The Ascension

Festival of the Ascension

Please ignore the May 20 date on this blog. This blog is for Ascension Day, which is May 21 in this year. This feast day in the Christian Year celebrates the Ascension of Jesus. The Ascension is also one of those troubling doctrines in the historic creeds.

"He ascended into heaven."--the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed

This is a slight departure from the weekly schedule. Thursdays are normally Prayer and Spirituality days. But since I'm talking about the Apostles' Creed on Wednesdays and today(Thursday) is Ascension Day, it seemed good to talk today about that doctrine in the creed.

First, however, I want to refer to yesterday's blog on the Virgin Birth and make a clarification. Although I believe (at present) in the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, I do not take literally everything that is in the two stories of the Virgin Birth. I severely doubt, for example, the historicity of the story in Matthew of Herod's "slaughter of the innocents." We know a lot about this Herod, Herod the Great, as he referred to himself (there are two Herods in Jesus time; the other is Herod Antipas, Herod the Great's son, who ruled Galilee during Jesus' time and who beheaded John the Baptist). Nowhere in Greek, Roman, or Jewish literature is it ever mentioned that Herod had Jewish baby boys slaughtered. Most telling in this regard are the writings of the first century Jewish historian Josephus. Josephus wrote extensively about Herod. Josephus hated Herod. Josephus notes everything bad that Herod ever did and says everything bad he can think of about Herod. It is hard to believe that if Herod really had all the Jewish baby boys killed, Josephus would never have mentioned it or never known about it. Moreover, Matthew makes a literary parallel through much of his gospel between Jesus and Moses. Just as Moses escaped Pharaoh's slaughter of the Jewish babies (Exodus 1), so Jesus escaped Herod's slaughter. The latter story would appear to be a literary creation of Matthew rather than a historical event.

Now to the Ascension. By the standard criteria for authenticity, this one is harder than the Virgin Birth. It is attested by only one NT writer, Luke, who mentions it in the last chapter of his gospel and in the first chapter of Acts (which Luke also wrote). It is not mentioned anywhere else in the NT. It is also not dissimilar to Jewish thought. 1 Kings in the OT has Elijah ascending into heaven. One of the earliest researchers historical Jesus, the German atheist David Friedrich Strauss, in the early 19th century believed that the gospels created parallel miracles between Elijah and Jesus. Everything Elijah did, Jesus could do.

At present I believe in the doctrine of the Ascension. I believe in it for two major reasons. First, Luke is the only self-conscious historian among the gospel writers. He set out to write an accurate history. He tells us this in Luke 1:1-4. Historical accuracy is not the major reason that any of the three other gospel writers had for their writing. Luke knew historiographical research methods of his time and used them. The other gospel writers make no such claim.

Second, if we believe, as I do, that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead, a fact attested by multiple gospel sources, then something had to happen eventually with his body. He appeared to believers for 40 days after the resurrection. What happened then? Something had to have happened then. A second death would seem unlikely. A going off to France and marrying Mary Magdalene and having children (the plot of a bad book and movie, not anything recorded in any ancient or medieval writing), would seem even less likely. An ascension into heaven would appear most likely. If you accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus, a bodily ascension would seem to be the only logical conclusion. I'll go with it.

Faithfully,

Christian