cosmological reversal is part of a wider theme of reversal in Luke-Acts.83 It starts with God’s character, for he shows kindness to the ungrateful and the wicked (Luke 6:35). It runs through salvation, as the poor, crippled, blind, lame come to the feast of the kingdom of God, rather than those originally invited (14:15–24). It has a social-politicaleconomic dimension: the positions of Lazarus and the rich man in the afterlife reverse (16:25). Mary’s song celebrates how God brings rulers down from their thrones but lifts up the humble (1:52). Yet this reversal sits alongside the promise-fulfillment motif. God helps Israel in line with his promise to their ancestors (1:54–55), but he fulfills it in unexpected ways, like including the Gentiles.84 For God to be faithful and remember his promises requires that he reverse the current order. This engagement reflects how cosmology is done for the sake of engaging with wider moral-political realities. Telling about the order—or disorder—of the heavens may reify or critique the socialpolitical order. What Luke narrates in terms of the social-political 82. On the shaking of Acts 4:31, see below. 83. For a recent summary of this theme, see John T. Carroll, “The Gospel of Luke: A Contemporary Cartography,” Int. 68 (2014): 369–74. 84. Peter Mallen, “Genesis in Luke-Acts,” in Genesis in the New Testament, ed. M. J. J. Menken and Steven Moyise, LNTS 466 (London: Bloomsbury, 2012), 81–82. Concern for the Gentiles is prefigured in OT examples which Jesus highlights (e.g., 4:26–27; 11:32), begins to dawn in Jesus’s ministry (e.g., 7:9; 13:28), and comes to fruition in Acts (e.g., 1:8; 9:15; 10:44–46; 13:46–47; 28:28).

195

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

order is not a reversal, and yet, it is.85 Luke consistently argues believers are not a seditious, treasonous threat against Rome. They are vindicated before the Sanhedrin, who cannot find real fault with them (Acts 4:18–21, 5:40), and then a parade of Roman authorities (18:12–17, 19:40, 25:26–27, 26:31–32, 28:18). At this level, there is no reversal because Christians can live in and alongside the world without threat. At a deeper level, though, believers do represent a challenge. Their proclamation and way of life calls for a reversal of the current order. To a disordered world, therefore, it does look like they are turning the world upside down (17:6; cf. 24:5). To people who themselves are upside down, believers cannot help but be seen as reversing the way things are supposed to be. How then does this match the cosmology of Luke-Acts? The cosmology, too, points to the need for a fundamental reversal. The darkness over Golgotha must be changed to light by the resurrected-ascended Christ. The signs of cosmological disorder mirror the social-moral disorder that would crucify an innocent man. But from another angle, cosmological reversal does not tell the whole story. The question becomes what sort of reversal does Luke narrate. Restoration of Right Order Reversal is not the only lens in Luke-Acts through which to understand God putting the world right. Restoration complements reversal; in fact, it is a reversal through restoration. The change from darkness to light, from Satan to Christ, represents not a hostile takeover but the reclamation of the world by its rightful power and authority, bringing it back in line with its original intent. Despite Satan’s claims to authority, partly right though they are, Luke shows how Jesus has ultimate authority in his teaching (Luke 4:32), over the spirits (4:36), over the Sabbath (6:5), over cosmological elements such as winds and water (8:22), and, particularly, to forgive sins (5:24). That authority comes from heaven (20:1–8), from which God reigns as rightful king 85. For this complex assessment, see now Rowe, World Upside Down, on whom this paragraph draws.

196

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

over the universe (Acts 7:49). Heaven’s role in driving the overall narrative is part of legitimating this reversal as reclamation, showing that it reflects the will of the proper cosmic authority. The same holds true for the pattern of references to God as creator, particularly in Acts. God’s work as creator means the cosmic reversal from Satan to God restores the right order that was intended from the beginning. Examining this pattern will help demonstrate the underlying importance of cosmology for the theological vision of Luke-Acts. In Acts 4, the nascent church faces its first political opposition. In response, they pray to the Sovereign Lord (δέσποτα),86 “who made the heaven and the earth, the sea and everything in them” (4:24). They quote Psalm 146:6 (145:6 OG), which appeals to God as creator in contrast to human authorities who cannot help the oppressed.87 Faced with the Sanhedrin’s challenge to their legitimacy and legality, the believers use Psalm 146 to appeal to God in the widest horizon, relativizing all other space and authority. As creator, he has the power to deliver them,88 which he demonstrates by shaking their meeting place (Acts 4:31). Opposition on earth does not drive God away, and this place remains “under heaven.”89 This cosmological sign validates their trust in God as Lord of creation. It may be a sign of disorder with reference to the Sanhedrin’s opposition and also a sign of right order breaking in. The God of the universe empowers his people to withstand the rulers of the current disordered world. This cosmological truth and sign, along with the filling of the Spirit, encourage them to keep speaking God’s word (4:31). Stephen appeals to God’s cosmic authority over heaven and earth, as its maker, in order to reverse the significance placed on the temple (Isa 66:1-2 in Acts 7:49-50). No human construction can serve as a dwelling place for him (7:48). That reversal of the human valuation of the temple restores proper worship of the God who surpasses the creation. His glory extends over the universe, from Mesopotamia (7:2) 86. 87. 88. 89.

Marshall, “Acts,” 552 cites Wis 13:3, 9 for a similar use of δέσποτης with regards to creation. Peterson, Acts, 199; Marshall, “Acts,” 552. Pao, Acts and Isaianic, 211. Sleeman, Geography, 119.

197

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

to heaven (7:55). Given the economic importance of the temple, too, such a challenge would also have economic-political implications. Cosmology re-sets how to relate to God in the widest frame and reorients proper worship. Paul’s encounters with the pagan world, Kavin Rowe has argued, feature a recurring appeal to God in cosmological terms. Such appeals constitute a challenge to reverse the basic structures of pagan life.90 God has made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that they contain, which rules out, therefore, the Lystran attempts at sacrifice (14:15). To the Athenians, Paul proclaims God as the maker of all that exists and thus its Lord (17:24). This claim challenges Roman imperial power which asserted sovereignty—and thus divinity—for ultimate lordship.91 God’s role as giver and sustainer of life means he has no need of human service (17:25), which critiques the whole edifice of idolatry. Demetrius reports that Paul teaches that gods made by human hands are no gods, and thus, the silversmith astutely recognizes the threat to the economic and political power of the Artemis temple (19:26). Rightly identifying God as the creator—unlike what he has made, and not contained by it—underwrites and fundamentally defines the challenge of the gospel to paganism.92 It reverses the whole pagan cultural matrix. Yet it also restores the world to the God who made it. So crucial does good cosmology prove that Paul can make it integral to the gospel. The good news he and Barnabas proclaim in Lystra calls people to turn from worthless idols to the living God, whose identity is proved by his work as the creator (14:15). These references are spread through Paul’s encounters with the Greco-Roman world, and nowhere does he present a cosmology proper. Nonetheless, this cosmology from the side bears crucial importance for Luke-Acts. It may appear piecemeal in presentation, yet it forms a mosaic with theology, ecclesiology, ethics, and worship, and so helps constitute the whole theological message. What then does restoration from a cosmological perspective look 90. See particularly the summary at Rowe, World Upside Down, 141–42. 91. Ibid., 110–11. Also, Pao, Acts and Isaianic, 182. 92. Rowe, World Upside Down, 50. Pao, Acts and Isaianic, 181–216 shows at the same time how Isaiah 40–55 helps shape this critique.

198

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

like? It does not start from zero, of course, since darkness does not eclipse God’s involvement in the world. He has sustained it with rain from heaven (14:17) gives life to all (17:25), and established all peoples in their places, in order to create the opportunity for relationship (17:26–27). Jesus’s ministry brings this work of restoration to the fore. Exorcism, which we have already seen as reversal, is also restorative. The man beset by a legion of demons, once freed, puts on clothes and is “in his right mind” (σωφρονοῦντα, Luke 8:35). In fact, Jesus defines his wider ministry in terms of creational restoration. He selects Isaiah 61:1–2a to read at the synagogue in Nazareth with its keynote of freedom for the oppressed and sight for the blind (4:18–19). Similarly, when John the Baptist questions whether Jesus is the coming one, Jesus answers that “the blind receive sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them” (7:22). This recitation testifies to how virtually all of Jesus’s miracles are “miracles of restoration—restoration to health, restoration to life, restoration to freedom from demonic possession.”93 They point to what creation looks like, freed from Satan and sin, under its creator again. The idea of salvation as restoration comes to the fore in Acts 3. Peter calls on his hearers to repent and turn to God, which will bring, then, the removal of sins, times of refreshing, and the sending of the Messiah, Jesus. But for now, “it is necessary for him to remain in heaven until the time of the restoration of all things” (δεῖ οὐρανὸν μὲν δέξασθαι ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων, AT 3:21). What is restored? Given the parallel to 1:6, with the cognate verb ἀποκαθιστάνεις, in the first instance, likely Israel is in view. But Peter redefines Israel in 3:23 and broadens the scope to the whole world in 3:25,94 which tips toward seeing a wider sense of at least all people, but likely all creation.95 What does that restoration of all things entail? 93. Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 62. 94. Sleeman, Geography, 109–10. 95. Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 177; and, more guardedly, C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–98), 1:206. Contra Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical

199

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

The noun ἀποκαταστάσωες appears only here in the NT and denotes perfection or a “change to a previous good state.”96 For example, Eleazar wishes for restoration of the Septuagint translators to Jerusalem (Let. Aris. 123), and Darius follows through on Cyrus’s plans for restoration of the Jews (Ant. 11.63). They return things to their prior state. Philo, though, uses it slightly differently in his exegesis of Genesis 15:16 on the “complete restoration of the soul” (Her. 293). The soul goes through four generations, from infancy via sin and the passions to learning philosophy then, finally, to when virtue has blossomed, sin is turned back, and the soul becomes heir of wisdom (293–299). That final state of wisdom and self-control exceeds the first state that was like smooth wax without impression of good or evil. This restoration, therefore, is more than just a return to a previous good state, but rather, a development and flourishing to something greater. The restoration in Acts 3 seems to fit this more expansive sense, with its removal of sin, which takes things back to their original state, but then, beyond that, the times of refreshing, the universal scope, and messianic return. The restoration of all things pushes them to a better place than they were originally.97 Until this time of restoration, heaven must keep Christ.98 Commentators tend not to discuss why it is heaven where he must remain (δεῖ οὐρανὸν μὲν δέξασθαι).99 But our previous discussion suggests that this remaining aligns heaven and the risen Christ so that they act together with rightful authority now and when he returns. The universal vision of restoring all things is possible because Christ reigns from heaven. Looking forward to his return connects Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 187. This would be strengthened if the Genesis 3 allusions detected by Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger in Acts 3:1–2 were valid, but they seem too faint to hold (Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition, JSNTSup 257 [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 210–11). 96. Danker et al., Greek-English Lexicon, 112 and Louw-Nida 13.65, respectively. 97. Pace Bock, Acts, 177 who speaks of pristination. 98. It makes more sense to take ἄχρι as “until,” as Luke does elsewhere, either temporally (Luke 1:20; 4:13; 17:27; 21:24; Acts 1:2; 2:29; 7:18; 13:11; 20:11; 22:4, 22; 23:1; 26:22; 27:33) or spatially (Acts 11:5; 13:6; 28:15). Only Acts 20:6 differs and might be taken as “after.” Contra Pao, Acts and Isaianic, 134–35 who takes restoration and times of refreshing as equivalent, both referring to what the Spirit does now. 99. E.g., Barrett, Acts, 1:205; Peterson, Acts, 182. On the theme of necessity, see Bock, Theology of Luke and Acts, 140–41.

200

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

eschatology to cosmology. What God made in the beginning, he will heal and perfect at the end. Cosmology sets out the tracks on which eschatology runs. From the other end, eschatology shapes cosmology because the Areopagus speech culminates in the coming judgment by Jesus whom God has raised from the dead (17:31). That means cosmology must make space for the resurrection and the ascension. 100 The right order of the world is theo-cosmological. God creates and sustains heaven and earth, and thus challenges the fundamental distortion of idolatry. From the other end, this creative work undergirds salvation as a restoration of what God intended from the beginning. This cosmology under God should have an ethical impact: it can strengthen the church against opposition, establish right worship, challenge economic structures, undermine political ideologies, and open the opportunity for relationship with the living God. In an upside down world, that theo-cosmological vision must also be a reversal. Luke 10:21 pulls it together well: Jesus thanks God as the “Lord of heaven and earth” who hides the things of salvation “from the wise and the intelligent and has revealed them to infants.” God rules over the world, and given its dark, disordered condition, that can only be accomplished by reversing the way things are. The Union of Heaven and Earth Visible and Not Visible Heaven The connection of cosmology and eschatology through restoration, as well as the narrative role of heaven, the home of the ascended Christ, raises the question of heaven and earth and the place of the ascension in this theo-cosmological vision of Luke-Acts. Luke, alongside other NT writers, uses heaven language to denote both the visible, created realm and the non-visible, divine realm.101 We have seen how heaven is the place where God dwells (Luke 2:13–15; Acts 7:49), where Christ now 100. Rowe, World Upside Down, 39. 101. See especially Pennington, “Heaven in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts,” 65–74. The slightly clunky “non-visible” language, instead of invisible, is to avoid contemporary connotations that equate invisible with imaginary and to account for how the resurrected Jesus is now in heaven.

201

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

remains (Acts 7:55–56), and its crucial role in the theological narrative. In line with this, heaven is the place of salvation. The seventy-two should rejoice that their names are written in heaven (Luke 10:20), and if the young ruler sells everything, gives the proceeds to the poor, and follows Jesus, he will have treasure in heaven (18:22). Salvation is in heaven because it is God’s place, where his glory and his presence reside, so it is the place of peace (Luke 19:38).102 Yet to think of salvation, therefore, as up there in heaven and removed from the earth does not rightly locate it because the two are meant eventually to be joined. Christ remains in heaven only until the restoration (Acts 3:21), at which point, he will return in divine glory, the same way he left (Luke 21:27; Acts 1:11). Luke uses οὐρανός for the visible, created heavens, the skies above. While this usage is well known, its significance theologically for LukeActs may not be.103 Jesus refers to the birds of heaven in his parables, and such birds figure in Peter’s vision of the sheet (Luke 8:5, 9:58, 13:19; Acts 10:12, 11:6). The NRSV consistently translates οὐρανός as “air,” whereas the NIV simply omits it. God kindly gives rain from heaven (οὐρανόθεν) and crops in their seasons (Acts 14:17). The range of ethnic groups in Jerusalem for Pentecost is described as people from every nation under heaven, meaning something like the created celestial realm (Acts 2:5).104 In these instances, “heaven” refers to the visible, created realm above, the sky or space. Contemporary English has moved away from using “heaven” with a created referent. Pennington points out that “all men under heaven” sounds archaic and odd for modern ears.105 What was part of the semantic domain for οὐρανός for Luke, therefore, has moved to the edge for “heaven” in English. The loss in understanding comes when we consider those instances 102. Also, Luke 12:33; 15:7, 10; 16:9, 19–31; 23:42–43. 103. Walton, “‘The Heavens Opened’,” 61n3 excludes from his study the use of οὐρανός for sky or air in order to focus “on those of greater cosmological and theological significance.” He does note a few cases of the overlap of the created and divine realms, but this methodological decision obscures their cosmological significance. 104. See above for the further narrative connotation of this language post-ascension. 105. Pennington, “Heaven in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts,” 79.

202

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

where οὐρανός has an intentional ambiguity, referring to both the visible, created sky and the non-visible, divine realm.106 Jesus looks up to heaven, meaning the sky but also where God dwells, when he gives thanks for the bread and fish (Luke 9:16), whereas the tax collector will not look up to heaven when praying (18:13). At Jesus’s baptism, the heavens open, which refers to the divine approval but also the Spirit coming down in physical form like a dove (3:21–22). The sheet in Peter’s vision comes visibly from the created heaven but also from God as it gives his instructions to regard Gentiles as clean (Acts 10:11, 16). The ascension itself, of course, demonstrates this overlap. Jesus is taken up before the disciples’ eyes and hidden behind a cloud as he is taken into God’s presence (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9, 11). Judgment also comes from heaven, both when heaven is shut for drought in Elijah’s time (Luke 4:25), and when heaven opens to rain down fire and sulfur on Sodom (17:29).107 Whether open or shut, the divine realm—and by that, the God who dwells there—judges by means of the created sky. If Jesus’s contemporaries could read the signs of earth and heaven, but not what happens in their midst (12:56), we, on the other hand, can discern the divine referent for οὐρανός but not read the signs when it refers to the created realm. This lexical-semantic ambiguity for οὐρανός as both created sky and divine realm is important because it represents a wider theo-cosmological theme: the conjunction of the unseen and the seen, the union of heaven and earth, to which we will come. The Earth in Universal Scope When it comes to the earth itself, Luke-Acts emphasizes its totality. Luke has a special focus on the whole inhabited world.108 God thought

106. Many of these references can also be found in ibid., 72–74. 107. Ibid., 65 classifies this only as visible realm, but the activity of judgment pushes toward seeing overlap (per Walton, “‘The Heavens Opened’,” 62). Luke 9:54 also fits into this judgment pattern. 108. James M. Scott, “Luke’s Geographical Horizon,” in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, ed. David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf , vol. 2 of The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 524–25. Cf. Edwards, Luke, 735–38 on the universal scope of the gospel for Luke. This does not deny Luke’s particular interest in Jerusalem, a topic which has aroused much interest. For a helpful summary and balanced view, see Parsons, “Place of Jerusalem on the Lukan Landscape.”

203

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

universally from the beginning, making all nations from one man to inhabit the whole earth (Acts 17:26). Through Abraham’s seed, blessing would come to all the families of the earth (3:25). That universal scope is necessary because Satan has authority over all the kingdoms of the world (Luke 4:5). Up to that point, God had let all nations go their own way (Acts 14:16), which puts a benign, evangelistic spin on what elsewhere can be phrased more ominously.109 But in answer, God has prepared his salvation in the sight of all peoples, for both the nations and Israel (Luke 2:31–32). The inclusio to that verse comes when Jesus instructs the disciples to proclaim repentance and forgiveness in his name to all nations (Luke 24:47).110 Again, he charges them to be his witnesses in Jerusalem, all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).111 That mission begins in earnest at Pentecost to “devout Jews from every nation under heaven” in Jerusalem (2:5), continues into Judea and Samaria in the aftermath of Stephen’s death, and then begins to penetrate the wider world, particularly as Paul and Barnabas resolve to be a light for the Gentiles, in order to “bring salvation to the ends of the earth,” that same Isaianic phrase from 1:8 (ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς, 13:47). The book ends on a similarly expansive note, as Paul again declares salvation has come to the Gentiles and he welcomes and evangelizes all who come to him (28:30–31). Poignantly, Paul tells the Jewish leaders in Rome that it is for “the hope of Israel” that he is “bound with this chain” (28:20). Paul frames his message in terms of the particularity of his people and their history, yet that has brought him in “this chain” to the imperial capital. The God of Israel has universal scope. What universal means, though, for the church and its mission differs from Rome’s understanding. Scott contrasts the Augustan decree for a census that goes out from the center of the Roman world to the ends of the earth (Luke 2:1–2) with the decree of the resurrected king Jesus 109. E.g., Acts 4:25–27, the nations rage against the Messiah and crucified him; Acts 26:17–18, Jews and Gentiles both live in darkness and under the authority of Satan. 110. Edwards, Luke, 736. 111. On the geographic and ethnic extent of this calling, see the summary by Bock, Theology of Luke and Acts, 137–40.

204

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

that goes out from the center of the world, in Jewish conception, to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).112 Moreover, that decree immediately takes in areas that do not fall within the Roman world, such as Parthia (2:9) and Ethiopia (8:27).113 Jesus’s vision for the ends of the earth outstrips Rome’s. But the vision actually extends one step further because those ends of the earth must be situated with respect to heaven, from where Jesus directs the progress of his decree.114 Heaven and Earth Together Luke uses heaven and earth together to point to the union, rather than the opposition, between these parts of the universe. Repeatedly, he pairs “heaven” and “earth” (typically, οὐρανός and γῆ) to show them in conjunction. Often, heaven and earth function as a merism to express the totality of the created universe. In such cases, οὐρανός refers to the visible, created sky. Frequently, God is acclaimed as the creator and Lord of heaven and earth (Luke 10:21; Acts 17:24, 4:24, 14:15).115 Heaven and earth will prove less durable than Jesus’s words or even a letter in the Mosaic Law (Luke 21:33, 16:17). Signs may appear in heaven and earth, either inscrutable or intelligible (Luke 12:56; Acts 2:19).116 Occasionally, heaven and earth language does not function as a merism, yet what happens in the two realms is in harmony, whether negatively, like drought from the sky and famine in the land (Luke 4:25), or positively, like glory in the highest heaven (ἐν ὑψίστοις) and peace on earth (2:14). Luke does not use heaven and earth in a contrastive sense. Acts 7:49 comes perhaps the closest by distinguishing between God reigning in heaven versus dwelling on earth, but at best, this is a soft contrast, and

112. 113. 114. 115.

Scott, “Luke’s Geographical Horizon,” 543. Ibid., 523. Cf. the critique by Sleeman, Geography, 58–59 of “earthbound” readings of Acts. The merisms in Acts 4:24; 14:15, drawing on Ps 145:6 OG and Exod 20:11, include the sea and all the things in these three areas. 116. Cf. Luke 21:25 does not use οὐρανός, but the distress in the sun, moon, stars, and earth expresses the same idea of the whole creation and shows conjunction between them. So also, 21:26 shows a harmony, albeit of fear and disorder, between the inhabited world (οἰκουμένη) and the powers of heaven (δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν).

205

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

probably more complementary, as both show his sovereignty, only in different modes.117 The sheet that moves from heaven to earth does not contrast the two but simply follows the object’s physical trajectory and highlights heaven to connote the authority of this vision (Acts 10:11).118 In Luke 12:33, Jesus implies a contrast between heaven and some other, unnamed place where treasure does wear out and is stolen. Presumably the contrast is with earth, but the absence of “earth” language is noteworthy precisely because a contrast could have been drawn but is not. This lack of contrast between heaven and earth for Luke becomes more striking in comparison with Matthew. Pennington has explored how Matthew introduces multiple contrastive pairs of heaven and earth (whereas his merismatic usage typically also occurs in Q or the triple-tradition).119 One parallel may prove instructive. In Matthew 6:10, disciples should pray for God’s will to be done “on earth as it is in heaven.” That contrast implies opposition now, although it also looks ahead to their harmony.120 However the source-critical question is decided, this language fits with “typical Matthean phraseology.”121 Luke, though, records the request for the kingdom to come, without any cosmological contrast (11:2). He simply does not divide or oppose heaven and earth language. Luke still draws a contrast conceptually between heaven as God’s realm and this world, as it lies under the authority of Satan. Yet he does not express it in heaven and earth language. Instead, with that terminology, he emphasizes their union, both now and to come. The cosmological opposition comes not between heaven and earth but between heaven and Hades (Luke 10:15).122 Luke speaks of hell and related realms of death very sparingly, and whatever opposition there 117. So Walton, “‘The Heavens Opened’,” 63; pace Pennington, Heaven and Earth, 201–2. 118. Walton, “‘The Heavens Opened’,” 63 overreads the significance of the physical movement here and at Acts 9:3–4. 119. Pennington, Heaven and Earth, 72. By his count on p. 193, Matthew has far more instances of the “heaven and earth” pair, over 20, as compared to Mark’s two (13:27, 31) and Luke’s five (to which add 2:14 [ὕψιστος] and five in Acts). 120. Ibid., 202. 121. Ibid., 152. 122. Eisen, Die Poetik der Apostelgeschichte, 176.

206

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

is, it should be clear by now, is decidedly asymmetrical in favor of heaven.123 The usage of heaven and earth language to highlight their union, along with the intentional overlap of οὐρανός for created and divine realms, sets the stage for the role of the ascension in this theocosmological vision. The Ascension in the Theological-Cosmological Vision of Luke-Acts How does the ascension fit within this way of telling Luke’s narrativetheology through a cosmological lens? The ascension, and the resurrection with which it is necessarily connected, is a crux of the theo-cosmological vision of Luke-Acts. It displays the union of heaven and earth, the unseen and seen, and it paradigmatically expresses the process of the restoration of right order by means of the reversal of the current order. First, the Jesus who ascends is physically embodied. He shows the disciples his hands and feet, asks them to touch him, and eats broiled fish in front of them (Luke 24:37–43). Peter describes the resurrection appearances in a very physical, tangible way, that Jesus appeared to those “who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (Acts 10:41). The same Jesus who appeared to the disciples ascends physically before their eyes, and the angels promise continuity in his return (Acts 1:9–11). The materiality of the resurrection and ascension ties in with the larger theo-cosmological vision, particularly the overlapping referent of οὐρανός for the visible, created realm and the non-visible divine realm, and the union of heaven and earth. The ascension requires this conjunction of realms to make sense on Luke’s terms. The visible, embodied Jesus has gone to the non-visible divine realm at the right hand of God. At the right hand of God, the embodied Jesus now displays heavenly glory. He chides the two disciples on the road to Emmaus for not seeing how the Messiah must suffer and then enter his glory (Luke 24:26).124 Peter testifies that God has glorified his servant Jesus (Acts 123. Hades, 10:15; 16:23, 26; hell, 12:5; Abyss, 8:31; and an indeterminate place where Judas went, Acts 1:25.

207

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

3:13), and Stephen proclaims he sees Jesus standing at God’s right hand, which Luke narrates as a vision of the glory of God (7:56, 55). This is an embodied glory. The glory that belongs to God in his heavenly existence (e.g., Luke 2:14; Acts 7:2) now is true of a resurrected human being. The ascension makes clear that the human problem consists not in being human but in sin, a moral rather than ontological challenge.125 The ascension truly joins the divine and human, the unseen and seen. We saw how the process of God putting the world right could be narrated through a theo-cosmological lens as a reversal of the current disorder. The resurrection-ascension presents the greatest reversal of the world’s disorder. The apostles consistently portray Jesus’s crucifixion as unjust, without cause, and murderous (Acts 3:13–15, 17; 7:52–53; 13:28). But God reverses that judgment by raising Jesus from the dead and glorifying him. The stone that the Jewish leaders, as the builders, rejected, has become the cornerstone (Ps 118:22 in Luke 20:17–18; Acts 4:11). The narrative high point for Peter’s Pentecost sermon comes as he quotes Ps 110:1 and then drives home the point: “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah” (NIV Acts 2:36).126 God shows the bankruptcy of the world’s judgments and overturns them, not just by raising Jesus from the dead, but by glorifying him at his right hand. The exalted Jesus visually shows “that God has begun the ultimate reversal of the current order.”127 This reversal, though, fits within a larger narrative of God’s faithfulness and the continuity of his plan. This is not quite the same as restoration of God’s creational intentions, but they are connected. The apostles’ early sermons to Jewish audiences tell a story of continuity and hold up Jesus’s resurrection as the culmination of God’s promises. When David prophesied in Psalm 16 that the Messiah would not see 124. Luke’s Gospel does not address whether Jesus at this point has entered that glory, or it still awaits the ascension. This raises the question whether the exaltation belongs more to the resurrection or the ascension, or whether that creates a false dichotomy. On this question, see Arie W. Zwiep, “Ascension Scholarship: Past, Present, and Future,” ch. 1 in this volume. 125. Andy Johnson, “Our God Reigns: The Body of the Risen Lord in Luke 24,” WW 22 (2002): 147. 126. Cf. Acts 2:24; 3:15; 10:39–40. 127. Johnson, “Our God Reigns,” 140.

208

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

decay but instead experience resurrection, he showed how God would keep his promise of one of his descendants sitting on his throne (Acts 2:30–31). Similarly, Paul quotes from Psalms 2, 16, and Isaiah 55 as proof that “what God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus” (Acts 13:32–33). In Jerusalem and Caesarea, Paul tactically attributes the reason he is on trial to his hope in the resurrection of the dead, a hope he shares with other Pharisees (23:6), his accusers (24:15), and with all the twelve tribes, a hope based on God’s promises to their ancestors (26:6–7). In raising Jesus from the dead, God, therefore, has kept his word and fulfilled his promises. That ties in thematically with the concept of restoration in terms of intention and continuity. It also affirms God’s ongoing commitment to what he has made. The emphasis in Acts on God as creator of heaven and earth finds its complement in his raising Jesus bodily and appointing him as eschatological judge. The theo-cosmological event of the ascension crowns what Jesus has done to combat and overturn the authority of Satan. In the face of the high priest’s prohibition not to teach in Jesus’s name, Peter and the apostles protest that they must obey God, and God has “exalted him [Jesus] at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). This infinitive (τοῦ δοῦναι) indicates that the purpose of the exaltation is so that salvation can come. If heaven was already the source of salvation (e.g., Luke 10:20; 12:33), then the ascension raises that to another level. This link between Jesus ascending to heaven and giving salvation fits with the overall narrative significance of heaven. Satan claimed authority over the kingdoms of the world (Luke 4:5–7), but Jesus has now been acclaimed in the ascension as Lord, and God has ordained him “as judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42). As the glorified Lord in heaven, he directs the fulfillment of his command that this good news be carried to all the kingdoms of the world. Finally, the ascension reveals and reconfigures how God is known. Paul’s defense before Agrippa for what he calls the universal Jewish hope in the resurrection of the dead raises the underlying ontological

209

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

question for those who disbelieve, yet accept God as revealed in scripture: “Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?” (Acts 26:8) God’s nature has a significant impact on the question of the resurrection-ascension. That has already been shown for the larger cosmological question with the emphasis on God as creator. Who God is, particularly in his faithfulness to his promises and commitment to creation, renders it plausible that he would raise the dead. Put another way, God’s nature shapes how to approach cosmology. Starting from the other end is valid, though, as well. The resurrection-ascension shapes the theology proper of Luke-Acts. A human being is now glorified at God’s right hand, which reshapes how “God is to be seen, understood, and known.”128 There is a strong break between God and all that he has made, and yet that break is not absolute, because a human being now embodies divine glory.129 As believers pray to and worship the ascended Jesus, they show how he is now included in the divine identity (Luke 24:52; Acts 7:59–60).130 The interplay of the ascension and the wider cosmology of Luke-Acts is extensive. Heaven drives the story of Jesus from birth to death and then in spreading the knowledge of him, and the ascension serves as the pivot point for heaven’s role. The ascension reverses the world’s disorder in line with God’s deeper purposes as Lord and creator. The harmony of heaven and earth prepares the way for the ascension, which in turn acts as the capstone for that union. Finally, if the ascension is to be intelligible, it needs the overlap of the visible and non-visible referents for heaven, and at the same time, that overlap is best exemplified by the presence of a physical human being in the unseen realm of God. The cosmology of Luke-Acts is necessary for making sense of the ascension, and the ascension is integral to that cosmology.

128. Cf. Walton, “‘The Heavens Opened’,” 71. 129. By not taking sufficient account of the ascension, Rowe, World Upside Down, 50 overplays this break. 130. On worship as a key indicator of the divine identity in Judaism and early Christianity, see Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 11–13, 127–51.

210

LUKAN COSMOLOGY AND THE ASCENSION

Conclusion: Luke’s Re-Drawn Map We return to the challenge raised by the Cartographers for Social Equality: How do we map the world, and where does that map place us for how we live? Luke, in his two volumes, draws a new map of the world expansively, but from the side. He gives a prominent place to heaven to shape the action and draws heaven and earth together in harmony. It is easy to imagine how his new map might draw the question, “What the hell is that?” from onlookers. Pagan idolaters would struggle to recognize the acclamation of God as creator and Lord of heaven and earth, distinct from what he has made. Luke’s union of heaven and earth differs from how they would hold together the divine and the human. The Sanhedrin would struggle over the honored inclusion of Gentiles in this map. And many Gentiles and Jews would have the same bewildered, frustrated reaction to the place of the ascended Jesus. This map places neither Rome nor Jerusalem at the center, but instead, the ascended Jesus in heaven, directing the action to the ends of the earth. This new map might as well have drawn all the countries upside-down for as much sense as it would make at first glance. To all these bewildered or frustrated responses, we can imagine Luke responding, “It’s where you’ll be living from now on.” For this redrawn map represents a temporal shift too. The old map would have shown all the kingdoms of this world shaded with dark tones, perhaps harder to pick out in their distinctiveness. Maybe the lines themselves would be jumbled to show the disorder and chaos. The old map needed overturning. Or turning right side up. But Luke might also respond, “It’s where you’ve been living this whole time.” Because this map actually is right side up, and it places God as creator in the place he had all along but which was obscured. Finally, Luke might sign up for the Cartographers for Social Equality’s mandate for change. He too would see the power of rightly drawn maps to shape how we live. For this map should replot the church and empower it with this universal vision, in the power of the

211

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Spirit of a God active in what he has made, to bring the whole world under heaven.131

131. My thanks to the editors, Pete Myers, and Jonathan Pennington for their feedback and help on this chapter.

212

10

The Ascension as a Cultic Experience in Acts

Rick Strelan

In this essay, I propose that the Acts narrative of the ascension of Jesus (1:6–11) derived from, and was shaped by, the cultic and devotional practices of Luke’s audiences. In these practices, they experienced, often in visions, the exalted Jesus as the ascending Lord. Rather than the narrative determining the practices, these visionary experiences determined the narrative. In this, I imitate to a degree the argument of Hurtado that some early Christians experienced Jesus as Lord in a worship setting, and it was from that experience of him that they developed their christological understandings.1 The priority and

1. Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988); and, Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

213

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

significance of such experiences is increasingly accepted by scholars; Kaiser provides a relevant, recent example: The simplest explanation for the fact that Jesus was confessed as YHWH in the New Testament would be that the first disciples experienced a manifestation of YHWH in a glorious anthropic (humanlike) form and that (at some point) they recognized the face and voice as those of their teacher.2

I have tentatively suggested elsewhere that the Acts ascension narrative has a eucharistic Sitz im Leben, or at least, might have rung eucharistic bells in the ears of the audience.3 I now wish to explore that possibility further, expanding the context to include other cultic service (λειτουργία). Such an understanding of the relation between devotional experience and narrative would have implications for the reading of the whole of Acts. For a long time, scholarship gave probably too much attention to Acts as historiography. More recently, however, narrative and broader literary approaches have shifted the focus. The work of Parsons4 and Sleeman5 in this regard provides a useful background to this essay. Sleeman argues that ascension scholarship has not focused enough on the ascension “within Acts as a narrative whole.”6 He also suggests that Acts understands space as having three levels, and he uses the notion of “thirdspace” in an attempt to understand what to most Westerners are difficult dichotomies between “heaven” and “earth” and between “presence” and “absence.”7 It was to this “thirdspace” Christians believed Jesus had “ascended” to operate in all “spaces” as Lord. So it was the heavenly Lord who was present and active within the lives of individuals and of communities, especially when they came together for their cultic service. This chapter suggests that the language of the ascension narrative reflects 2. Christopher Barina Kaiser, Seeing the Lord’s Glory: Kyriocentric Visions and the Dilemma of Early Christology (Fortress Press, 2014), 9, italics original. 3. Rick Strelan, Strange Acts: Studies in the cultural world of the Acts of the Apostles (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 48–49. 4. Mikeal Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context, JSNTSup 21 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). 5. Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts, SNTSMS 146 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 6. Sleeman, Geography, 6. 7. Ibid., 44–48.

214

THE ASCENSION AS A CULTIC EXPERIENCE IN ACTS

and imitates the language of early Christian myth and ritual in which boundaries of realities, especially those of space and time, were blurred or merged; and so, in such ritual and cultic practices, time and space became “sacred.” If Acts begins with a narrative imitative of such experience, then it changes the tone for the way the whole of Acts is read. It is not a “history of the church,” but, as others have recognized, a narrative of the intimate and immediate link between heaven and earth, and of the heavenly Lordship of Jesus—a lordship first experienced as present and, through the dynamis of the Spirit (1:8), active in ritual and devotional practice. As the narrative begins, so it ends. Luke concludes his second logos with Paul preaching the kingdom of God and the things concerning “the Lord Jesus Christ” (28:31). This last phrase has a technical, if not cultic, ring to it. In the Acts narrative, it is “the Lord Jesus Christ” who is the object of faith and the bringer of salvation (see also 11:17, 15:11, 16:31, 20:21). The whole narrative, then, is book-ended by reference to the Lordship of this Jesus. His Lordship also pervades the narrative, and it is expressed in mythological and liturgical language in its introduction. In this way, Acts structurally has some parallels with Luke’s Gospel, which also begins with a vision of “an angel of the Lord” in “the temple of the Lord” (1:9, 11), with a priest burning incense and the people praying (1:10–11), and ends with Jesus giving a priestly blessing to his followers as he is taken up into heaven, and they, in turn, are continually in the temple blessing God (24:50–53). Jesus the Ascended Lord in the New Testament It is well-known that Jesus’s ascent into the heavenly world, and particularly his exaltation and session at the right hand of God, is prominent in various New Testament (NT) writings and that it was quite central in the early Christian kerygma. It is implied in the climax of Matthew’s Gospel, which says that all authority “in heaven and on earth” has been given to Jesus (28:18). Similarly, Luke’s Gospel closes with Jesus, blessing his disciples, being “carried up into heaven” (24:51). The preface to Acts describes Jesus as the “one who has been 215

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

taken up . . . into heaven” (1:11; also 1:2), and Stephen later is said to have “gazed into heaven” and seen Jesus “standing at the right hand of God” (7:55). In the preaching of Peter, according to Acts, God elevated Jesus to his right hand (τοῦτον ὁ θεὸς . . . ὕψωσεν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ, Acts 5:31). Paul gives comfort by pointing to the Christ “who is at the right hand of God (ὕψωσεν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ) and who intercedes for us” (Rom 8:34). Similarly, Ephesians knows that God raised Christ and “sat him at his right hand in the heavenly places” (καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, 1:20); Colossians exhorts Christians to seek those things that are above “where Christ is sitting at the right of God” (ὁ χριστός ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ καθήμενος, 3:1). The author of Hebrews identifies Christ as the high priest who “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in the highest places” (ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, 1:3; compare also 8:1; 10:12). Jesus endured the cross “for the joy that was set before him” which implicitly is that “he sat down at the right hand of God” (ἐν δεξιᾷ τε τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ κεκάθικεν, 12:2). The creed-like song in 1 Timothy 3:16 makes no mention of the resurrected Jesus (or even of his death), but simply says that “he was taken up in glory” (ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ). First Peter 3:22, in almost formulaic fashion, speaks of Jesus “who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities and powers subject to him” (ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ [τοῦ] θεοῦ πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανόν ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων). These are claims that lie outside the scope of history and the natural sciences as we know them today; rather, the lordship of Jesus, experienced often in a cultic context, is expressed in mythological and metaphorical terms, as is so much of what Christians say about their Lord in their cultic rituals. All cosmic authorities are under the control of the Lord Jesus who, at the beginning of the Acts narrative, is presented as being in the heavenly world, and whose ascent there was visually experienced by his apostles. It was his status as Lord, and his ascension to that status, that was experienced, visually, in Christian communities contemporary to the author, especially in the leitourgia to their Lord. It would not be a surprise if some of the passages noted above

216

THE ASCENSION AS A CULTIC EXPERIENCE IN ACTS

derived from hymns. When facing mystery and glory, when creating and experiencing the sacred, when thinking of cosmic realities, songs are certainly an appropriate genre for a response. What is significant for the argument of this article is that the link between Jesus’s ascension to lordship and the Christian community’s worship is either explicitly or implicitly made in and by these hymn fragments. As is well-known, Paul writes that it is the ascended and exalted Jesus who has been given “the name above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:9–10). This is clearly the language of worship, worship that involves the whole cosmos (see also the cosmic hymn in Col 1:15–20). It is, therefore, no wonder that this has been identified as a hymn or part thereof,8 and one known to Paul’s audience. In 1 Timothy, in another passage commonly thought to be a hymn fragment, the claim is that Christ Jesus was “taken up in glory” (ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ, 3:16). As will be seen, “glory” is often linked to clouds. The Acts narrative talks of a cloud taking up Jesus—this is a narrative symbol for what in the cult was expressed and experienced as “glory.” Earlier in the same letter to Timothy, this taken-up Christ Jesus is called κυρίου ἡμῶν (1:2). In Hebrews, the author uses another identifiable hymn fragment (1:3) which also includes Jesus’s session at the right hand.9 Hengel (and others) has also identified 1 Peter 3:18–22, Ephesians 1:20–22, and Romans 8:34b as hymn fragments. Again, what is noticeable is that every one of these identified hymn fragments includes reference to the exaltation and heavenly lordship of Christ. Hengel argues that this element in the Christian hymns derives from a common christological interpretation of Psalm 110 in particular, which sings of the king’s session at the Lord’s right hand (110:1). Such Psalms, Hengel claims, were interpreted by Christians “to some extent as ‘hymns to Christ.’”10 In other words, the Lordship of Jesus was 8. Martin Hengel, “Hymns and Christology,” in Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 78–96; here, 85. 9. See Hengel, “Hymns and Christology,” 84. 10. Ibid.

217

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

something that was sung about in early Christian worship paralleling the songs celebrating God’s authority and rule in Jewish devotion; in fact, on the basis of the slim evidence available, it might even be said it was a central theme of Christian songs. The explicit use of Psalm 110 in Peter’s kerygmatic claims in Acts 2:33–35, and its implicit use in Acts 5:31, indicate that Luke, and presumably his audience, were well aware of its christological interpretation and possibly also of its use in devotional and “liturgical” activities.11 The Ascension and the Cult in Acts Given this, it seems reasonable to suggest that when an audience, represented by Theophilus (1:1), heard the narrative of Acts 1, they heard it as an echo of what they sang about in their cultic rituals—the present Lordship of the heavenly Jesus and the link through him to the heavenly liturgies. In some cases, they saw Jesus in visions as the ascending Lord, surrounded by angels and in a cloud; they also believed that he came to them, especially in the Eucharist, “in like manner as [the disciples] saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). As will be mentioned later, this latter clause is commonly understood to refer to the “return” of Jesus at the end of the age. However, this chapter supports an alternative view: some early Christians (including the Lukan communities) linked eschatology with worship. The one who will come comes presently “in like manner” in their cultic service. With this understanding, there is no “gap” between the ascension and the eschatological parousia, nor is there any absence; the ascended Jesus comes, and is actively present in and through the cultic service of the community. The devotional context for the ascension narrative in Acts has already been suggested by Gottfried Schille, who argues that the narrative had its Sitz im Leben in early Christian liturgy.12 It has the 11. For detailed scholarship on how Psalm 110 is used in the NT and beyond, see also Martin Hengel, “Sit at my right hand,” in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 119–225; Ferdinand Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, FRLANT 83, 3rd ed. (G?ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966); and David Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, SBLMS 18 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973).

218

THE ASCENSION AS A CULTIC EXPERIENCE IN ACTS

hallmarks, he says, of “liturgisch geprägte[r] Texte” (190). Using classical source/form critical methods, Schille argued that Acts 1:9–11 contains a parallelismus membrorum and has a rhythmic style, both of which indicate that it comes from a liturgical tradition (188). It is therefore, he argues, pre-Lukan. Remnants of that tradition have remained in the narrative, especially in verse 11, which, he claimed, has hymnic qualities. If so, it is consistent with a very common feature of early Christian hymn fragments that also feature the exaltation of Jesus, as already noted. Schille’s primary purpose was to argue that the ascension account was a cult etiology for the Jerusalem community to meet on the Mount of Olives for ascension remembrance, forty days after Passover (184–90). Wilson rejects that proposal along with a pre-Lukan liturgical Sitz im Leben for 1:9–11, claiming that, rather than indicating a liturgical context, the narrative is an expression of Lukan (eschatological) theology.13 Zwiep implicitly supports Wilson’s arguments against Schille.14 However, I would like to revisit the basic claim (but not support all the arguments) of Schille and to substantiate it. What is there in the narrative that might suggest it has been shaped by cultic experience and practice? By “cultic experience and practice,” I mean what some early Christian writers referred to as λειτουργία (Luke 1:23; Acts 13:2; Heb 1:14, 8:2, 9:21, 10:1; 1 Clem 9:2, 32:2, 34:5, 40:5). It is the “divine service,” the sacred rituals performed by the angels and priests. I will argue that the coming together (Acts 1:6), the question-answer incident (1:6–7), the promise of the Holy Spirit (1:8), the commissioning (1:8), the lifting up of Jesus and his covering by a cloud (1:9), the gazing into heaven (1:10), and the appearance of two angels (1:10) who promise that Jesus will “come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (1:11) are all cultic-experience indicators, especially when combined as they are in such a brief narrative. I now give some attention to each. 12. Gottfried Schille, “Die Himmelfahrt,” ZNW 57 (1966): 183–99. 13. S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts, SNTSMS 239 (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 102–4. 14. A. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 20.

219

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

The narrative situates the visionary experience of the ascending Jesus within the “coming together” of the disciples (Οἱ μὲν οὖν συνελθόντες, 1:6). The verb συνέρχομαι is often used in the NT and elsewhere to indicate a gathering, often for sacred communal actions, if not for the “worship of God” in the narrow sense of that phrase. Schille, in fact, suggests it is a terminus technicus for liturgical action.15 Wilson rightly points out that the word is also used elsewhere in Acts to indicate a gathering with no cultic purpose.16 But, it might be noted, ἐκκλησία is also used both for the Christian assembly of Antioch that “worships” (13:1) and for the pagan assembly in the theatre of Ephesus where the mob does not even know why it has come together (19:32). Besides, Luke does use the verb to indicate a gathering for devotional activity in 16:13, as Wilson acknowledges. The point is not whether the vocabulary reflects a pre-Lukan source or not (Schille’s claim, which Wilson counters), but what it is that happens in the “coming together” in the ascension narrative. What happens is teaching (1:6–7), the promise of the Spirit’s dynamis (1:8), and a revelation or kyriophany through visionary experience (1:9–11). This closely parallels what Paul outlines as happening in Corinth: “when you come together (ὅταν συνέρχησθε), each one has a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation” (1 Cor 14:26). Paul also uses the same verb in the context of eating “the Lord’s meal.” He rebukes the Corinthians because “when you come together (συνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν) it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat” (11:20; compare 11:33, συνερχόμενοι εἰς τὸ φαγεῖν; Paul uses the verb similarly in 11:17–18 and 14:23). Later, Ignatius also uses the verb technically, and in a “eucharistic” context, when he encourages the Ephesians “to meet together more frequently for thanksgiving to God and for praise” (Σπουδάζετε οὖν πυκνότερον συνέρχεσθαι εἰς εὐχαριστίαν θεοῦ καὶ εἰς δόξαν, Ign. Eph. 13:1; compare also 20:2). The point is clear: the Acts narrative locates the ascension of Jesus within the “coming together” of the apostles and, if 1 Cor

15. Schille, “Die Himmelfahrt,” 186. 16. Wilson, Gentiles and the Gentile Mission, 102.

220

THE ASCENSION AS A CULTIC EXPERIENCE IN ACTS

11:20 and Ignatius are indicators, such coming together included cultic service such as the sharing of the Lord’s meal. Another factor suggesting we might understand the ascension narrative as reflecting cultic activity is the commissioning of the apostles by Jesus to be his witnesses to the ends of the earth (1:8). Jesus also tells the chosen apostles (1:2) that they will “be baptised with the Holy Spirit” (1:5) and empowered by that Spirit. The activity of the Spirit and the commission to be witnesses are closely related in what is clearly a “liturgical” context later in the narrative in the commissioning of Barnabas and Saul (13:2) in what constitutes the beginning of Paul’s witness to “the ends of the earth.” It is significant, for my purposes, to notice that this commissioning took place while the church (ἐκκλησία, 13:1) was worshipping—or more precisely, “while they were carrying out their cultic service (Λειτουργούντων δὲ αὐτῶν) to the Lord (τῷ κυρίῳ—worth noting) and fasting” (13:2). So it was during that cultic service to their Lord that the Holy Spirit directed them to “set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (13:2). What the Lord has said to those gathered together at the beginning (Acts 1:8) is acted upon by those gathered together for cultic service in Acts 13. The ascended heavenly Lord operates through the promised Holy Spirit to commission his witnesses within the cultic service of the church (13:2). The experience of the ascended Lord in those activities is foreshadowed in the ascension narrative, but I suggest the latter imitates the former. Third, in the Acts narrative, the disciples ask (ἠρώτων) Jesus about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (1:6) and Jesus replies (1:7–8). Again, this takes place in the “coming together”; and after answering, Jesus is taken up as the disciples look on (1:9). Coming together, teaching, and ascension are closely linked in the narrative. Teaching through question and answer was a common form of education (a version thereof used also in synagogues). Paul implies in 1 Cor 14:35 that a similar method of learning took place among Christians in Corinth when they came together (14:26). In that passage, women are advised to refrain from asking questions in the assembly;

221

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

rather, if they wish to know anything, they should ask (ἐπερωτάτωσαν) their husbands at home. In Acts, teaching is said to be a common part of Christian gatherings, and it is significant that such teaching took place in a context of Christian leitourgia (teaching, koinōnia, breaking of bread, and prayers are linked; see Acts 2:42). In addition, teachers played a significant role and held important status among them, including in their cultic practices (Acts 13:1, for example). Indeed, in Luke’s thinking, Jesus himself is the Teacher. Luke reminds Theophilus that his Gospel was about what Jesus “began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up” (1:1–2). So when the disciples “gather together,” one might expect that Jesus would assume the teacher’s role. And so he does; 1:1–2 is paralleled in 1:6–7. Again, what happens in the narrative is experienced in the coming together. The ascended Lord is experienced as teacher through the Holy Spirit and through the apostles (1:2). Not surprisingly, then, the community was seriously engaged with the apostles’ teaching in their gatherings (2:42). Visionary Experience of the Ascending Jesus We come then, in the Acts narrative, to the pivotal experience of those who had come together: a revelatory vision of the ascending Jesus who is taken up from underneath (ὑπέλαβεν) by a cloud, so removing him from the sight of the apostles (1:9). The emphasis on vision is obvious and significant; it might be noted that there are five references to seeing and sight in 1:9–11 with four different verbs. The coming together was the context for intense and significant vision in which the ascending Jesus was seen and will be seen “in like manner.” I will return to the verb ἀτενίζειν shortly. For now, I suggest the apostles’ gaze into heaven was very similar to that of Stephen who also “gazed into heaven” (ἀτενίσας εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, 7:55) and saw “the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” (7:55, repeated 7:56). Of Stephen’s vision, Hurtado says: I suggest that the account reflects one type of early revelatory experience, visions of the exalted Jesus in heavenly glory. Indeed, this sort of vision

222

THE ASCENSION AS A CULTIC EXPERIENCE IN ACTS

may have been the principal factor in generating the idea that Jesus had been exalted.17

I suggest that the ascension narrative early in Acts came about in precisely the same way. Christians had visionary experiences of an ascended, exalted Jesus in some of their cultic service, which compelled them to include his Lordship in their kerygma and in turn to shape their narratives accordingly. The narrative reflected the experience. The experience of “seeing Jesus” in his exalted state is detectable in other very early Christian literature. In Revelation 4–5, John is shown an open door into heaven and he sees the throne and the Lamb standing, and he hears heaven singing the Trisagion—this is a vision into heaven on a dramatic and liturgical scale, but reminiscent nonetheless of Stephen’s experience (Acts 7:55–56) and that of the apostles in the ascension narrative. Once again, Hurtado suggests that “although probably written sometime toward the end of the first century CE, Revelation likely reflects here the sort of revelatory experiences (in general form and content) that were reported much earlier.”18 In addition, the writer to the Hebrews (a text full of cultic language and references) says that “we see Jesus . . . crowned with glory and honor” (2:9, βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν . . . δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον). Barnard notes that most scholars understand the “see” here to be metaphorical, but she asks the valid question: why not understand it as an experiential vision? Why is this not like other “visionary experiences of the exalted Son?”19 After all, “is it really so obvious that the author’s language of seeing is merely rhetorical and metaphorical and not also visionary and mystical?”20 Mackie is more definite; he understands this to be the vision of a theophanic manifestation within the community.21 Interestingly, Mackie argues that the author’s goal in the whole of Hebrews is for the community to be present in that 17. Larry Hurtado, “Revelatory Experiences and Religious Innovation in Earliest Christianity,” ExpTim 125 (2014): 469–82; here, 478. 18. Ibid., 479. 19. Jody Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews, WUNT 2.331 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 177. 20. Ibid., 177–78.

223

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

“heavenly sanctuary,” to benefit from Christ’s actions performed there, and to participate in the Son’s exaltation. Paul, himself one who experienced “visions and revelations of the Lord” (ὀπτασίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεις κυρίου, 2 Cor 12:1), also claims that one who “turns to the Lord” sees (κατοπτριζόμενοι), with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord (2 Cor 3:16–18; compare also 2 Cor 4:4–6). It is worth emphasizing that for Paul, too, the object of such vision is the “Lord” or the “glory of the Lord,” and such terminology suggests a cultic context. Like others who now appreciate the importance of early Christian visionary experiences, Orr understands Paul to be referring to such vision. 22 It is clear, then, that in different literary genres, NT writers show awareness of visionary experiences of the ascended and exalted Jesus. At least one Gospel can be added to the list. The Johannine Jesus says, “I will go away and I will come to you” (14:28). He will no longer be seen by “the world” but “you will see me” (14:18; also 16:16). As will be noted later, Aune, for one, understands many of these sayings as referring not only to seeing Jesus at his eschatological parousia but also in his presence in the community’s cultic activity.23 In addition, if one accepts a eucharistic context, John 6:62 is also relevant: “what if you see (θεωρῆτε) the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” The context suggests, at least, that there is a connection between “eating and drinking” of the heavenly Son of Man and vision of the ascending Son of Man. It is also helpful to note and trace the influence that Isaiah 6 had in early (and later) Christian thought about visions of the exalted Jesus. The ascension narrative in Acts has some parallels with Isaiah 6. In the former, two heavenly beings stand by the disciples and speak to them; in Isaiah, two seraphim/angels attend the enthroned Lord (6:2), and one of them touches Isaiah’s lips to purify him (6:7). Isaiah then hears a voice commissioning him to speak to Israel (6:9). In Acts, it is 21. Scott Mackie, “Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JTS 61 (2011): 77–117; here, 104–6. 22. Peter Orr, Christ Present and Absent: A Study in Pauline Christology, WUNT 2.354 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 142–44. 23. David Aune, The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity, NovTSup 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1972).

224

THE ASCENSION AS A CULTIC EXPERIENCE IN ACTS

Jesus who commissions his disciples to speak and to testify. Isaiah’s vision and commission take place in the temple; and the presence of the seraphim, the smoke that fills the temple, and the hymn of the seraphim (6:1–3) clearly indicate a cultic context. I will later suggest that the Temple smoke in Isaiah and the cloud of the ascension narrative are closely linked. It is in a cultic context that Isaiah says “my eyes have seen the king, the Lord of hosts” (6:5) and he sees the Lord “lifted up” (ἐπηρμένου, LXX Isa 6:1). I suggest that the apostles likewise see the lifted-up (ἐπήρθη, Acts 1:9) Lord in a cultic context. I propose that Luke “echoes” the Temple vision of Isaiah and interprets the Lord of that vision to be the ascended Jesus, and he was not alone in doing so. It is well-known that John’s Gospel refers to Isaiah 6 when the narrator says: “[Isaiah] saw his glory” (12:41), meaning the glory of the Lord, Jesus. John obviously interpreted Isaiah’s vision christologically, but Bucur has recently shown that similar interpretations are given in Revelation (4:6–9), Irenaeus, Justin, Clement, and later Fathers into the conciliar period, as well as in hymnody and art.24 The important point is, as Bucur rightly argues, that these early writers did not interpret Isaiah 6 typologically but made the immediate identification of the Lord in Isaiah with the Lord of Christian worship. Once again, similar to Hurtado, Kaiser, and others, Bucur believes the liturgical experience shaped the interpretation. His summary is worth noting: In short, early Christians viewed liturgy as a “coming alive” and “reenactment” of Isaiah’s vision, with the Eucharistic mystery as a fuller, truer, and saving counterpart to the prophet’s visionary reception of the living coal, the priests acting the part of the seraph—hence, within the same interpretive framework, being greater than Isaiah—and the prophetic calling no longer reserved to rare individuals, but issued to all.25

The Veiling Cloud In the Acts narrative, what takes Jesus from the sight of the disciples 24. Bogdan G. Bucur, “‘I Saw the Lord’: Observations on the Early Christian Reception of Isaiah 6,” Pro Ecclesia 23 (2014): 309–30. 25. Ibid., 329.

225

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

is a cloud (1:9). In Jewish sacred writings, clouds often symbolize the presence of God and especially the glory of God (for example, Exod 16:10, 24:16, 40:34f; Num 14:10; 2 Chr 5:14; Ezek 10:4; 1 Kgs 8:10–11). Christian writers continued to use that symbolism (e.g., Matt 17:5; Luke 9:34–35). However, I suggest the cloud in the Acts narrative symbolizes more than that the ascended Jesus is now in the presence of God, sharing in the glory of God, as important and significant as this is. The narrative specifically says that the cloud took up the ascending Jesus from their sight. In other words, the cloud’s purpose or narrative function was to hide or cover Jesus. It served as a veil. I propose that the cloud covered Jesus from sight just as the cloud covered or veiled the mercy seat and the glory of God in the Tabernacle/Temple (Lev 16:13). In Leviticus, the Lord (κύριος) tells Moses: “I will be seen (ὀφθήσομαι) in a cloud on/over (ἐπὶ) the mercy seat” (16:2); the Lord is seen, but he must be veiled. So Jesus is seen lifted up, but the exalted Lord is veiled from the eyes of the apostles by the cloud. Again, we are in the world of cultic ritual and visionary experience. In Leviticus, the “cloud of incense” (ἡ ἀτμὶς τοῦ θυμιάματος) provides the necessary cover over the Ark (LXX, 16:13). In thinking somewhat parallel to my own in this essay, Beyerlin argued that the narrative use of “the cloud” in Exodus and Leviticus imitated, or had its origins in, the incense cloud used in Israel’s cultic burnt offerings.26 The cover or veil of incense over the mercy seat and the Ark was required because of the perceived danger of any theophany. Yahweh sat, then, above the cloud which served to protect the priests from death through exposure to an unveiled theophany (Lev 16:13). Luke knew the danger of a theophany to priests on Temple service. In the Gospel, Zechariah, the priest on cultic duty (λειτουργία, 1:23) at the altar of incense, is delayed, and the people waiting and praying outside “wonder” (ἐθαύμαζον, Luke 1:21), presumably afraid that he has been overwhelmed in some way by being in that mysterious and dangerous presence. Later in the Gospel, in a kyriophany when Jesus’s face 26. Walter Beyerlin, Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions, trans. S. Rudman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 156–57.

226

THE ASCENSION AS A CULTIC EXPERIENCE IN ACTS

became “other” (ἕτερον, 9:29), and the disciples “saw his glory” (εἶδον τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ (9:32), the disciples were “afraid as they entered the cloud” (ἐφοβήθησαν δὲ ἐν τῷ εἰσελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν νεφέλην, 9:34). They were afraid because they entered into sacred space, dangerous space; they were in the presence of the Glory, the kabod of the Lord, symbolized by the cloud which provided the protective covering. It was a vision experienced on “the mountain” in prayer (9:28). It was a vision about which they kept silent “in those days” (9:36). Was the silence because visions of the glorified and exalted Jesus were only to be experienced later, in cultic rituals, in the Lukan communities? The ascension vision in Acts, on the mountain, was foreshadowed by a similar kyriophany on the mountain narrated in the Gospel. I suggest, then, that Luke uses the cloud in his narrative to symbolize the ascension of Jesus into veiled glory in imitation of what his audience experienced in their cultic ritual as they created that cloud by the use of incense. As in the Tabernacle, so it was in some Christian leitourgia. Such an understanding of the cloud in the ascension narrative helps explain why the disciples continue to stare into heaven (1:10). I have shown elsewhere that the verb ἀτενίζειν is often used, sometimes as a technical term, to indicate gazing or staring into the mysterious and into the divine.27 As Fisher notes, the “context in which ἀτενίζειν occurs . . . has to do with the manifestation of divine power.”28 An interesting (and I suggest a close) parallel to the gaze of the disciples as Jesus ascends into heaven (the noun is used four times in 1:10–11) is the staring into heaven (ἀτενίσας εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν) by Stephen who “sees the glory of God” (7:55). The same verb is used as Peter stares into heaven and sees something like a great sheet descending from heaven (11:6). The Roman bishop, Clement, understands it too as the gaze of those caught up into the heavenly liturgy: “Christ [is] the high priest of our offerings. . . . Through him, we fix our eyes (ἀτενίζειν) on the heights of heaven (1 Clem. 36:1, 2; compare also 7:4, 9:2; in 17:2, Abraham is 27. Rick Strelan, “Strange Stares: Ατενιζειν in Acts,” NovT 41 (1999): 235–55; here 247. 28. Cited in Strelan, “Strange Stares,” 248.

227

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

humbled when he sees the glory of God [ἀτενίζων εἰς τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ]). So, in their cultic service, Christian participants gaze into the mystery of the veiled glory of their Lord just as in the narrative the apostles gaze into heaven. The Company of Angels Given a cultic context for the narrative, the appearance of angels comes as no surprise. Characteristically, the narrator alerts the audience to a heavenly appearance (ἰδού, 1:10). Strictly, they are not identified as angels but as “two men” (ἄνδρες δύο), a phrase paralleled in the resurrection narrative (Luke 24:4) and in the transfiguration episode where the two are identified as Moses and Elijah who “appeared in glory” (Luke 9:31) and for whom Peter suggests building σκηνάς—booths or tabernacles (9:33). Both the transfiguration and the resurrection, like the ascension, are revelatory, visionary experiences; they parallel the visionary experience of the apostles in the ascension narrative. The two men wear white, the color of the cultic participant.29 In the earlier two revelatory experiences, the two men “stood with him [Jesus]” (9:32) and “with them [the women]” (Luke 24:4). In the Acts ascension episode, the “two men” are said to “stand alongside” the disciples (παρειστήκεισαν). Once again, as was often experienced in Jewish and Christian worship, the boundaries between heaven and earth were blurred, and the congregation thought they joined the angels who stood with them in their worship. In Acts, both the “two men” and the disciples are said to be standing. This is reminiscent of some Qumran texts where “holy angels are standing with their congregation” (4Q285 1.9; see also 1QS 11.8; 11QBer. 13–14; and 1QSa II.8–9). According to 1QH 11.21–22, the purified “can stand with the host of the holy ones and can enter into communion with the congregation of the sons of heaven.” As Peter Schäfer comments: The full Hebrew expression for “stand” is le-hityatztzev be-ma‘amad ‘im, 29. See Rev 7:9; and Samuel Safrai, “The Temple and the Divine Service,” in The World History of the Jewish People: The Herodian Period (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1975), 284–332: “It appears to have been the custom to enter the Temple only in white garments” (296).

228

THE ASCENSION AS A CULTIC EXPERIENCE IN ACTS

literally “to take a stand/to station oneself in a position/the (same) standing place with”: the one who prays is physically standing in the very same place with the angels. Since the original place of the angels is in heaven, we may conclude that the members of the community envisage themselves standing with the angels in heaven when singing the hymn (although the possibility cannot be ruled out that the opposite movement has taken place: that the angels have descended to earth to join the humans in their worship).30

There are clear indications that some early Christians had similar ideas. Paul thinks that the presence of angels is good reason for women to cover their heads in worship (1 Cor 11:9–10); Hebrews implies the presence of “innumerable angels” and of “the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven” as Christians enter the “heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22–23); and the Seer has a vision of a countless throng together with all the angels around the throne in praise of the Lamb (Rev 7:9–17). Later, Clement speaks of those who “have come together (συναχθέντες) in conscious harmony cry to him earnestly” just as the “whole multitude of angels” serve him as they sing the Trisagion (1 Clem. 34:6–7). Clement of Alexandria describes the Christian as one who “prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him” (Strom. 7.12.78.6). I suggest that in Acts too, the standing company of the “two men” in the narrative implies that Luke was aware that when experiencing a kyriophany in their cultic service, he and others stood with the angels. In Like Manner Finally, and in some ways most significantly, the angels tell the disciples as they gaze into heaven that “this Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” I suggest that before we read this as a reference to the “second coming” or “return of Christ” at the end of time, we first read it for what it says at a surface level: Jesus will come and you will stare/ gaze at him as he descends, veiled from your eyes by a cloud, and you 30. Peter Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 124.

229

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

will see angels who will stand next to you. You saw him go with his face toward heaven; you will see him come again with his face toward heaven. Where, how, and when will this be experienced? I suggest in the cultic service of the community gathered together on the Lord’s day, especially in the Eucharist. Visionary experiences of the risen Christ are well-known in scholarship, and Luke himself suggests that such experiences were associated with “the blessing and breaking of bread.” In that ritual action, the Emmaus disciples had “their eyes opened and they recognized” Jesus who then became “invisible” (ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν, Luke 24:30–31). Similarly, in the Acts narrative, the ascending Jesus was taken “from their sight” (ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν, 1:9). In scholarship, visions of the ascending or exalted Jesus in early Christian leitourgia are not the subject of much discussion. David Aune is one, however, who understands the Johannine Jesus—who talks of not being seen and of being seen—in a similar way to my reading of the Acts narrative. Aune argues that “the ‘coming’ of Jesus [as in John 14] . . . refers primarily to the recurring cultic ‘coming’ of Jesus in the form of a pneumatic or prophetic visio Christi within the setting of worship ‘in the Spirit’ as celebrated by the Johannine community.”31 And again, “The cultic ‘coming’ of the exalted Jesus, [was] conceived either as a direct visionary experience within the context of worship, or as a presence mediated through the agency of prophetic individuals.”32 Aune argues that in this cultic coming, the so-called “return” or “second” eschatological coming was experienced proleptically. I suggest that Luke understands the ascension of the Lord Jesus similarly. The Lord comes in the “coming together,” is present through his Spirit, and is seen in visions ascending as Lord in cultic service. The expression “in the same manner” is commonly understood to mean that Luke sees a “continuity of Jesus’ bodily entity at his return”—that Jesus left from the Mount of Olives and, as Zechariah 14:4 says, it will also be the place of his return.33 Or, the link is made with 31. Aune, Cultic Setting, 129. 32. Ibid., 134.

230

THE ASCENSION AS A CULTIC EXPERIENCE IN ACTS

Daniel 7:9–14: “Taken up in a cloud, he will return in a cloud to render judgment.”34 Bruce is also typical: “The disciples had seen Jesus go in power and glory; in power and glory he would come back.”35 These are all valid interpretations, of course, but there is another intriguing possibility. If there are hints of temple cultic practices and priests in the ascension narrative, it might be worth noting that the Mishnah discusses the high-priest’s custom of “departing in the same way as he had come.” The context is that of describing the movement of the priest as he walks towards and from the Ark: Coming there [to the Ark], he placed the censer between the staves, heaped the incense on the top of the coals, so that the whole house was filled with smoke. He departed in the same manner as he had come [that is, facing the Holy of Holies and walking backward], and said a short prayer in the outer sanctuary, but not making it a long one, so as not to alarm the Israelites [about his delay] (Tractate Yoma 5).

Jesus, as the one who has ascended into the heavenly sanctuary, comes in the leitourgia of the community in blessing. He comes facing heaven. As the believer stares into heaven, and as the angels join in that liturgical ritual service, the ascending Lord is seen, again lifted up in the cloud (of incense) which veils his glory and protects the congregation, and so he is seen ‘in like manner’ as in his ascension. The narrative is therefore a re-presentation of the Lord’s ascension as experienced in the leitourgia. Finally, the Acts narrative, and only that narrative, places the ascension on the Mount of Olives (1:12), a site sometimes associated with the “glory of the Lord” (a technical cultic phrase associated with the ark, the tabernacle, the cloud and the Temple, as noted earlier). So Ezekiel says “the glory of the Lord went up from the middle of the city and stood upon the mount on the east side of the city,” that is, the Mount of Olives (LXX: καὶ ἀνέβη ἡ δόξα κυρίου ἐκ μέσης τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἔστη ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους ὃ ἦν ἀπέναντι τῆς πόλεως, 11:22; see also 43:1–2, 33. Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1—2:47 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 1:731–32. 34. Darrell Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 70. 35. Frederick F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 39.

231

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

44:1–2). It was also the site of eschatological “on that day” events, as Zechariah envisages: “On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem” (14:4). It is not surprising that the mount featured in relatively early Christian devotional practices, especially in prayer.36 Whether it was a cultic site already in the first century, as Schille claimed, is highly debatable,37 but its eschatological significance and the link between glory, eschatology, Sabbath (1:12), and Eucharist allow the ascension location in Acts to be seen as just one more link in the leitourgia chain of the narrative. Conclusion In conclusion, there is enough in the vocabulary, symbolism, and events of the narrative to suggest that the ascension of Jesus belonged to the experience of “liturgical” Christians, and that it was their experiences which shaped the narrative of Acts. When Christians came together, they were taught, they experienced the promised Spirit, they believed they were standing with the angels, and they saw, in their sacred service, their heavenly Lord who came to them “in like manner” as he had gone into heaven.

36. Michael Lang, ‘Turning Towards the Lord’: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2009), 37–45. He supports earlier scholarly claims (Schille, Kretschmar, for example) that the Mount of Olives was significant in very early Christian devotional practice. 37. See Joan Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993). Taylor holds that the cult sites, such as the Olives mount, developed from the narratives.

232

PART III

A Theologian’s Postscript

11

What Is This Conversation You Are Holding?

Douglas Farrow

When Jesus laid his footsteps alongside those of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, he enquired of them, “What is this conversation you are holding with each other as you walk?” As one invited to join the present coterie of biblical scholars long enough to offer a brief theological postscript, I want to put the same question. Now, it would not surprise me if I, too, were met with a puzzled look and something like the response, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” For theologians are often deemed ignorant of what is actually going on in biblical texts or in the realm of biblical scholarship. Sometimes we are, of course, and sometimes we want to reverse the charge. As I listen, I am keenly aware that the conversation thus far has been conducted with little reference to theological voices other than 235

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Luke’s, unless perchance Soja counts as a theologian. Nor indeed is it quite clear whether Luke himself is being heard as a theologian. Like others of their guild, some members of this company are inclined to walk apart from those who try to hear him that way, to allow him some intimacy with Paul, to understand him as the Fathers and the Great Tradition have understood him. Which makes the conversation seem at times rather private. Yet I have been invited to join, and I do so gladly, taking as my cue the place where Professor Pao quotes Ascension and Ecclesia. Here is the paragraph from which he quotes, supplied in full: Acts begins, however, where the Gospel leaves off, by furnishing a fuller version of Jesus’ departure on his own ultimate journey‒‒the journey that leads from Jerusalem to God’s heavenly sanctuary and throne, completing the exodus of which he spoke at the transfiguration when the glory cloud enveloped him briefly in an anticipatory way. From there, the angels avow, he will someday return. For his ascent to heaven, like his ascent to the cross, is a journey undertaken on behalf of God’s people and with a view to the realization of their kingdom hopes. That is the context in which the disciples are commissioned for their journeys; the outwards spiral of the apostolic mission is the ripple in the sea that marks the upwards passage of Jesus to receive what was promised.1

I begin here because the surrounding pages show that I am in full agreement with Pao that we are dealing with “a context saturated with concerns for the restoration of Israel,” and that this is sufficient reason to doubt the wisdom of those who look mainly to Greco-Roman parallels for an understanding of Luke’s treatment of the ascension. It is also sufficient reason to question those who point too narrowly to biblical or Jewish rapture stories; for these stories (even that of Elijah, which ought not to be lumped together with the others) do not attempt, and are indeed unable, to speak to the restoration of Israel in the way that the story of Jesus does. Let us take the Greco-Roman parallels first. It will surprise no one 1. Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 23; as n. 34 observes, “Jerusalem is still to be the polestar of the new creation,” though “the cloud which now receives Jesus outside and above the city recalls . . . the temple vision of Ezekiel in which the Glory of Israel departs and stands at a distance, judgment on the present Jerusalem having been pronounced.”

236

WHAT IS THIS CONVERSATION YOU ARE HOLDING?

who has read even the first paragraph of my Ascension Theology (2011) that I find Dr. Wallace’s approach unconvincing. He has in a most admirable fashion laid out the mythological materials from which Luke might have drawn, were he so minded. But Wallace does not show us that Luke actually was so minded. Working with the truism that ascent “is a reward for certain behaviors”—what else could it be, save an assault on heaven?—he proposes that Luke’s talk of ascent serves to signal, in terms with which pagans were familiar, the praiseworthiness of Jesus and his example. It helps to justify cultic adoration of Jesus, the fact that Christians look to him for protection and benefaction, that they claim to experience him in a new spiritual mode of presence, and that they imitate him in hopes of sharing his immortality after their own deaths. In short, it presents Christianity (the quirky Jewish bits aside) as something comprehensible to Gentiles. Wallace leans on a quotation from Justin Martyr that provides, he says, “sufficient warrant for exploring Greco-Roman ascension traditions as essential contexts for understanding the ascension of Jesus Christ in Luke-Acts.” But just as he does not concern himself very far with Justin’s rhetorical strategy, he does not really concern himself with Luke’s, either. Justin points out the inconsistency of charging Christians with telling strange stories when the stories in question have analogues in pagan literature, though no one (else) is persecuted for subscribing to those. But Justin not only insists that the pagan stories are fabrications while the Christian stories are true; he also insists that the pagan stories are unedifying, if not downright shameful, while the Christian stories concern things essential to human flourishing and to any proper account of God. Such claims may be the real cause of persecution, as Justin allows. In any case, “that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation”—none of this does Justin try to support

237

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

by appeal to pagan analogues, nor could he. He supports it rather by appeal to the prophets and especially to Psalm 110.2 That is Luke’s strategy as well, though it was Paul’s strategy first. Salvation is from the Jews, and must be learned on Jewish terms. What is it that Jesus says on the Emmaus road—“O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the poets have spoken”? No. All these men share the philosophers’ skepticism about pagan mythology while, at the same time, committing themselves completely to the truth of the biblical story. And pace Wallace, when that story reaches its climax in the Messiah, it is told very much as a story, first and foremost, about who Jesus is and what status he has. Only thus is it a story about what his followers—and for that matter, his opponents—can expect.3 Perhaps Wallace has difficulty recognizing this because he has difficulty allowing that the story might be true? If that is the case, of course, then one worldview (Wallace’s) has got in the way of another (Paul’s and Luke’s and Justin’s and Tertullian’s), illustrating the fact that biblical scholars, just like everyone else, bring their own presuppositions about God and the world‒‒in short, their own theologies‒‒to bear on their reading of texts. From Wallace it is but a stride to Rick Strelan. For if Luke’s ascension stories are really stories about Christian faith in Jesus and Christian hopes of paradise after death, why should they not be stories about Christian cultic experience in this present life? Though Wallace denies “that Luke anywhere depicts the earliest Christians as engaging in ritual ascents,”4 Strelan posits just that as the best way to explain the whole business: The lordship of Jesus, experienced often in a cultic context, is expressed in mythological and metaphorical terms, as is so much of what Christians say about their Lord in their cultic rituals. . . . I suggest, then, that Luke uses the cloud in his narrative to symbolize the ascension of Jesus into veiled 2. Justin, First Apology, §45; cf. §23. Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho gives a fuller account of this principle; both Jew and Gentile must consult the prophets. 3. Wallace, it must be said, leaves an impression similar to that of those who used to delight in pointing out the parallels between Genesis and the Enûma Eliš, as if the former were mere imitatio rather than deliberate counter-narrative, championing a new theology. 4. “As in the mysteries,” he says, “Jesus is present in ritual, especially the Eucharist (Luke 24:35), but, of course, there is absolutely no evidence for ritualized ascent.”

238

WHAT IS THIS CONVERSATION YOU ARE HOLDING?

glory in imitation of what his audience experienced in their cultic ritual as they created that cloud by the use of incense. . . . There is enough in the vocabulary, symbolism, and events of the narrative to suggest that the ascension of Jesus belonged to the experience of “liturgical” Christians, and that it was their experiences which shaped the narrative of Acts.

This seems to me exactly backwards. While I have argued in both my books on the subject that the Eucharist and the ascension are mutually interpreting realities, I remain firmly in the realist tradition that Luke himself endorses in the first few verses, both of his Gospel and of Acts, the tradition taken up by the Apologists and the Fathers. “We say true things,” says Justin.5 “For in things that are, as they are, we believe,” insists Irenaeus, “and believing in things that are, as they ever are, we keep firm our confidence in them.”6 But on the Wallace-Strelan side of the conversation, the movement is in the opposite direction. It is a movement, not from things that are true about Jesus to things the Church rightly says and does, but from things that Christians say and do (or might possibly have said or done) to things that are said, metaphorically or even mythologically, about Jesus. And this movement, which is really an esoteric oscillation between mythmaking and liturgical psychology, is fundamentally gnostic, as I tried to show in the aforementioned books. It is certainly not Lukan. 7 We catch up next with Matthew Sleeman, whom we discover is more cautious than before about the work that Sojan “thirdspace” does for us. This is a welcome discovery. Though he is quite right that we must continue to think about the nature of space, as of time, in the light of the ascension, if we wish to remain in what I am calling the realist tradition, criticism of the thirdspace lens has not been wasted on him. Yet I would like to persuade him to be more cautious still. Can this deeply Hegelian construct, mediated to Soja by Lefebvre, help us make sense of Luke without pulling him out of his own orbit (the 5. Justin, First Apology, §23. 6. Irenaeus, Demonstration, §3. 7. If Luke’s cloud, as I maintain, recalls the Shekinah tradition, Strelan might maintain in turn that this earlier tradition is itself no more than an incense tradition. What could that mean, however, except that the Hebrew cultus, like the Christian, is just worshippers worshipping their own worship?

239

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

expansion of the gospel and kingdom of the true Lord, Jesus Christ, from its center in Jerusalem to its periphery in Rome) into the orbit of modern mystical monadism? Can it help us see how “realignment,” whether geographic or political or social or religious, takes place in Luke-Acts without falsifying Luke’s own perspective? The concept of thirdspace is designed to fudge the boundaries between the real and the imagined, in order that the desired surplus (the “and more”) might appear, enabling human culture and the world-historical process as such to continue negotiating their ascent toward the Infinite. But that is just what a genuinely Lukan treatment of the ascension must forbid. Nor is Luke interested in cultural hybridity, which is not at all like breaking down the wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile. While I am very glad to hear Sleeman say that he does not think that the ascension of Jesus is conceptually exhausted by or coterminous with thirdspace, I would rather hear him admit that thirdspace is (or may very well be) a distorting lens through which to view the ascension. That said, I remain intrigued by Dr. Sleeman’s work and grateful for the conversation it creates, both between geography and theology, and also between ourselves and our disciplines. He strikes the right chord, to use a metaphor both spatial and temporal, when he writes in his book that: Without Acts, Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria would be far less visible, vision towards the end of the earth much impoverished. Because of Acts, Jesus’ ascension casts all places as non-neutral, either conforming to, or resisting, his ordering of spaces as presented in its twenty-eight chapters and overflowing into “real” worlds. All earthly places, with their associated spatialities ever generating a thousand new and sinuous places, remain—for believers—subject to the continuous Christofocal assessment and critique of Acts.8

The right chord, but nonetheless a disturbing one. Jesus’s ascension

8. Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts, SNTSMS 146 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 261. I have found myself increasingly engaged in the political theology that this insight generates. See especially my Desiring a Better Country: Forays in Political Theology (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2015).

240

WHAT IS THIS CONVERSATION YOU ARE HOLDING?

“casts all places as non-neutral”? We must say more about that before we are done. When we turn to question those whose conversation is focused on Jewish rapture stories and apocalyptic heavenly journeys, we may begin with Arie Zwiep, who links the ascension in Luke-Acts to what he calls the “rapture-preservation paradigm.” Once again, however, we cannot ignore the divide between those who suppose Luke to be telling a tale he does not believe to be historically true and those who suppose otherwise. For the former think about how he might have adapted similar stories from biblical and/or nonbiblical sources, while the latter think instead about how he might have incorporated literary allusions to biblical events that somehow foreshadow the event he is now recounting and, in his narrative fashion, interpreting. The former are interested not only in 2 Kings but in 2 Baruch, for example, if they think it early enough and Luke-Acts late enough; the latter think texts such as 2 Baruch irrelevant. Both, certainly, are inclined to think the Elijah story very significant. But in the one case, the significance is assigned to it by Luke—what is he trying to say when he arranges for Jesus to share a fate both like and unlike Elijah’s?—while in the other, the significance is given it by God, who himself makes the distinct arrangements for Elijah and for Jesus. In other words, we cannot evade the question: Whose paradigm is it, and who is making the adjustments from the one case to the other? If it is just Luke making the adjustments, then we may proceed to draw tentative conclusions about his narrative strategy and christological views. If it is not just Luke but preeminently God making the adjustments, then we will have to be a little more cautious in reaching conclusions about Luke and about the paradigm itself. For God may be up to a good deal more than Luke, even with God’s help, is able to articulate. But, in any case, why should we limit even Luke to tinkering with a single paradigm? As I observed elsewhere in response to Dr. Zwiep, without seeing any need to deny that Luke has an eye on Elijah, I myself would argue that he is conscious of a far richer tapestry of Old Testament

241

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

materials: that the cultic allusions to Leviticus and to Sirach in Luke 24, and the Davidic analogy which informs Luke-Acts as a whole, and the Son of Man motif taken up from Daniel 7, play more important roles. Must Luke have only one main thing to say about the ascension? Can “rapturepreservation” say it all, or even the better part of it? Or would it not be wise . . . [to admit] that no writer, ancient or modern, is required to opt for a single paradigm on matters such as the ascension, or the atonement, or reconciliation, since it is safe to say that none will be fully adequate taken by itself?9

I am not trying to suggest that we take liberties with Luke’s text, as if we ourselves knew better than he what really ought to be said. God forbid! I am trying to say that we will be less inclined to get stuck on some pet theory of our own about Luke if we don’t fancy that Luke himself is doing just that—developing a pet theory about Jesus, with Elijah as his key prop. When we notice, with Steve Walton, that there are similarities and dissimilarities between the 2 Kings story and that of Luke-Acts, we will say, “Of course there are! How could there not be?” And we will let the dissimilarities be greater than the similarities, as they most definitely are. Moreover, we will not make the mistake of supposing that among those dissimilarities is the fact that “Jesus is not entering heaven for the first time at his ascension, whereas Elijah is,” for that is no fact. Jesus, says Walton, is regarded by Luke as the preexistent Son of God. Very well; but qua incarnate, as man and for man, he is nevertheless entering heaven for the first time. Nothing in Luke suggests otherwise. In this he is like Elijah, not unlike him. 10 The same mistake is made by David Bryan, or so it seems to me, and for roughly the same reason. Bryan, while averring that “Jesus’s ascent fits squarely within a larger web of heavenly journey discourse,” alludes primarily to the itineraries of the apocalyptic figures. Jesus’s own itinerary differs from the latter because he is not translated into heaven to receive knowledge or the authority to disclose it, all of which, and more, he already has. If I follow Bryan, “Jesus’s ascent 9. Douglas Farrow, “Ascension and Atonement,” in The Theology of Reconciliation, ed. Colin E. Gunton (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 76. 10. For that matter, he is like David, when David at long last captures the stronghold of Zion and enters Jerusalem, but that leads to another set of considerations; cf. Ascension Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2011), chapter 7.

242

WHAT IS THIS CONVERSATION YOU ARE HOLDING?

is unique among apocalyptic heavenly journeys” because he goes to where he has always belonged. He was lord and king from the beginning and now is shown to be such. Indeed! But lordship or kingship, like priesthood, is a distinct office and function from the prophetic. Why then approach the whole matter through the lens of heavenly journey discourse, in which Luke gives no hint that he is interested?11 Luke gives every hint, or rather he is quite explicit, that the ascension of which he speaks is at once a priestly act and an enthronement—that it is quite precisely an assumption of power and authority.12 It has, to be sure, a prophetic component, in that Jesus now shows new things to the Church through the ministry of the Spirit, and occasionally through special revelations such as Peter or Paul received (or later, in true apocalyptic fashion, John, though Luke does not know of that). But the prophetic component cannot be understood properly unless the priestly and the kingly components are grasped first, per Luke 24 and Acts 1. Bryan wants to find in these texts an inversion of ordinary heavenly journey discourse, Jesus being “the antithesis of the naive human ascender into heaven.” Here it is not a matter of establishing his authority but of affirming that his authority “is cosmic in scope,” that he stands “at the apex of the cosmic hierarchy.” Again, yes. But must we not ask what heavenly journey discourse has to do with all this? Or to put it the other way round: What has the ascension to do with apocalyptic revelations, except to make them possible for others as something authentic and authoritative, now that cosmic order and the cosmic hierarchy have been fully and effectively revised? And why should we not see that revision as being not merely announced but rather completed by the ascension? “For he ascended into heaven with all a great prey,” as the Golden Legend puts it, echoing Paul.13 11. Bryan makes a good case that Luke is interested in cosmic order and that Luke’s ending fits his Gospel. How else could the story end, really, without Jesus being placed in heaven? I’m not so sure about Bryan’s remark that “one of the main reasons for this particular destination originates in the chief resident of heaven, namely God”—as if God also requires a place, and as if Jesus might otherwise have gone to Eilat on a holiday. 12. See Ascension and Ecclesia, 16–29.

243

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

So much for the temptation to narrowness; that is, to make something that in the final analysis is entirely sui generis—whatever foreshadowings there may be in salvation history or, for that matter, in pagan myths—fit the constraints of this or that literary paradigm, rather than allowing God to bring all to fulfillment in Jesus. Sleeman, Pao, and Anderson, in their different ways, rightly resist this. But just here, we must engage further those who refuse to allow Luke to tell us that the ascension of Jesus, rather than his resurrection, fully effects his exaltation. “One of the major interpretive issues concerning the ascension of Jesus and its conceptual unity,” writes Professor Porter, “is its relationship to the resurrection and exaltation.” Porter himself seems to side with those who regard the resurrection as exaltation, and the ascension as secondary, derivative, transitional14—though not necessarily purely fictional, a device of Luke’s rather than of God’s, an event for his readers rather than for his Lord. If this is indeed a major interpretive issue for biblical scholars, I am surprised to hear so little actual argumentation about it as we walk along, and to discover some who are unaware that it is also a subject of interest among theologians. I do hear Joshua Jipp saying that Paul (in Acts 13) “uses biblical enthronement texts to interpret the meaning of Jesus’s resurrection as the Messiah’s heavenly enthronement,” while Peter (in Acts 2) “interprets the first act of the ascended and enthroned Messiah as making good on his promise to pour out the Holy Spirit.” But this language is highly ambiguous. If we think along these lines, what is to prevent us from treating all these terms synonymously, such that Resurrection = Exaltation = Ascension = Pentecost? Or from supposing that the entire “afterlife” of Jesus simply is the faith of the Church? That, of course, is a very popular position in modern times, from Reimarus onwards. But it is not Luke’s position; nor, I trust, Jipp’s. At all events, I am in agreement with Pao and Anderson, pace Jipp 13. Jacobus de Voragine, Aurea Legenda, trans. William Caxton, vol. 1, 1483, per Eph 4:8; cf. Acts 2:34f. See further Ascension Theology, 125n11. 14. Porter appeals to the rebuke of the disciples by the angels, who tell them to stop gawking and get on with what they were instructed to do.

244

WHAT IS THIS CONVERSATION YOU ARE HOLDING?

and Zwiep, that Jesus’s exaltation is understood by Luke as effected by resurrection and ascension, not by resurrection only. Indeed, nothing seems to me more plain. The opening chapter of Acts would otherwise be inexplicable. Our equation ought rather to be Exaltation = Resurrection + Ascension (E = R + A), of which the evidence or yield is the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, the incorporation of the Gentiles into the covenant, and all that follows from that in terms of the subjects of the gods and rulers of this world becoming the subjects of Jesus the Christ, who sits enthroned in heaven. Anderson is good on all of this, and it again shows up (as Pao notices in response to Zwiep) the inadequacy of the rapture-preservation paradigm for interpreting the ascension. For that paradigm, besides making the resurrection itself something of an anomaly, has no real place for exaltation. At the end of the day, it is more qur’anic than Christian.15 Here, we may attend a little further to Dr. Zwiep. Having concluded (in his extremely valuable review of the literature) that biblical scholarship has difficulty deciding between the Greco-Roman and the Jewish context, Zwiep himself comes down on the right side of that debate. But the paradigm to which he appeals encourages him to doubt that the ascension is the act by which Jesus is exalted or that it marks the beginning of his sessio ad dexteram Dei. He prefers to speak more generally of “the ascended and exalted status of the risen Lord” as the proper basis for talk of his authority and ongoing activity, and for christological developments. “In Acts, it is crystal clear that the resurrection-exaltation complex acts as a catalyst for christological reflection, and this seems to be in line with the early Christian belief that Jesus was exalted to God’s right hand at or immediately after his resurrection from the dead.”16 It is good to know that something in Acts is crystal clear! But what exactly is this resurrection-exaltation complex? And why is the resurrection the “finale” to Jesus’s story? If it is the finale, why does Luke extend the story by way of an ascent?17 15. See Ascension Theology, 52. 16. See Zwiep, n. 53, for the original reference. 17. It won’t do to take refuge in Gerhard Lohfink’s form-critical distinctions, as if the existence of different possibilities for reading texts about an ascent—be it a departure or a rapture or

245

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Why are we to suppose that, for Luke or anyone else, God making Jesus both Lord and Christ is “materially identical” with God raising him from the dead? Of course, if we grant this assumption, then we can downplay the ascension, treating it (whether real or fictional) as a sign that “Jesus’ leadership role as a broker between God and the people is being transferred to the apostles and the apostles are being initiated into their new role, as in the Elijah-Elisha narrative.”18 Perhaps we can even get from there to some Frühkatholizismus theory of Acts? Certainly we cannot get from there to the Creed, unless we see the Creed as an instrument of quite mundane rather than of godly power. There are many more detailed questions that might be raised, but posing them and listening carefully to the answers and offering rejoinders would require a much longer sojourn on this road. At the moment, what I most want to learn is what role Dr. Zwiep thinks one’s own theology plays in all of this.19 Now, I will not disagree with him that my reflections on the text are “part and parcel of a larger biblical-theological and dogmatic approach that treats the Lukan ascension narrative as an integrated element of a larger unified meta-narrative” (if we use the word colloquially and not in the fashion of critical theorists). That is not so much something “unavoidable” as something deliberate on my part, something invited by the text and already instantiated in it; for Luke himself—if not Jesus, who “interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself”—has a meta-narrative to end all meta-narratives. I would, however, challenge Zwiep’s assertion that such an approach tends to “ignore form-critical categories and distinctions between theological perspectives of the NT witnesses,” if by that he means that systematic

a heavenly journey or whatever—somehow entitles us to regard Luke 24 and Acts 1 as mere addenda or embellishments to a prior “resurrection-exaltation complex.” Nor is “the continued use of exaltation language for the ascension without proper qualification” the main source of confusion, though doing so either in an adoptionist fashion or in some other ill-considered way is certainly to confuse or to be confused. Unfortunately, I cannot add here to Zwiep’s remarks on that. 18. Zwiep, at n. 19, summarizing Nelson Estrada. 19. I am not asking, with David Parker, “how seriously theological issues must be taken” in studying the history of the text (see Zwiep at n. 12), but how seriously they must be taken in studying the text itself and the history of its interpretation.

246

WHAT IS THIS CONVERSATION YOU ARE HOLDING?

theologians are simply careless about such things, or that we have a bad habit of rounding to second without touching the bag at first. It is, to be sure, a very complicated matter to connect “the specific Lukan viewpoint to other NT writers,” never mind to define “the significance of the ascension in the biblical witness as a whole” or to come up with “a full-blown ‘doctrine of the Ascension.’” And the attempt to do all of that must indeed bring us into a world of discourse quite different from that of the Lukan narratives, for it engages us with two millennia of interpretation and application. I dare say, however, that this world is no more foreign to Luke than the world of modern NT scholarship, which apparently finds Luke-Acts so opaque that even its most dedicated readers cannot find a common starting point for treating the narrative hinge that holds it together. One can be forgiven, surely, for wondering whether the opacity might rather be a function of the way the text is being approached.20 If there is, as Zwiep says, “a long way to go to bring biblical scholarship and Christian doctrine together,” that is because biblical scholarship has wandered a very long way from its starting point, or rather from Luke’s pointing point. For Luke is not only a biblical author, he is a biblical scholar; and not only a biblical scholar, but also a theologian. That many contemporary biblical scholars have difficulty seeing him as either, or giving him full credit as both, I find worrisome. That they have difficulty admitting how much unexamined theology is quietly at work in the kind of scholarship they themselves do, I find still more worrisome. The problem does not lie in the fact that, close at hand, one often discovers labyrinths within labyrinths, or that on the horizon there are always new worlds of discourse or “thirdspaces” to explore. It lies in the doubt that the horizon is meaningful, or that there is any one Lord over these discourses, to whom all are accountable. It lies in the unwillingness of today’s scholar to see himself as Luke sees him; that is, as having been positioned, by virtue of Christ’s glorious ascension, “under heaven-as-Christ’s-place.”21 It lies, 20. That thought is reinforced by the fact that Zwiep thinks it necessary to treat Dr. Jonge’s thesis, for example, as worthy of sober consideration.

247

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

that is, in the secularization of biblical scholarship. The professional scholar, qua secularist—even if privately, or by reason of association with his academy, also adhering to this or that religious confession—leaves the impression that collage is all we can hope for in connecting these discoveries and discourses. Certainly, we cannot hope for much in the way of christological clarity, Lukan or otherwise, as Zwiep makes clear. We can proceed to examine “representations of the ascension in Islamic tradition and in literature, visual arts, music, and film,” and explore the effects of such memes on historical consciousness; but unity between scripture and scripture, not to say unity between scripture and liturgy and doctrine, is an artificial, if not a quaint or even quixotic, quest. Now, perhaps things are not so bad as all that. Perhaps I am not hearing Zwiep properly. And just over there is Anderson, for example, still pursuing a comprehensive vision of the role of the ascension in Luke-Acts that, as far as it goes, fits fairly well into the Great Tradition. Recognizing that Luke’s “framing makes the crucifixion and resurrection preparatory for the ascension and prioritizes heaven as the goal of Jesus’s redemptive journey,” Anderson seems ready to travel with theologians and to reflect on the ascension’s doctrinal implications. He is not afraid to mark the fact that the ascension “makes clear that the human problem consists not in being human” but in being sinful; that it presents “a moral rather than ontological challenge” and has wide social and political implications, even (it may be) professional implications. It does a theologian’s heart good to hear such things, and perchance to be invited to discuss them over a meal. Who knows? We might even get as far as discussing the Eucharist over that meal, and considering how it is that a community capable of following the trajectory of the ascension narratives exists. 22 I must bring this postscript to a close, however, by pressing once more, to the whole company, the question with which I began: “What is this conversation you are holding?” On one level, it is just what 21. Sleeman, Geography, 78 (quoted by Zwiep). I would add, “and under heaven-as-Christ’s-time,” but we need not pursue that here, since it is not, or not so evidently, Lukan. 22. Cf. Ascension and Ecclesia, 266, and Ascension Theology, chapters 5–7.

248

WHAT IS THIS CONVERSATION YOU ARE HOLDING?

it claims to be, a conversation about the ascension in Luke-Acts. On another level, it is a somewhat guarded conversation about hermeneutical presuppositions, and about the grounds upon which we decide literary context and so forth. On still another level, it is a conversation about theological presuppositions—or rather, it should be but, as things stand, it isn’t. Eventually, I want to say, it must be. For one can’t think properly on any of these levels if one doesn’t think also, and at the same time, on all of them. How far can the conversation go, for example, without asking whether there really is a heaven for Jesus to go to,23 whether he does go there, and whether his going there makes any real difference? Since Luke cares about these things, students of Luke must also care about them if they hope to understand Luke. Scripture and tradition use the word heaven in more ways, and with more meanings, than have been noted in these essays. But the one that matters most here is the one that allows for the placing of Jesus at God’s right hand, such that “God’s right hand” (a metaphorical expression, if ever there was one) has at last a definite reference point: the reference point made for it by the ascension. Yes, of course, “to ascend” is also a metaphorical expression, but does it or doesn’t it refer to a real event in the life of Jesus and so also in the history of heaven? This matters to Luke, and it matters to Christians generally, for Christianity is precisely that religion that maintains both that Jesus is in heaven and that heaven—this clearly distinguishes Christianity from Judaism, and especially, from Islam—is now what it is, and where it is, and when it is, just because Jesus is there. “The ascension is quite possibly the ultimate recognition token,” remarks Craig McMahan.24 Very droll. Perhaps it is also true that faith in the ascension as a real event for Jesus, as an actual exaltation to his position at the right hand of God, is the ultimate factor in our reading of Luke-Acts. Without that faith, ascension-talk is merely a human token, our affirmation of Jesus rather than God’s. In which case it can 23. Bryan is right to say at n. 31: “The problem with rejecting heaven as an actual place … is Jesus himself. . . . Human ontology requires existence in a place.” But see Ascension Theology, 43ff. 24. Quoted by Zwiep at n. 33.

249

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

mean almost anything, or perhaps not very much at all, even when we hear it from Luke.25 Under these conditions, exegesis is likely to become more playful than serious. If, on the other hand, we allow Luke to teach us that E = R + A, we attest God’s act on behalf of Jesus, not only in raising him from the dead and rendering him immortal—already an exaltation, to be sure, for no one is properly immortal who does not participate freely in the life of God, and already an act of assigning to Jesus all authority in heaven and on earth, since he is the firstborn from the dead—but also in placing him where that authority can be fully exercised, in both its priestly and its kingly fullness.26 Things look rather more serious then. Which brings me to my parting word: too many biblical scholars, even those who take their work very seriously indeed mainly because they believe scripture to be inspired and true, think and write, at least professionally, as if it were not true, or not knowable as true. Nowhere is this more evident than in treatments of the ascension, but when we come to the ascension, we come to the very point where the question must be called. This is what I had in mind when I quoted Matthew Sleeman on non-neutral places. Our disciplines are not exempt; they too are non-neutral places. How we approach Luke-Acts, and the ascension in Luke-Acts, sooner or later exposes our own theologies, anthropologies, and meta-narratives. It exposes our ecclesiologies. Some are willing to read Luke and Acts ecclesiastically, and some are not. Some are willing to take presence and absence in Acts as a narrative problem only; others recognize it as a political and cosmological problem, or even as a sacramental problem. These last know that John will be of more help to them than Luke, but they never

25. Cf. Anthony J. Kelly, Upward: Faith, Church, and the Ascension of Christ (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2014), 48: “The resurrection without the ascension can easily be reduced to a particular past happening and be deprived of the universal salvific relevance proper to it. The ascension separated from the resurrection can be reduced merely to a ‘higher point of view’ uncontaminated by any momentous historical experience of a singular event. In that case, it would not entail the ascent of our humanity in Christ to the Father with its already realized victory over sin and death.” 26. Is that not the point of the apokalypsis granted—in the depths, not in the heights—to the protomartyr, Stephen? “Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:56).

250

WHAT IS THIS CONVERSATION YOU ARE HOLDING?

think that Luke and John are anything other than paired lenses to help them see more deeply into things that are, as they really are. Nor do they suppose that they can read either author adequately without the help of the Church. Next time we meet, shall we not hear more of how these authors are read, not only by Justin, say, but by Irenaeus and Augustine and Denys and Aquinas and any number of others who may well understand them better than we do? Shall we not journey, that is, with a much larger company?

251

Selected Bibliography on the Ascension in Luke-Acts (1995–2015)

This list was compiled by Arie Zwiep, with select additions by contributors to this volume. For a bibliography of works on the ascension prior to 1995, see A. W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, NovTSup 87 (Leiden: Brill, 1997).

1995 Rius-Camps, Josep. “Las variantes de la recensión occidental de los Hechos de los Apóstoles.” EFN 8 (1995): 63–78.

1996 Zwiep, Arie W. “The Text of the Ascension Narratives (Luke 24.50–3; Acts 1.1–2,9–11).” NTS 42 (1996): 219–44. Reprinted and revised, pages 7–37 in Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles. WUNT 2.293. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.

1997 deSilva, David A. “Exaltation, Enthronement.” In Dictionary of the Later New Testament. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 359–63. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997. Larkin Jr., William J. “Ascension.” Ιn Dictionary of the Later New Testament and

253

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 95–102. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997. Zwiep, Arie W. The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology. NovTSup 87. Leiden: Brill, 1997. _____. “Het hemelvaarts- en verhogingsmotief bij Lucas in het licht van de laatjoodse literatuur.” Soteria 14/1 (1997): 32–43. Reprinted in “Hemelvaart, opname en verhoging.” Jezus en het heil van Israëls God: Verkenningen in het Nieuwe Testament,

52–67. Evangelicale

Theologie

6.

Zoetermeer:

Boekencentrum, 2003.

1998 Atkins, Peter. “Luke’s Ascension Location: A Note on Luke 24:50.” ExpTim 109 (1998): 205–6; Reprinted in Atkins, Ascension Now, 147–50, 2001. Buccellati, Giorgio. “Ascension, Parousia, and the Sacred Heart: Structural Correlations.” Com(US) 25 (1998): 69–103. Stander, Hendrik F. “Fourth- and Fifth-Century Homilists on the Ascension of Christ.” In The Early Church in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson. Edited by Abraham J. Malherbe, Frederick W. Norris, and James W. Thompson, 268–86. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

1999 Farrow, Douglas B. Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. _____. “Erhöhung.” RGG4 (1999), 1411. Robbins, Vernon K. “The Claims of the Prologues and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: The Prefaces to Luke and Acts in Light of Greco-Roman Rhetorical Strategies.” In Jesus and the Heritage of Israel. Vol. 1: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (Luke the Interpreter). Edited by David P. Moessner, 63–83. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999. Zeller, Dieter. “Entrückung.” RGG4 (1999), 2:1332–33.

254

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

2000 Herzer, Jens. Ostern, Himmelfahrt, Pfingsten, Weihnachten: Was wissen wir über die Ursprünge des Christentums? Brennpunkt: Die Bibel 4. Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft / Cansteinsche Bibelanstalt, 2000. Kilgallen, John J. “‘The Apostles Whom He Chose Because of the Holy Spirit’: A Suggestion Regarding Acts 1, 2.” Bib 81 (2000): 414–17. Tilborg, Sjef van. Jesus’ Appearances and Disappearances in Luke 24. Edited by Patrick J. E. Chatelion Counet. BibInt 45. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Zeller, Dieter et al. “Himmelfahrt/Himmelfahrt Christi.” RGG4 (2000), 3:1746–53.

2001 Atkins, Peter. Ascension Now: Implications of Christ’s Ascension for Today’s Church. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2001. Dunn, James D. G. “The Ascension of Jesus: A Test Case for Hermeneutics.” In Auferstehung/Resurrection: The Fourth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium; Resurrection, Transfiguration and Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger, 301–22. WUNT 135. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Zwiep, Arie W. “Assumptus est in caelum: Rapture and Heavenly Exaltation in Early Judaism and Luke-Acts.” In Auferstehung/Resurrection: The Fourth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium; Resurrection, Transfiguration and Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger. Edited by Avemarie and Lichtenberger, 323–49. WUNT 135. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Reprinted in Zwiep, Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God, 38–67.

2002 Bohnet, Jörg Michael. “Der Auferstandene als der Erhöhte und seine beiden sichtbaren Himmelfahrten im lukanischen Doppelwerk.” Diss. Theol., University of Heidelberg, 2002.

255

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Gubler, Marie-Louise. “Aufgenommen in den Himmel: Predigt zum 15. August.” Diakonia 33 (2002): 274–76. Harrington, Daniel J. “Afterlife Expectations in Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, and Their Implications for the New Testament.” In Resurrection in the New Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht. Edited by Reimund Bieringer, Veronica Koperski, and Bianca Lataire, 21–34. BETL 165. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002. Johnson, Andy. “Our God Reigns: The Body of the Risen Lord in Luke 24.” WW 22 (2002): 133–43. _____. “Ripples of the Resurrection in the Triune Life of God: Reading Luke 24 with Eschatological and Trinitarian Eyes.” HBT 24 (2002): 87–110. Jonge, Henk Jan de. “Feest in vieren; de zin van hemelvaart en pinksteren.” HN 11, 2002, 20–22. _____. “Visionary Experience and the Historical Origins of Christianity.” In Resurrection in the New Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht. Edited by Reimund Bieringer, Veronica Koperski, and Bianca Lataire, 35–53. BETL 165. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002. Pilhofer, Peter. “Livius, Lukas und Lukian: Drei Himmelfahrten.” In Die frühen Christen und ihre Welt: Greifswalder Aufsätze 1996-2001. Edited by Peter Pilhofer, 166–82. WUNT 145. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Zeller, Dieter. “Erscheinungen verstorbener im griechisch-römischen Bereich.” In Resurrection in the New Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht. Edited by Reimund Bieringer, Veronica Koperski, and Bianca Lataire, 1–19. BETL 165. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002.

2003 Gilbert, Gary. “Roman Propaganda and Christian Identity in the Worldview of Luke-Acts.” In Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse. Edited by Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, 233–56. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Hamm, Dennis. “The Tamid Service in Luke-Acts: The Cultic Background Behind Luke’s Theology of Worship (Luke 1:5–25; 18:9–14; 24:50–53; Acts 3:1; 10:3, 30).” CBQ 65 (2003): 215–31. Marschler, Thomas. Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt Christi in der scholastischen

256

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Theologie bis zu Thomas von Aquin. 2 vols. BGPhMA 64. Münster: Aschendorff, 2003. Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God, 649–56. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

2004 Burgess, Andrew R. The Ascension in Karl Barth. Barth Studies. Aldershot, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004. Dawson, Gerrit Scott. Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R; London, New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. Estrada, Nelson P. From Followers to Leaders: The Apostles in the Ritual of Status Transformation in Acts 1–2. JSNTSup 255. LNTS. London: Bloomsbury; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2004. Johnson, Andy. “Resurrection, Ascension and the Developing Portrait of the God of Israel in Acts.” SJT 57 (2004): 146–62. Rius-Camps, Josep, and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger. The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae. A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition, vol. 1: Acts 1:1–5:42 – Jerusalem. JSNTSup 257. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Strelan, Rick. Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of the Acts of the Apostles. BZNW 126. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Varo Martinson, Paul. “The Ending is Prelude: Discontinuities Lead to Continuities: Acts 1:1–11 and 28:23–31.” In Mission in Acts: Ancient Narratives in Contemporary Context. Edited by Robert L. Gallagher and Paul Hertig, 313–23. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004.

2005 Farrow, Douglas B. Review of Andrew Burgess, The Ascension in Karl Barth, IJST 7 (2005): 205–8. Harris, Mark. “Power Point: Living by the Word.” ChrCent 3 (May 2005): 20. Kapic, Kelly M. “Receiving Christ’s Priestly Benediction: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Exploration of Luke 24:50–53.” WTJ 67 (2005): 247–60.

257

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Mainville, Odette. “De Jésus à l’Église: Étude rédactionelle de Luc 24.” NTS 51 (2005): 192–211. Martin, Michael Wade. “Defending the ‘Western Non-Interpolations’: The Case for an Anti-Separationist Tendenz in the Longer Alexandrian Readings.” JBL 124 (2005): 269–94. Pilch, John L. “The Ascension of Jesus: A Social Scientific Perspective.” In Kontexte der Schrift Bd 2, Kultur, Politik, Religion, Sprache-Text. Wolfgang Stegemann zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Christian Strecker, 75–82. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2005. Zwiep, Arie W. “Hemelvaart, ten hemel varen, opgenomen worden.” In Woordenboek voor bijbellezers. Edited by A. Noordegraaf, G. Kwakkel, S. Paas, H. G. L. Peels, and A. W. Zwiep, 272–78. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2005.

2006 Anderson, Kevin L. “But God Raised Him from the Dead”: The Theology of Jesus’ Resurrection in Luke-Acts. PBM. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2006. Zwiep, Arie W. “Ascension.” Vol. 1 of The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katherine Doob Sakenfeld, 290–91. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2006.

2007 Chester, Andrew. Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology. WUNT 207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Foster, Paul. “Polymorphic Christology: Its Origins and Development in Early Christianity.” JTS 58 (2007): 66–99. Kapic, Kelly M., and Wesley Vander Lugt. “The Ascension of Jesus and the Descent of the Holy Spirit in Patristic Perspective: A Theological Reading.” EvQ 79 (2007): 23–33. Kezbere, Ilze. Umstrittener Monotheismus: wahre und falsche Apotheose im lukanischen Doppelwerk. NTOA 60. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Freiburg: Academic Press, 2007. Nicklas, Tobias. “Angels in Early Christian Narratives on the Resurrection of Jesus: Canonical and Apocryphal texts.” In Angels—The Concept of Celestial Beings: Origins, Development and Reception. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer,

258

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tobias Nicklas, and Karin Schopflin, 293–311. DCLY 2007. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Ohly, Lukas. “Kontrast-Harmonie: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Himmelfahrt Christi.” NZSTh 49 (2007): 484–98. Prince, Deborah Thompson. “The ‘Ghost’ of Jesus: Luke 24 in Light of Ancient Narratives of Post-Mortem Apparitions.” JSNT 29 (2007): 287–301. Sleeman, Matthew. “The Ascension and Heavenly Ministry of Christ.” In The Forgotten Christ: Exploring the Majesty and Mystery of God Incarnate. Edited by Stephen Clark, 140–90. Nottingham: Apollos, 2007.

2008 Chaignon, Francis de. Le Mystère de l’Ascension. Cahiers de L’École Cathédrale 82. Paris: Parole et Silence, 2008. McMahan, Craig T. “More Than Meets the ‘I’: Recognition Scenes in the Odyssey and Luke 24.” PRSt 35 (2008): 87–107. Moessner, David P. “The Triadic Synergy of Hellenistic Poetics in the Narrative Epistemology of Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Authorial Intent of the Evangelist Luke (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–8).” Neot 42 (2008): 289–303. Walton, Steve. “‘The Heavens Opened’: Cosmological and Theological Transformation in Luke and Acts.” In Cosmology and New Testament Theology. Edited by Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough, 60–73. LNTS 355. London: T&T Clark, 2008.

2009 Bovon, François. L’Évangile selon saint Luc (19,28–24,53). CNT 3d. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2009. Dunn, James D. G. “Ascension of Christ.” Vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck, Volker Leppin, Bernard McGinn, Choon-Leong Seow, Hermann Spieckermann, Barry Dov Walfish, and Eric J. Ziolkowski, 908–30. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Seim, Turid Karlsen. “The Resurrected Body in Luke-Acts: The Significance of Space.” In Metamorphoses: Resurrection, the Body and Transformative Practices

259

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

in Early Christianity. Edited by Turid Karlsen Seim and Jorunn Økland, 19–39. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Sleeman, Matthew. Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts. SNTSMS 215. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

2010 Bovon, François. “The Lukan Ascension Stories.” Korean New Testament Studies 17 (2010): 563–95 [in Korean]. Churchill, Timothy W. R. Divine Initiative and the Christology of the Damascus Road Encounter. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Klumbies, Paul-Gerhard. Von der Hinrichtung zur Himmelfahrt: Der Schluss der Jesuserzählung nach Markus und Lukas. BTS 114. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010. Kollamparampil, Thomas. Jacob of Sarug’s Homily on the Ascension of Our Lord. Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 24. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010. Mihoc, Justin Alexandru. “The Ascension of Jesus Christ: A Critical and Exegetical Study of the Ascension in Luke-Acts and in the Jewish and Christian Contexts.” MA Thesis, Durham University, 2010. Navascués Benlloch, Patricio de. “Eine vergessene Textform von Apg 1,2.” In Gelitten – gestorben – auferstanden: Passions- und Ostertraditionen im antiken Christentum. Edited by Tobias Nicklas, Andreas Merkt, and Joseph Verheyden, 247–66. WUNT 2.273. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Schwindt, Rainer. “Bibelhermeneutische Überlegungen zur Himmelfahrtserzählung Apg 1,4–11.” SNTSU 35 (2010): 161–76.

2011 Bracci, Mario. Nel seno della Trinità: Il misterio dell’Ascensione di Gesù. Theologica 2. Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2011. Farrow, Douglas B. Ascension Theology. London: T&T Clark International, 2011. Schnauß, Markus. Die Jesus-Geschichte als Repräsentation des Erhöhten: Der Erhöhungsgedanke als innere Orientierung des Lukasevangeliums. Eine bibeltheologische Studie. ETS 100. Würzburg: Echter, 2011.

260

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

2012 Bryan, David K. “The Heavenly Lord Over All: A Comparison of Second Temple Jewish Ascents Into Heaven and Acts 1:9–14.” Unpublished Paper Presented to the Book of Acts Section, Chicago, IL, SBL Annual Meeting 2012. Hengel, Martin. “The Lukan Prologue and Its Eyewitnesses: The Apostles, Peter, and the Women.” In Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology: Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honor of Martin Hengel. Translated by Nelson Moore. Edited by Michael F. Bird and Jason Maston, 533–87. WUNT 2.320. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Keener, Craig S. “Jesus’ Ascension and Promise to Return (1:9–11).” In Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. Vol. 1: Introduction and 1:1–2:47, 711–32. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Seamands, Stephen A. Give Them Christ: Preaching His Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, and Return. Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2012.

2013 Bracci, Mario. Ascese al cielo: Per un eccesso del dono che va oltre la misura dell’amore. Assissi: Citadella Editrice, 2013. Jonge, Henk Jan de. “The Chronology of the Ascension Stories in Luke and Acts.” NTS 59 (2013): 151–71. Martínez, Aquiles Ernesto. “Comunicación, comunión y comunidad: hospitalidad, propagación de la fe y cooperación en Hechos.” Apuntes 32 (2013): 124–43. Walton, Steve. “Ascension of Jesus.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 2nd ed. IVP Bible Dictionary Series. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 59–61. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013.

2014 Kelly, Anthony J. Upward: Faith, Church, and the Ascension of Christ. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2014. Litwa, M. David. “We Worship One Who Rose from His Tomb.” In Iesus Deus: The

261

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God, 141–79. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Simpson, Albert Benjamin. The Christ of the Forty Days: What Jesus Taught Between His Resurrection and Ascension. New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 2014.

2015 Miller, Richard C. Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity. Routledge Studies in Religion 44. New York: Routledge, 2015. Thiselton, Anthony C. “Ascension of Christ.” In The Thiselton Companion to Christian Theology, 51–53. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

262

Ancient Sources Index

Canonical Writings (LXX numbering of sources cited in parentheses)

Exodus 16:10. . . . . .226 20:11. . . . . .205n115 24:16. . . . . .226

Old Testament Genesis 1:2. . . . . .183 2:1. . . . . .184 2:4. . . . . .183 3. . . . .200n95 5:5. . . . . .30 5:8. . . . . .30 5:11. . . . . .30 5:14. . . . . .30 5:17. . . . . .30 5:20. . . . . .30 5:22. . . . . .30 5:24. . . . . .30, 29, 63, 130 5:27. . . . . .30 5:31. . . . . .30 15:16. . . . . .200 17:22. . . . . .131 35:13. . . . . .131

33:5–6. . . . . .184n36 40:34. . . . . .226 Leviticus 9:22–23. . . . . .13 16:2. . . . . .226 16:13. . . . . .226 26:1. . . . . .181n22 30. . . . . .181n22 Numbers 6:24–26. . . . . .13 14:10. . . . . .226 Deuteronomy 4:19. . . . . .181n21, 184n36 6:13. . . . . .76 17:3. . . . . .181n21 30:12. . . . . .122 30:19. . . . . .183n30

263

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Judges

2:11 (4 Kgdms 2:11) . . . . . .16, 33, 188n57

6:21. . . . . .131

2:13–14 (4 Kgdms 2:13–14) . . . . . .33 1 Samuel

2:15 (4 Kgdms 2:15) . . . . . .34, 37

16:13. . . . . .43, 55

2:17. . . . . .30 17:16. . . . . .181n21, 184n36

2 Samuel

21:3. . . . . .181n21, 184n36

7:10–14. . . . . .54

23:4 . . . . . .181n21, 184n36

7:11–16. . . . . .149

23:5. . . . . .184n36

7:12–14. . . . . .43, 52n40, 54 7:12. . . . . .48

1 Chronicles

7:15. . . . . .53n44

17. . . . . .45

22:6. . . . . .47n15

17:11. . . . . .45 17:12. . . . . .45

1 Kings

17:14. . . . . .45

3:6. . . . . .53n44

17:17–18. . . . . .45

8:10–11. . . . . .181n21

17:20–21. . . . . .45

17:16. . . . . .35 17:17–24. . . . . .35

2 Chronicles

17:21. . . . . .35

5:14. . . . . .226

19:19–21. . . . . .36

6:42. . . . . .53n44

22:19. . . . . .184n36

18:18. . . . . .184n36 33:3. . . . . .181n21

2 Kings

33:5 . . . . . .181n21

1:9–14. . . . . .36 2. . . . . .41, 30

Nehemiah

2:1–14. . . . . .16n39

9:6. . . . . .184n36

2:1–18. . . . . .63 2:1 (4 Kgdms 2:1) . . . . . .33–34

Job

2:7–12. . . . . .41

1:6. . . . . .75

2:9–11 (4 Kgdms 2:9–11) . . . . . .33

16:19. . . . . .187n50

2:9–10. . . . . .37 2:9 (4 Kgdms 2:9) . . . . . .33, 34

Psalms

2:10 (4 Kgdms 2:10) . . . . . .33

2. . . . . .44, 52, 56, 181

264

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

2:1–3. . . . . .53

89:20. . . . . .43

2:1–2. . . . . .52, 56

89:23. . . . . .44

2:2–3. . . . . .44, 62

89:24. . . . . .45

2:2. . . . . .43

89:26–28. . . . . .43

2:6–9. . . . . .43

89:29. . . . . .46

2:6–7. . . . . .52

89:30–34. . . . . .53n44

2:6. . . . . .44

89:35. . . . . .43

2:7b–8. . . . . .44

89:38–42. . . . . .46

2:7. . . . . .50, 51, 52, 53

89:39. . . . . .43

2:8–9. . . . . .44

103:21 (102:21). . . . . .184n36

16 (15). . . . . .47, 47n19, 48, 49, 55,

109:8. . . . . .59

208 16:8–11 (15:8–11). . . . . .46, 49, 149n49

110 (109). . . . . .48n21, 49, 55, 56, 147, 147n45, 149, 153, 163n9, 217, 218, 218n11

16:9–10 (15:9–10). . . . . .47

110:1–4. . . . . .43

16:10 (15:10). . . . . .50, 54

110:1–2. . . . . .44

18 (17). . . . . .55

110:1 (109:1). . . . . .46, 48, 50, 50n31,

18:4 (17:5). . . . . .46, 47

55, 58, 147, 149, 149n49, 162

18:49–50 (17:50–51). . . . . .47

110:2. . . . . .44, 238

18:51. . . . . .43

116:3 (114:3). . . . . .47n15

20:8. . . . . .43

118 (117)……58, 58n61, 148n46

22:14–18. . . . . .43

118:10 (117:10). . . . . .58

33:6. . . . . .184n36

118:11 (117:11). . . . . .58

38:5–8. . . . . .43

118:12 (117:12). . . . . .58

68:18 (67:19). . . . . .187n51

118:22 (117:22). . . . . .58, 77

69:16–20. . . . . .43

118:26a (117:26a). . . . . .76

69:26. . . . . .59

120:2. . . . . .183n30

72:5–7. . . . . .44

132:11 (131:11). . . . . .43, 46, 48

72:8. . . . . .44

132:17. . . . . .43

88. . . . . .58

144:11–14. . . . . .44

89:3. . . . . .43

146:6 (145:6). . . . . .197, 205n115

89:19. . . . . .45

148:1. . . . . .187n50

89:20–21. . . . . .57

148:2. . . . . .184n36

265

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Proverbs

43:8. . . . . .144

20:29. . . . . .184n36

43:10. . . . . .144 43:12. . . . . .144

Isaiah

44:1–4. . . . . .55

2:2. . . . . .150, 150n53

45:12. . . . . .184n36

3:19–20. . . . . .184n36

46:6. . . . . .181n22

6:1–11. . . . . .64n7

48:20. . . . . .145

6:1–3. . . . . .225

49:6. . . . . .145, 145n37, 155

6:1. . . . . .225

52:13. . . . . .57

6:2. . . . . .224

55. . . . . .209

6:5. . . . . .225

55:3. . . . . .53, 50, 53n44

6:7. . . . . .224

61:1–3. . . . . .43, 55

6:9. . . . . .224

61:1–2a. . . . . .199

8:9. . . . . .145

62:11. . . . . .145

10:11. . . . . .181n22

65:17. . . . . .183n30

11:1–2. . . . . .43, 55

66:1–2. . . . . .197

11:13. . . . . .144

66:1. . . . . .186

13:10–13. . . . . .182n27 13:10. . . . . .184n36

Jeremiah

16:12. . . . . .181n22

4:23–28. . . . . .182n27

19:1. . . . . .181n22

8:2. . . . . .181n21

21:9. . . . . .181n22

19:13. . . . . .181n21

24:1–6. . . . . .182n27

23:5–6. . . . . .54

24:18b–23. . . . . .182n27

31:34. . . . . .180n16

24:21. . . . . .184n36 31:7. . . . . .181n22

Ezekiel

32:15. . . . . .144, 150, 151, 55, 150n52

10:4. . . . . .226

34:4. . . . . .182n27, 184n36

11:22. . . . . .231

37:16. . . . . .183n30

23:40. . . . . .184n36

40–55. . . . . .198n92

32:7–8. . . . . .182n27

40:1–2. . . . . .144

34:22–31. . . . . .54

40:9–11. . . . . .144

36:26–27. . . . . .55

40:26. . . . . .184n36

37:14. . . . . .55

42:18. . . . . .144

37:24–28. . . . . .54

266

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

40–48. . . . . .64n7

Zechariah

43:1–2. . . . . .231

14:4. . . . . .248

44:1–2. . . . . .232 Malachi Daniel

3:22–23. . . . . .131

4:37. . . . . .65

4:4–6. . . . . .32, 35, 50

7. . . . . .16, 17, 144, 153, 242

4:5. . . . . .35

7:9–14. . . . . .231

4:6. . . . . .32

7:13–14. . . . . .163 8:10–11. . . . . .181n21 8:10. . . . . .184n36 8:16. . . . . .75 9:21. . . . . .75 Joel 2. . . . . .194 2:10. . . . . .182n27 2:28–32 (3:1–5). . . . . .150 2:28 (3:1). . . . . .150 2:30–31. . . . . .182n27 2:32. . . . . .195 3:15–16. . . . . .182n27 Amos 8:9. . . . . .182n27 9:11–12. . . . . .149 Zephaniah 1:5. . . . . .184n36 Haggai 2:6. . . . . .182n27

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 13:7–8. . . . . .70 17:17. . . . . .72 17:19. . . . . .65 19:6–9. . . . . .67n20 Apocalypse of Moses 37:5. . . . . .106n83 40:1. . . . . .106n83 Aristobulus 8.10.9. . . . . .185n39 13.12.3. . . . . .184n37 13.12.5. . . . . .184n37 Ascension and Martyrdom of Isaiah 11:32. . . . . .65 11:40. . . . . .72 Assumption of Moses 10:5. . . . . .182n27 10:12. . . . . .188n57

267

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

2 Baruch

15. . . . . .69

6:4–6. . . . . .67n20

15:1–3. . . . . .72

21:6. . . . . .67

16:2–3. . . . . .72

46:7. . . . . .188n57

18:8–9. . . . . .65

56:10–16. . . . . .70

20:1–7. . . . . .67

56:14. . . . . .67

20:7. . . . . .75

76. . . . . .16, 131

25:3. . . . . .65

76:4. . . . . .16

25:7. . . . . .65 37:2. . . . . .72

3 Baruch

37:5. . . . . .72

1:2. . . . . .66

40:9. . . . . .75

4:7. . . . . .75

41:9. . . . . .67

11:4. . . . . .67

43:1. . . . . .67

11:6. . . . . .68

47:3. . . . . .65

11:9. . . . . .65

54:5. . . . . .68 60:2. . . . . .67n20

1 Enoch

60:3. . . . . .65

1:8. . . . . .77

60:4. . . . . .67n20

1:9. . . . . .31

61:10. . . . . .68

5:1–10. . . . . .77

62:2–3. . . . . .65

6–16. . . . . .70

63:1–4. . . . . .67

9:1. . . . . .75

68:4. . . . . .67, 78

9:4–5. . . . . .67

69:3. . . . . .68

9:7. . . . . .67

70:1s. . . . . .16

11:2. . . . . .77

71:1–17. . . . . .77

12:3. . . . . .65

71:7. . . . . .68

12:4–5. . . . . .72

71:8–9. . . . . .67n20

13:1–10. . . . . .72

71:13. . . . . .67n20

14:3–7. . . . . .72

72–82. . . . . .68

14:8–9. . . . . .65

75:1–3. . . . . .68

14:9. . . . . .66

79:6. . . . . .68, 69

14:18. . . . . .65

80:4–7. . . . . .182

14:20. . . . . .65

82:7. . . . . .68, 69

14:21. . . . . .67, 78

82:11–20. . . . . .69

268

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

84:2–3. . . . . .65, 67

Joseph and Aseneth

93:11–14. . . . . .69

14:7. . . . . .67

99:3. . . . . .75 Jubilees 2 Enoch

2:2. . . . . .75

1a:1. . . . . .72

32:20. . . . . .131

1a:5–6. . . . . .68 1:7–8. . . . . .66n7

Judith

4:1. . . . . .68

1:14. . . . . .184

8:3–5. . . . . .106 19:1–20:3. . . . . .68

Letter to Aristeas

19:3–5. . . . . .67

123. . . . . .200

20:1. . . . . .66n7 20:3. . . . . .69n23

Life of Adam and Eve

21:3. . . . . .75

3:2. . . . . .67

29:4–5a. . . . . .68

13:2. . . . . .67

31:3–6. . . . . .70

32–37. . . . . .131

33:5–12. . . . . .72

38:2. . . . . .75

36:1. . . . . .72 53:1–2. . . . . .72

1 Maccabees

67. . . . . .31, 130

2:11. . . . . .184n36

67:2. . . . . .78

2:51–60. . . . . .60 2:58. . . . . .32, 131, 188n57

3 Enoch 54:8. . . . . .67

2 Maccabees 7:9. . . . . .185n39

4 Ezra

7:23……184n37

5:4. . . . . .182n27

8:18. . . . . .185n39

6:26. . . . . .188n57

12:15. . . . . .185n39

8:20–21. . . . . .65

13:14. . . . . .184n37

8:20. . . . . .188n57 12:5. . . . . .66n17

3 Maccabees

13:30–32. . . . . .182n27

2:2. . . . . .65

14. . . . . .16, 131

6:28. . . . . .65

269

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

7:6. . . . . .65

Testament of Abraham A 1:7. . . . . .185n40

4 Maccabees

10:14. . . . . .184n37

5:25. . . . . .184n37

16:4. . . . . .185n40 16:12. . . . . .185n40

Psalms of Solomon

19:7. . . . . .185n40

1:4. . . . . .145n36 4:18. . . . . .188n57

Testament of Abraham B

17:21–32. . . . . .52n40

1:4. . . . . .67

17:22. . . . . .43

2:3. . . . . .65

17:37. . . . . .43

4:4. . . . . .131

18:5–7. . . . . .43

7:8. . . . . .188n57

18:10. . . . . .187n50

7:19–8:3. . . . . .130 9:5. . . . . .66n17

Sibylline Oracles

13:10. . . . . .67

3:1–2. . . . . .65

14:6–7. . . . . .131

3:174. . . . . .65 3:286. . . . . .65

Testament of Job

3:741–61. . . . . .77n47

3:6. . . . . .67

3:796–803. . . . . .182n27

39:12. . . . . .188n57 52. . . . . .131

Sirach 6:30. . . . . .184n36

Testament of Moses

21:27. . . . . .184n36

4:2. . . . . .65

48:1–11. . . . . .32 48:9–12. . . . . .131

Testament of Levi

48:9. . . . . .16, 188n57

2:10–11. . . . . .72

48:10. . . . . .34

3:3–9. . . . . .68

48:10b. . . . . .34

3:5. . . . . .67

49:14. . . . . .188n57

4:1. . . . . .182n27

50. . . . . .12, 14n33

5:1–2. . . . . .65

50:17. . . . . .12n25

5:1. . . . . .65

50:20–22. . . . . .12

18:3. . . . . .188n57 18:4–5. . . . . .77n47

270

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

Testament of Judah

9:9. . . . . .184n37

9:3. . . . . .131

11:17. . . . . .184n37

10:2. . . . . .131

11:22. . . . . .185n39 12:12–22. . . . . .78

Testament of Issachar

13:3. . . . . .197n86

4:6. . . . . .185n40

13:9. . . . . .197n86

Testament of Naphtali 3:2–5. . . . . .70 Testament of Solomon 1:0. . . . . .67 1:1. . . . . .77n48 2:1. . . . . .66n17 2:4–7. . . . . .67 5:9. . . . . .75 5:13. . . . . .67, 77n48 7:7. . . . . .67 8:1. . . . . .67, 77n48 11:3. . . . . .75 11:5. . . . . .75 13:7. . . . . .67, 77n48 14:2. . . . . .78 18:3. . . . . .67, 78 Tobit 12:15. . . . . .75 12:20–22. . . . . .131 13:9. . . . . .65 Wisdom of Solomon 3:2. . . . . .189n62 7:6. . . . . .189n62 9:3. . . . . .185n39

New Testament Matthew 2:13. . . . . .121 4:8. . . . . .184n35 5:1. . . . . .122 6:10. . . . . .206 6:32. . . . . .184n35 9:7. . . . . .121 9:9. . . . . .121 9:25. . . . . .121 11:11. . . . . .121 12:11. . . . . .121 12:41. . . . . .121 12:42. . . . . .121 13:7. . . . . .122 16:26. . . . . .184n35 17:1. . . . . .123 17:5. . . . . .226 17:8. . . . . .123 17:9. . . . . .121 17:11. . . . . .34 17:23. . . . . .121 20:19. . . . . .121 21:9. . . . . .187n50 23:12. . . . . .121 24:38. . . . . .128n37, 129

271

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

27:63. . . . . .121

1:32–33. . . . . .46

28:1–10. . . . . .111

1:32. . . . . .150, 187n50

28:6. . . . . .121

1:33. . . . . .37

28:7. . . . . .121

1:35. . . . . .37, 38n40, 187n50, 190n68

28:16–20. . . . . .17

1:43. . . . . .38n40, 149n51

28:18. . . . . .215

1:52. . . . . .121 1:54–55. . . . . .195

Mark

1:68–74. . . . . .46

1:2–8. . . . . .32n13

1:68–73. . . . . .54

4:7. . . . . .122

1:69. . . . . .51

5:41. . . . . .121

1:76. . . . . .187n50

5:42. . . . . .121

1:77. . . . . .180n16

8:36. . . . . .184n35

1:78–79. . . . . .180

9:2. . . . . .123

1:79. . . . . .180n17

9:11–13. . . . . .32n13

2:1–2. . . . . .204

9:12. . . . . .34

2:8–15a. . . . . .75

9:27. . . . . .121

2:11. . . . . .149n51

11:10. . . . . .187n50

2:13–15. . . . . .201

12:25. . . . . .121

2:13–14. . . . . .81

12:26. . . . . .121

2:13. . . . . .184n36

13:1. . . . . .182n24

2:14. . . . . .186, 208

13:27. . . . . .206n119

2:31–32. . . . . .204

13:31. . . . . .206n119

3:8. . . . . .121

14:28. . . . . .121

3:16. . . . . .158

16:1–8. . . . . .111

3:19–20. . . . . .23

16:19. . . . . .16, 20, 122, 188n58

3:21–22. . . . . .187 3:22. . . . . .190n68

Luke

3:37. . . . . .31

1:17. . . . . .35

4:1–13. . . . . ..76

1:19. . . . . .75, 182n23

4:1–3. . . . . .11

1:20. . . . . .129, 200n98

4:1. . . . . .190n68

1:21. . . . . .226

4:5–7. . . . . .180, 209

1:23. . . . . .219

4:5. . . . . .76, 181, 183n35, 204

1:26–38. . . . . .75

4:6–8. . . . . .80–81

272

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

Luke (continued)

8:28. . . . . .75, 187n50

4:6. . . . . .180, 183

8:29. . . . . .75

4:7. . . . . .181

8:35. . . . . .199

4:8. . . . . .76, 81

8:41–42. . . . . .35

4:13. . . . . .200n98

8:49–56. . . . . .35

4:18–19. . . . . .199

8:54. . . . . .121

4:18. . . . . .190n68

8:55. . . . . .35, 121

4:23. . . . . .121, 181

9:1. . . . . .180

4:24. . . . . .121

9:8. . . . . .35

4:25–26. . . . . .35

9:16–17. . . . . .35

4:25. . . . . .52, 121, 203, 205

9:16. . . . . .203

4:26–27. . . . . .95n84

9:19. . . . . .35

4:28. . . . . .121

9:20. . . . . .35n27

4:32. . . . . .196

9:21–27. . . . . .80, 187

4:33–35. . . . . .180

9:22. . . . . .57, 74n39

4:36. . . . . .196

9:25. . . . . .183, 184n35

4:43. . . . . .77

9:26. . . . . .188

5:17–26. . . . . .57

9:28–36. . . . . .187

5:23–24. . . . . .75n44

9:28. . . . . .227

5:24. . . . . .196

9:29. . . . . .227

5:26. . . . . .36

9:30. . . . . .35

6:5. . . . . .196

9:31. . . . . .228

6:8. . . . . .121

9:32. . . . . .227

6:16. . . . . .23

9:33–35. . . . . .36

6:20. . . . . .123

9:33. . . . . .228

6:23. . . . . .187

9:34–35. . . . . .226

6:35. . . . . .187n50, 195

9:34. . . . . .227

7:16. . . . . .36

9:36. . . . . .227

7:22. . . . . .199

9:51. . . . . .23n73, 74, 30, 114, 123,

8:2. . . . . .180

134

8:5. . . . . .202

9:52–55. . . . . .36

8:11–12. . . . . .76

9:58. . . . . .202

8:22. . . . . .196

9:61–62. . . . . .36

8:23. . . . . .188n55

10:15. . . . . .206

273

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Luke (continued)

16:19–31. . . . . .106

10:17–20. . . . . .76

16:23. . . . . .123

10:17. . . . . .180

16:25. . . . . .195

10:20. . . . . .180, 202

17:15. . . . . .36

10:21. . . . . .205

17:27. . . . . .129, 200n98

11:2. . . . . .206

17:29. . . . . .203

11:8. . . . . .121

18:10. . . . . .122

11:15. . . . . .76

18:13. . . . . .123, 203

11:18. . . . . .180

18:14. . . . . .121

11:20. . . . . .76

18:22. . . . . .202

11:21–22. . . . . .180, 194

18:31–33. . . . . .74n39

11:27. . . . . ..123

18:43. . . . . .36

11:32. . . . . .195n84

19–21. . . . . .78

11:34. . . . . .180n17

19:10. . . . . .80

11:35. . . . . .180

19:29. . . . . .124

11:36. . . . . .180n17

19:38. . . . . .202

11:50. . . . . .183

19:41–44. . . . . .77n47

12:3. . . . . .180n17

20:1–21:4. . . . . .77

12:8. . . . . .192n76

20:1–8. . . . . .196

12:9. . . . . .182n23

20:9–19. . . . . .74n39

12:20. . . . . .106

20:17. . . . . .77

12:30. . . . . .183

20:42. . . . . .77

12:33. . . . . .187, 202n102, 206

21:5–38. . . . . .77

12:56. . . . . .205

21:5. . . . . .182

13:16. . . . . .180

21:24. . . . . .200n98

13:19. . . . . .202

21:25–28. . . . . .80

13:32. . . . . .180

21:25. . . . . .205n116

14:11. . . . . .121

21:26. . . . . .184n36

14:15–24. . . . . .195

21:27. . . . . .57, 202

15:7. . . . . .202n102

21:28. . . . . .123

15:10. . . . . .202n102

21:33. . . . . .205

16:9. . . . . .202n102

21:36. . . . . .77, 80

16:15. . . . . .182n23

22–23. . . . . .78

16:17. . . . . .205

22:3. . . . . .145, 183

274

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

Luke (continued) 22:19–20. . . . . .9n10, 80 22:30. . . . . .146

24:49. . . . . .55, 140, 144, 146, 148, 151–52, 187n51 24:50–53. . . . . .9n7, 10n11, 12,

22:53. . . . . .78, 180n17, 183

13n26, 13n28, 23, 29, 36n31,

22:69. . . . . .78

62n4, 74n40, 75n41, 81, 112, 114,

23:12. . . . . .52

125, 128, 132, 137, 138n5, 253,

23:34. . . . . .106, 191

257–58

23:42–43. . . . . .202n102 23:43. . . . . .106

24:50. . . . . .123–24, 124n25, 189n63, 254

23:44–45. . . . . .183

24:51–53. . . . . .10

23:44. . . . . .180n17

24:51. . . . . .8–9, 14, 33, 90, 114, 116,

23:46. . . . . .191 24. . . . . .1, 11, 12n24, 13, 13n28, 14, 14n32, 22n69, 23n73, 24n80, 85n6, 125–27, 134, 208n125, 242–43, 246n17, 255–56, 259

119, 123, 203 24:52–53. . . . . .74 24:52. . . . . .8–9, 36, 90, 92, 105, 114, 116, 119, 210 24:53. . . . . .134

24:1–12. . . . . .14

24:53a. . . . . .114, 117, 119

24:1–10. . . . . .111

24:53b. . . . . .114

24:1. . . . . .125, 125n29 24:4. . . . . .228

John

24:6. . . . . .121

2:19. . . . . .121

24:7. . . . . .80, 121

3:13. . . . . .122

24:13–35. . . . . .14

3:14. . . . . .121

24:13. . . . . .125–26

4:35. . . . . .123

24:17–27. . . . . .80

5:8. . . . . .121

24:26. . . . . .207

6:5. . . . . .123

24:27. . . . . .37

6:39. . . . . .121

24:30–31. . . . . .230

6:62. . . . . .120, 224

24:32. . . . . .37

7:7. . . . . .185

24:35. . . . . .107, 238n4

8:28. . . . . .121

24:36–53. . . . . .14

10:17. . . . . .120

24:37–43. . . . . .159, 207

11:29. . . . . .121

24:44–47. . . . . .37

12:31. . . . . .185

24:48–49. . . . . .34, 159

12:32. . . . . .121

275

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

12:34. . . . . .121

1:6. . . . . .55, 138n4, 143, 143n30, 219

13:4. . . . . .121

1:7–8. . . . . .55

14:18. . . . . .224

1:8. . . . . .43n6, 95, 135, 140, 142, 144,

14:28. . . . . .224

145, 150, 151, 155, 192, 195n84,

14:30. . . . . .185

204, 205, 221

15:1. . . . . .185

1:9–11. . . . . .16n39, 29, 41, 46,

16:11. . . . . .185

50n31, 64n9, 137, 138n5, 140,

16:16. . . . . .224

142–46, 147, 151, 153, 158, 207,

17:1. . . . . .123

219

20:1–8. . . . . .111

1:9–14. . . . . .19n55, 62n4, 63n5, 260

20:17. . . . . .122

1:9. . . . . .90, 114, 117, 119, 203, 225

21:14. . . . . .121

1:10–11. . . . . .33, 75n43, 79, 118,

Acts

1:10. . . . . .33, 116n7

1:1—12:24. . . . . .158n1

1:11. . . . . .33, 118, 119, 122–23, 152,

163n9

1:1—11:18. . . . . .133 1. . . . . .9, 9n9, 11, 18, 21, 22, 23n73,

188n58, 202, 203, 218 1:12–26. . . . . .138n4

41, 85n5, 138n4, 139, 142, 160,

1:12. . . . . .33, 90, 124

218, 243, 246n17, 255

1:15–26. . . . . .11n19, 59

1–2. . . . . .9n7, 11, 11n18, 153, 257

1:22. . . . . .33, 122, 128,188n58

1:1–11. . . . . .9n7, 23, 127, 132, 257

1:25. . . . . .207n123

1:1–2a. . . . . .17

1:33. . . . . .122

1:2. . . . . .10, 32, 114, 115, 119, 122,

2. . . . . .41, 47n19, 149, 163n9, 194,

128, 146, 152, 188n58, 200n98

244

1:2–3. . . . . .36, 112

2:1–13. . . . . .50n31

1:3–11. . . . . .11

2:1–4. . . . . .34

1:3. . . . . .22, 23, 125, 127, 139n11

2:1. . . . . .188

1:3b. . . . . .55

2:5. . . . . .202

1:4–8. . . . . .55, 146

2:14–36. . . . . .48n21, 50n31, 149n49

1:4–5. . . . . .33, 34, 146, 152

2:14. . . . . .123

1:4. . . . . .43, 55

2:16–21. . . . . .55

1:5. . . . . .140

2:17–21. . . . . .150

1:6–11. . . . . .50, 57, 112, 114, 125,

2:17. . . . . .150, 154

128

276

2:19. . . . . .205

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

Acts (continued)

3:15. . . . . .208n126

2:20. . . . . .180n17

3:19–21. . . . . .30, 58, 143n32, 147,

2:21. . . . . .195

151

2:22–36. . . . . .46, 47, 48

3:19–20. . . . . .57, 151n56

2:24. . . . . .51, 208n126

3:19. . . . . .151

2:24a. . . . . .46

3:21. . . . . .34, 160, 163, 202

2:25–29. . . . . .53

3:22. . . . . .51

2:25–28. . . . . .46

3:23. . . . . .199

2:25b. . . . . .49

3:25. . . . . .199

2:29–36. . . . . .55

4:4. . . . . .58

2:29. . . . . .129, 200n98

4:9–10. . . . . .57

2:30. . . . . .38n39, 46, 47, 48n23,

4:10–11. . . . . .58

49n30

4:10. . . . . .58

2:31–33. . . . . .47

4:11. . . . . .208

2:32–36. . . . . .49n31

4:12. . . . . .190

2:32. . . . . .51

4:18–21. . . . . .196

2:33–36. . . . . .4, 139n7, 147–49, 153

4:19. . . . . .182n23

2:33–34. . . . . .111

4:23–31. . . . . .56, 57

2:33. . . . . .49, 50, 121, 147, 162

4:23–28. . . . . .56

2:34–35. . . . . .46, 147, 153, 162

4:24–30. . . . . .53

2:35. . . . . .169

4:24. . . . . .205

2:36. . . . . .20, 21, 66, 38n40, 50,

4:25–27. . . . . .52, 204n109

149n51, 208

4:26. . . . . .181

2:38–40. . . . . .191

4:29–30. . . . . .56

2:38. . . . . .151n56

4:30. . . . . .56

2:40. . . . . .180n16

4:31. . . . . .195n82, 197

2:41. . . . . .58

4:32–35. . . . . .59

2:42–47. . . . . .59

5:1–11. . . . . .59

3–4. . . . . .58

5:12–16. . . . . .59

3:1–10. . . . . .34n21, 57, 58

5:19. . . . . .75n43

3:1–2. . . . . .200n95

5:30–31. . . . . .58

3:6b. . . . . .57

5:31. . . . . .111, 121, 209, 216, 218

3:8. . . . . .190n68

5:40. . . . . .196

3:13–15. . . . . .208

6:5. . . . . .190n68

277

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Acts (continued)

9:41. . . . . .121

7:2. . . . . .208

10:1—11:18. . . . . .152

7:18. . . . . .200n98

10:3–4. . . . . .192

7:36. . . . . .189n63

10:9–16. . . . . .152n59

7:37. . . . . .51

10:11–16. . . . . .192

7:40. . . . . .189n63

10:11. . . . . .153, 203, 206

7:41–43. . . . . .181

10:12. . . . . .153, 202

7:42. . . . . .184n36

10:16. . . . . .122, 188n58

7:43. . . . . .122, 188n58

10:19–20. . . . . .190n68

7:44–45. . . . . .59

10:20. . . . . .192

7:46. . . . . .182n23

10:24. . . . . .190n68

7:48. . . . . .187n50

10:34–36. . . . . .147, 152

7:49–50. . . . . .197

10:36. . . . . .39, 154, 159

7:49. . . . . .186, 197, 201, 205

10:38. . . . . .105n81, 190n68

7:52–53. . . . . .208

10:39–40. . . . . .208n126

7:54–60. . . . . .48, 56

10:40a. . . . . .153

7:55–56. . . . . .56, 202

10:41. . . . . .153, 207

7:55. . . . . .190n68

10:42. . . . . .209

7:56. . . . . .250n26

10:43. . . . . .153

7:59. . . . . .191

10:44–46. . . . . .190n68, 195n84

7:60. . . . . .191

10:44. . . . . .192

8:1–4. . . . . .57

11:5. . . . . .153, 193, 200n98

8:1. . . . . .164n12, 191

11:6. . . . . .202

8:7. . . . . .180

11:9. . . . . .153, 193

8:15–17. . . . . .190n68

11:10. . . . . .153

8:26–40. . . . . .152n59

11:11. . . . . .193

8:26. . . . . .75n43

11:17. . . . . .215

9:3–8. . . . . .163n9

11:18. . . . . .125n26

9:3–4. . . . . .206n118

11:26. . . . . .168n30

9:3. . . . . .191

11:28. . . . . .23

9:5. . . . . .192

12:7–11. . . . . .75n43

9:8. . . . . .121

12:7. . . . . .121

9:15. . . . . .195n84

12:20–23. . . . . .59

9:27. . . . . .191

13:1. . . . . .222

278

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

Acts (continued)

17:24. . . . . .183, 184, 205

13:2. . . . . .190n68, 219

17:25. . . . . .198–99

13:6–12. . . . . .194

17:26–27. . . . . .199

13:6. . . . . .200n98

17:26. . . . . .204

13:11. . . . . .180, 200n98

17:30–31. . . . . .160, 163

13:17. . . . . .189n63

17:31. . . . . .201

13:22. . . . . .51

17:32. . . . . .163

13:23. . . . . .48

18:12–17. . . . . .196

13:27–29. . . . . .53

19:1–7. . . . . .190n68

13:28. . . . . .208

19:12. . . . . .180

13:32–37. . . . . .46, 50

19:26. . . . . .198

13:32–36. . . . . .56

19:32. . . . . .220

13:32–33. . . . . .209

19:40. . . . . .196

13:32–33a. . . . . .50

20:11. . . . . .200n98

13:33–37. . . . . .51

20:13. . . . . .122, 188n58

13:34–35. . . . . .53

20:14. . . . . .122, 188n58

13:34a. . . . . .53

20:21. . . . . .215

13:34b. . . . . .53

20:22–23. . . . . .190n68

13:38–39. . . . . .58

21–22. . . . . .171

13:46–47. . . . . .195n84

22:4. . . . . .200n98

13:47. . . . . .145

22:6. . . . . .191

14:11. . . . . .123

22:7. . . . . .191

14:15. . . . . .205

22:14b–15. . . . . .192

14:16. . . . . .204

22:18. . . . . .192

14:17. . . . . .199, 202

22:22. . . . . .123

15:11. . . . . .215

23:1. . . . . .200n98

15:16–18. . . . . .149

23:6. . . . . .163, 209

16:16–18. . . . . .180

23:31. . . . . .122,188n58

16:17. . . . . .187n50

24:5. . . . . .196

16:31. . . . . .215

24:15. . . . . .209

17:3. . . . . .121

24:21. . . . . .163

17:6. . . . . .196

25:26–27. . . . . .196

17:21. . . . . .185

26:6–7. . . . . .209

17:24–25. . . . . .59

26:8. . . . . .163, 210

279

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Acts (continued)

10:6–7. . . . . .111

26:13. . . . . .191

10:6. . . . . .120, 122

26:14. . . . . .191

10:9. . . . . .121

26:15. . . . . .192 26:16–17. . . . . .192

1 Corinthians

26:17–18. . . . . .204n109

11:9–10. . . . . .229

26:18. . . . . .180, 183, 194

11:17–18. . . . . .220

26:19. . . . . .18

11:20. . . . . .220

26:20. . . . . .163

11:32. . . . . .185

26:22. . . . . .200n98

11:33. . . . . .220

26:23. . . . . .163, 163n10

14:23. . . . . .220

26:31–32. . . . . .196

14:26. . . . . .220, 221

27:23–26. . . . . .75n43

14:35. . . . . .221

27:33. . . . . .200n98

15:4. . . . . .111

28:3–6. . . . . .179

15:8. . . . . .120n17

28:4–6. . . . . .194

15:12–28. . . . . .111

28:15. . . . . .200n98 28:18. . . . . .196

2 Corinthians

28:20. . . . . .204

3:16–18. . . . . .224

28:28. . . . . .195n84

4:4–6. . . . . .224

28:30–31. . . . . .204

4:4. . . . . .120

28:31. . . . . .154, 173

11:7. . . . . .121 12:1. . . . . .224

Romans 1:2–4. . . . . .51

Galatians

1:20. . . . . .185n38

1:1. . . . . .121

3:6. . . . . .185

4:3. . . . . .185

4:13. . . . . .185n38 4:24. . . . . .121

Ephesians

6:4. . . . . .121

1:20–22. . . . . .217

6:9. . . . . .121

1:20. . . . . .216

8:11. . . . . .121

4:8. . . . . .244n13

8:34. . . . . .120, 216 8:34b. . . . . .217m

280

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

Philippians

10:1. . . . . .219

2:9–11. . . . . .111

10:12. . . . . .216

2:9–10. . . . . .217

11:5. . . . . .31

2:9. . . . . .120

11:19. . . . . .121 12:2. . . . . .216

Colossians

12:22–23. . . . . .229

1:15–20. . . . . .217

13:15. . . . . .123

2:8. . . . . .185 2:12. . . . . .121

James

3:1. . . . . .111

2:21. . . . . .123 4:10. . . . . .121

1 Thessalonians

5:15. . . . . .121

1:10. . . . . .121 4:14. . . . . .121

1 Peter 1:21. . . . . .121

1 Timothy

2:5. . . . . .125

2:8. . . . . .123

2:24. . . . . .125

3:16. . . . . .120, 122, 188n58, 216

3:18–22. . . . . .217 3:21–22. . . . . .120

2 Timothy

3:22. . . . . .216

2:8. . . . . .121 4:11. . . . . .122

2 Peter 1:15. . . . . .189n62

Hebrews 1:3. . . . . .216–17

Jude

1:5. . . . . .48, 51

14–15. . . . . .79

1:14. . . . . .219

14. . . . . .31

2:9. . . . . .223 5:5. . . . . .51

Revelation

7:27. . . . . .123

4–5. . . . . .223

8:1. . . . . .216

4:6–9. . . . . .225

8:2. . . . . .219

7:9–17. . . . . .229

9:21. . . . . .219

7:9. . . . . .228n29

9:28. . . . . .123

281

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

Other Jewish Writings

De ebrietate 75. . . . . .185n39

4Q285 1.9. . . . . .228

De mutatione nominum 30. . . . . .184n37

4QFlor 1QH

De opificio mundi

11.21–22. . . . . .228

25. . . . . .184n33 89. . . . . .184n31

1QS 11.8. . . . . .228

De plantatione 10. . . . . .183n31

1QSa

126. . . . . .185n39

2.8–9. . . . . .228

131. . . . . .184n34

11QBer.

De somniis

13–14. . . . . .228

2.45. . . . . .184n31

Babylonian Ḥagigah

De specialibus legibus

14b–15b. . . . . .106

3.187. . . . . .184n33

Josephus

De vita Mosis

Jewish Antiquities

2.100. . . . . .184n37

1.26. . . . . .184n37

2.291. . . . . .188n57

1.31. . . . . .184n37 11.63. . . . . .200

Legum allegoriae 1.44. . . . . .185n39

Philo

2.3. . . . . .184n37

De Abrahamo

3.99. . . . . .184n33

161. . . . . .183n31 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit De decalogo

97–99. . . . . .185n39

58. . . . . .185n39

293–299. . . . . .200 293. . . . . .200

282

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

Quod Deus sit immutabilis

Ethica eudemia

30. . . . . .184n37

1216a14. . . . . .184n33

106. . . . . .184n34 Metaphysica

Other Ancient Writings Ancient Near Eastern Writings Gilgamesh 11.196. . . . . .30

Greco-Roman Writings

1024a1–4. . . . . .184n31 Physica 196a25–29. . . . . .183n31 Arrian Anabasis 27.3. . . . . .90n23 Cassius Dio Roman History

Antoninus Liberalis

56.42. . . . . .94n39

Metamorphōseōn synagōge

56.46. . . . . .94n39

25. . . . . .99 Cicero Apollodorus

Epistulae ad Atticum.

The Library

XXX 2.4. . . . . .173n53

2.7.7. . . . . .90

XXXII 2.6. . . . . .173n53

3.5.3. . . . . .88 De Finibus Apuleius

3.62–68. . . . . .179n13

The Golden Ass 11.6. . . . . .103

De natura deorum

11.22. . . . . .103

1.39. . . . . .185n39 2.21. . . . . .185n39

Aristotle De Caelo

Republic

301a16–19. . . . . .183n31

6.13. . . . . .87 6.15. . . . . .87 6.17. . . . . .87

283

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

6.24. . . . . .87

Dionysius of Halicarnassus

6.25. . . . . .87

Antiquitates romanae 1.64.4–5. . . . . .90n22

Tusculanae disputationes

2.56.6. . . . . .93

5.17.49. . . . . .95n42 Hesiod Diodorus Siculus

Opera et dies

Bibliotheca historica

156–69. . . . . .89n17

1.15.6. . . . . .102n64 1.17.4–5. . . . . .102n64

Homer

1.18.5–6. . . . . .95n43, 102n62

Iliad

1.19.3. . . . . .102n62

3.380–82. . . . . .90n23

1.20.5–6. . . . . .95n43, 102n62

20.443–44. . . . . .90n23

1.22.7. . . . . .102n64

21.596–97. . . . . .90n23

1.23.8. . . . . .102n64 1.25.2–6. . . . . .102n62

Homeric Hymns

1.27.5. . . . . .102n62

To Demeter

1.96.5. . . . . .102n64

480–82. . . . . .101n57

3.62.6. . . . . .101n60 4.10.7. . . . . .90

Horace

4.38.5. . . . . .90

Odes

4.39.1. . . . . .89n20

1.2. . . . . .97

4.58.6. . . . . .90n22

3.3.1–8. . . . . .96

5.75.4. . . . . .101n60

3.3.15–16. . . . . .96

Diogenes Laertius

Isocrates

7.87. . . . . .179

Archidamus

7.137–138. . . . . .185n39

17. . . . . .90n21

7.137. . . . . .184n33

18. . . . . .90n20

7.148. . . . . .185n39 8.31. . . . . .187n50

Livy History of Rome 1.16.1–2. . . . . .92 1.16.2–3. . . . . .92

284

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

1.16.6–7. . . . . .92

Plato

39.13.13. . . . . .101

Gorgias 508a. . . . . .183n31, 184

Lucian of Samsota Hermotimus

Philebus

9. . . . . .99

28c. . . . . .183n31

Ovid

Politicus

Fasti

269d. . . . . .183n31

3.699–704. . . . . .94n36

273b. . . . . .184n33

Metamorphoses

Respublica

14.808–9. . . . . .97

434d–e. . . . . .178

14.824–28. . . . . .96

614b–621d. . . . . .86

14.845–51. . . . . .96

614d. . . . . .86

15.746–61 . . . . . .97 15.746–51. . . . . .97n47

Timaeus

15.779–842. . . . . .97

28b. . . . . .183n31

15.818–19. . . . . .97

29a. . . . . .184

15.840–42. . . . . .97

30a. . . . . .184n33

15.848–50. . . . . .97

34b. . . . . .185n39

15.869–70. . . . . .97

68e. . . . . .184n34, 185n39

15.873–79. . . . . .98n50

90b–d. . . . . .178 92c. . . . . .183n31, 185n39

Parmenides fr. 8.52. . . . . .184

Pliny the Elder Naturalis historia

Philostratus

2.8.49. . . . . .87n11

Vita Apollonii 8.30. . . . . .100

Plutarch

8.31. . . . . .100

De genio Socratis 589f. . . . . .87

285

ASCENT INTO HEAVEN IN LUKE-ACTS

De Iside et Osiride

Pseudo-Aristotle

358b. . . . . .102

De Mundo

358e. . . . . .102

397a. . . . . .184n34

364e. . . . . .102n64 Seneca De sera numinis vindicta

Apocolocyntosis

563b. . . . . .87

7. . . . . .98 9. . . . . .98

Moralia

10. . . . . .98

27.566a. . . . . .88 28.566c. . . . . .88

Epistulae morales 108.34. . . . . .95n42

Numa 2.3. . . . . .93n32

Sextus Empiricus Against the Physicists

Romulus

1.332 . . . . . .184n31

27.6–8. . . . . .92 27.8. . . . . .92

Adversus mathematicos

28.2. . . . . .93

9.81–85. . . . . .185n39

28.4. . . . . .93 28.6. . . . . .93

Suetonius Divus Augustus

Poimandres

100. . . . . .94

18–19. . . . . .88 24–26. . . . . .88

Divus Julius

27. . . . . .88

88. . . . . .94n36

32. . . . . .88 Valerius Maximus Porphyry

Facta et dicta Memorabilia

De antro

8.15.pref. . . . . .. 94

6. . . . . .104

9.15.1. . . . . .94n36

286

ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

Virgil

20:2. . . . . .220

Aeneid 6.756–853. . . . . .95

Irenaeus

6.777–84. . . . . .95n42

Demonstration 3. . . . . .239n6

Early Christian Writings 1 Clement 7:4. . . . . .227 9:2. . . . . .219 17:2. . . . . .227–28 32:2. . . . . .219 34:5. . . . . .219 34:6–7. . . . . .229 36:1. . . . . .227 36:2. . . . . .227 40:5. . . . . .219 Clement of Alexandria Stromateis 7.12.78.6. . . . . .229 Ignatius

Justin Apologia i 21. . . . . .83n1 23. . . . . .238n2 45. . . . . .238n2 Origen Contra Celsum 6.22. . . . . .104n72 Tertullian Apol. 21.23. . . . . .83n2 John Chrysostom ap. Aeg. (= Hom. Act.1.4). . . . . .22n70

To the Ephesians 13:1. . . . . .220

287

Bryan Pao

Luke’s two-volume work contains the only narrative depictions of Jesus’ ascent into heaven in the New Testament. The significance of the events at the end of the Gospel and the beginning of Acts have long been recognized. While select studies have focused on particular aspects of these accounts, the importance of the ascension to Luke-Acts calls for renewed attention to its narratological and theological significance. Here, leading scholars discuss the ancient, literary, and theological contexts of the ascent-into-heaven accounts for the next generation of interpreters.



Ascent into Heaven in

Luke-Acts

Contents

Luke’s Literary Program 6. The Unity of Luke–Acts and the Ascension Narratives—Stanley E. Porter 7. Jesus’ Ascension and the Lukan Account of the Restoration of Israel—David W. Pao 8. The Ascension and Spatial Theory—Matthew Sleeman 9. Lukan Cosmology and the Ascension—Charles Anderson 10. The Ascension as a Cultic Experience in Acts—Rick Strelan

David K. Bryan is an adjunct instructor and doctoral candidate at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has published on the parables of Jesus, and his other research interests include authority in the ancient world, apocalyptic literature, and the kingdom of God. David W. Pao is professor of New Testament and chair of the New Testament Department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and the author of Colossians and Philemon (2012), Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (2008), Thanksgiving: An Investigation of a Pauline Theme (2002), and Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (2000).

Religion / New Testament

Luke-Acts

Ancient Contexts 2. Jesus’ Ascension through Old Testament Narrative Traditions—Steve Walton 3. “For David Did Not Ascend into Heaven . . .”—Joshua W. Jipp 4. A Revised Cosmic Hierarchy Revealed—David K. Bryan 5. Benefactor and Paradigm—James Buchanan Wallace

Ascent into Heaven in

Introduction—David K. Bryan and David W. Pao 1. Ascension Scholarship—Arie W. Zwiep

New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge

David K. Bryan David W. Pao editors