Christ going up into the sky

[T.A.G.]

Acts 1:10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven

if heaven is not really in the sky, why do you think Christ was going up into the heavens/sky etc? what do you think was the significance of Christ going up into the sky rather then just disapearing etc.?

 

[earl40]

This is a great question because this touches on the mystery of the incarnation and how He took on humanity. Which if I am not mistaken He still has flesh and bone today as He did since the resurrection. Also I am not sure I would say heaven is not a place because in my thinking all created things occupy such which I believe includes angels and demons.

 

[rbcbob]

Possible considerations:
2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows -- such a one was caught up to the third heaven.

1560.02 Matthew, who is most Hebraistic in style, uses the plural, the Hebrew term for heaven being always so. "The heaven of heavens" (Deut. 10:14) is a Hebraism for the highest heavens. Paul's "third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2) to which he was caught up implies this superlatively high heaven, which he reached after passing through the first heaven the air, and the second the sky of the stars (Eph. 4:10). Heb. 7:26, "made higher than the heavens," for Christ "passed through the heavens" (Heb. 4:14, Greek), namely, the aerial heaven and the starry heaven, the veil through which our High Priest passed into the heaven of heavens, the immediate presence of God, as the Levitical high priest passed through the veil into the holy of belies. The visible heavens shall pass away to give place to the abiding new heaven and earth wherein shall dwell righteousness (Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet. 3:7,13; Rev. 21:1; Heb. 12:26-28). "The kingdom of the heavens" in Matthew, for "the kingdom of God" in Mark and Luke, is drawn from Dan. 4:26, "the heavens do rule," (Dan. 2:44) "the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed." It consists of many stages and phases, issuing at last in heaven being brought down fully to earth, and the tabernacle of God being with men (Rev. 21:2,3,10, etc.). The plurality of the phases is expressed by "the kingdom of the heavens." – Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Symbolism is not meaningless.

Would it have been "better" if Jesus just winked-out of view? I don't think so. I think that would have left the disciples and us with far less of a testimony, we would not have a visual, and reversible departure. His "return," where every eye will see him (Rev.1:7), presents almost the exact same question (whence? vs. whither?). His bodily dwindling and disappearance into the cloud (reminiscent of the Exodus-pillar) affirms his body.

 

[T.A.G.]

do you think Jesus could have done this on purpose as well bc ceasar was to ascend after his death etc.

 

[Jack K]

In heaven, Jesus continues to have a body. Yet he is no longer present in bodily form on earth. What other direction would we have him go?

The bodily ascension, into the sky away from the earth, makes a powerful statement that one of our own flesh is in heaven, pleading for us with the Father, and that he exists as a real person to come again to judge the whole earth. I suppose we might read still more into it, but that's plenty.

---------- Post added at 10:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 PM ----------

Ought to add this from the Heidelberg...

Question 49. Of what advantage to us is Christ's ascension into heaven?

Answer: First, that he is our advocate in the presence of his Father in heaven; secondly, that we have our flesh in heaven as a sure pledge that he, as the head, will also take up to himself, us, his members; thirdly, that he sends us his Spirit as an earnest, by whose power we "seek the things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God, and not things on earth."

 

[Grimmson]

I think in considering the question of Christ’s ascension it is important to consider the opposite of ascension. If he were to descend down into the earth that would give the meaning of death and going straight to Hell; thus implying that we don’t have a risen Lord in the Heaven of heavens. His rising/ascension shows that he has conquered death and is Lord of creation for all eternity. It shows his righteousness, keeping in mind Elijah and Enoch. It also shows that he is holy, set apart from creation, by rising into heaven by his own authority as King and Law giver, placing aside even the natural laws that prevent us from doing the same in our current state.

 

[JennyG]

To some liberal "Christians" the ascension is even more of a stumbling block than the events of the crucifxion.
The necessity to receive it as little children is very wholesome. Intellectual humility is needed, to accept that if the NT says Jesus left the earth literally and vertically, then he did

 

[Contra_Mundum]

do you think Jesus could have done this on purpose as well bc ceasar was to ascend after his death etc.

I cannot imagine Jesus' ascension having anything whatever to do with a polemic against (or some sort of corollary to) ideas emanating from the politico-religious Imperium. The context of Jesus' activity is the seat of revealed religion; as Grimmson points out, the prophet Elijah ascended ages before any Caesar claimed any such expectation.

This may be an attempt in modern comparative-religious studies to parallel the Exodus/Jehovah's trouncing Egypt's gods, and Jesus' triumphing over the Imperium. But this is a deeply flawed methodological approach, in my opinion. God's chosen people (his church) were languishing, but not like they were during Egyptian bondage. The present (NT) conditions were basically exilic, the result of the judgment of God on his chosen nation's sin.

Jews under foreign dominion endured a mixed fare. Perhaps the most significant fact was that the Jews were just as wretched under Rome's jackboots as anyone--no better, no worse, generally speaking. Daniel's prophecy is quite significant for understanding the exile and post exile conditions (and see all the post-exilic material). The Lord tells Daniel "the days of indignation" will not be over (thus, days of grace follow) until Messiah comes.

The prophecies of the "kings of the north and south" are there to show how the powers of the earth wage wars against one another, while the people of God huddle in obscurity, letting the tides of history wash back and forth over them. The worst treatment of the nation comes when the Jews draw attention to themselves--vaunt themselves and overvalue their self-importance--and throw in their lot with one side or another.

Eventually they become a target of opportunity when Antiochus IV (a petulant bully, stung by his humiliation by Roman power on Egyptian soil) decides to vent his pent-up rage on his way home upon a small separatist territory and people, basically defenseless nobodies who've just been scraping by in their little corner (but some of whom have pretentious notions based on past glories about their political importance).

Rome eventually comes to dominate the domains of the old Selucid empire, including Judea/Galilee. However, despite the fact that Rome is the terrible Beast of Daniel's prophecy, there is no expectation in the New Testament Gospels or Acts, or much in the Epistles that Jesus is set to challenge the secular power of Rome. If we take Jesus' comments to Pilate seriously, the attitude of Christ to Caesar is that all this earnest exercise of power-on-earth is pretty meaningless, in the cosmic scheme.


I think the political-interests of modern scholars are driving an attempt to envision Jesus as in no-small-part concerned with confronting the political powers-of-this-age. Thus, Jesus ascension is presented as "the real thing" versus Caesar's proud and empty boasts. Seriously, does Jesus decide to "ascend" because Caesar has previously made such a claim, and Jesus needs to prove he's got more going on?

One of the biggest follies of this approach is the modern assumption that information flowed like water in the Roman age, like it does now. In the fairly small geographic region of Judea/Samaria/Galilee/Perea/Decapolis Jesus became reasonably well-known, but still was unknown to Pilate (governor during his entire ministry), and his description as given to Herod was error-ridden.

It took prodigious efforts by the secular powers to get elementary proclamations fully proclaimed. Caesar-worship was an ever-evolving, almost ad hoc religion. Every god-like attribute of any deity was probably (at some point) attributed to Caesar, and that truly because CAESAR needed to "one-up" all his competition. The point being: even if some proclamation somewhere was issued, promising one of the Caesars (or all subsequent and past Caesars) were now to "ascend" to the pantheon, why should we believe this amorphous notion was some challenge that needed to be met (literally or literarily) by Jesus?

It took a long time for Christian opposition to State/Caesar worship to come to define the antagonism. And then, the principles had to be promulgated from Rome, and trickle out to the rest of the Empire. Early formation of the Gospels and Acts (including the ascension) either eliminates Caesar as relevant; OR it makes Jesus over as predicting his Caesar-confrontation, makes that--and not his conflict with the Jewish leaders, and rampant unbelief among the nation--his great aim.

None of that makes any biblical/historic sense of Jesus as integrated with and fulfillment of OT religion. The whole approach seems to be going essentially to politics to explain an essentially religious event.

 

[Peairtach]

Are there any threads on biblical/Hebrew cosmology?

Heaven was supposed to be Up/Above and Hell Down/Below? Or - was that just some kind of symbolism put into the Creation by God to assist our puny earth-based/focussed thinking?


Quote from Bruce

The Lord tells Daniel "the days of indignation" will not be over (thus, days of grace follow) until Messiah comes.

Where is this reference in Daniel, again?



---------- Post added at 10:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 PM ----------

To some liberal "Christians" the ascension is even more of a stumbling block than the events of the crucifxion.
The necessity to receive it as little children is very wholesome. Intellectual humility is needed, to accept that if the NT says Jesus left the earth literally and vertically, then he did

To some liberal "Christians" any miracle can be a stumbling block. If they deem a miracle to be unecessary or folly to them, e.g. Jonah and the Whale, they illogicallly find it more difficult to believe than other miracles. Their finite, fallen and fallible reason sits in judgment on God's Word and what is possible or not.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Richard,
I would point to the answer of the "seventy-sevens", end of Dan.9.

But in terms of detail, the keys are found in the parallel vision of chs.10-12. Note especially 11:36 (where "the indignation" is mentioned; cf.8:19); cf.v35, and look ahead to ch.12 where the vision telescopes the entire Messianic reign into the eschatological victory.

 

[Porter]

I believe it was to show that Christ was the Danielic Son of man, ascending to the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:14) to receive dominion, and glory, and a kingdom - confirming His right claim to that certain reality in Matthew 26:64 before Caiaphas.

 

[Rich Koster]

I saw a slideshow that goes along with the audio, but some may not approve the use of some of the classical art that accompanies it due to paintings portraying angels & Jesus. Below is a link to an audio only lecture by Robert C. Newman about the location of heaven.

http://www.newmanlib.ibri.org/MP3/BRN-06.mp3