A strange silence has pervaded the theological world with regard to the Ascension. Few books published in the twentieth century have been energetically concerned with the subject. This is perplexing in view of the fact that all the New Testament theologians either explicitly hold or presuppose belief in the Ascension, and that this belief was universal in the early Church. And it is the more lamentable because of the richness of the doctrine itself. It may be that a pseudo-scientific spirit has quenched its discussion in this century; at any rate, it is to be hoped that the Ascension will once again assume its position of centrality.
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD
A glance at some of the relevant Scripture passages will reveal something of the richness of the doctrine, and the importance attached to it by the New Testament writers. In Philippians 2:9–11 Paul says, “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name … that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” As J. G. Davies has effectively demonstrated, hupsoo, which is translated “exalted,” must refer to the Ascension; it is never used in the New Testament of the Resurrection. Thus it was by his Ascension that Jesus was marked out to be Lord, as by his Resurrection he was marked out to be Son of God in power (Rom. 1:4). By the Resurrection Jesus is seen to be Victor over death and corruption. By the Ascension he is seen to be Lord, with all power in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). As sin was shown to be subject to him by his sinless life; as death was shown to be subject to him by his Resurrection; so all things in heaven and earth are shown to be subject to him by his Ascension. It is not that the Ascension effects his Lordship, any more than the Resurrection effects his victory over death. Rather, the Ascension is the designation and the demonstration of his Lordship. It is designation in that it is the reward of the Father for His perfect obedience. In his humanity our Lord was subject to his Father. He came not to do his own will, but rather his meat was “to do the will of him that sent me” (John 4:34). Thus he fulfilled in his person his own saying: “And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted” (Matt. 23:12).
The Ascension is also demonstration, since He ascended of his own will, his own power, and his own right. The two aspects are reflected in the usage of both passive and active verb forms to describe the ascending (as Swete observed, the Ascension is also an assumption). In this active aspect the deity of Christ is implicit. Here is one of the frequent points in the New Testament in which the same work is ascribed to the Father and the Son. It is true to say both that God raised him from the dead and that he raised himself: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). It is true in like manner to say both that God took him up and that he ascended of his own power. Christ’s deity is the explanation of such an assertion.
BOTH LORD AND CHRIST
Peter points out the Messianic significance of the Ascension in his sermon on the day of Pentecost. After quoting Psalm 110:1, he says, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). Jesus is both Lord and Messiah (a clearer translation for English readers). His ascension is consequently a vital link in a chain of fulfilled prophecy. It is neither a marginal nor an inconsequential doctrine, but it is one strand among many which form the Messianic cord.
It is impossible to ignore the importance of this to the early Church. However much some modern theologians such as Bultmann may speculate about the nonessentiality of the Ascension, such a thought would have been inconceivable to the apostles (even apart from the fact that they had personally witnessed it). For the historicity of the Ascension cannot be questioned without thrusting the whole drama of redemption into the realm of myth. Redemption is a unified whole. It is historical reality. It is the historical fulfillment of the promises of God. There is no Messianic significance in the mythical, at least not to the concrete Hebrew mind. But since the Ascension does have Messianic significance, it has forceful apologetic value in the proclamation of the Gospel to the Jews. And it is for this purpose that Peter uses it at Pentecost.
Jesus Christ, wrote Peter, “is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him” (1 Pet. 3:22). From a purely human viewpoint we can imagine the psychological effect upon Peter and all of the apostles of this “going” into heaven. They faced the problem of maturing from a position where they expected the incarnate Christ to do all things for them, to a position where they looked to the ascended Christ to do all things through them. No doubt their dependence had been intensified by such experiences as their failure to heal the boy with the dumb spirit (Mark 9:14–29). Jesus himself had told them, “without me ye can do nothing” (John 15:5). And would Peter ever forget when his own faith failed him, and he began to sink into the waters upon which he thought to walk to his Lord? Until the very moment of the ascension they hoped that he would “at this time restore again the kingdom of Israel” (Acts 1:6). The Ascension becomes, therefore, something of a traumatic experience, whereby the disciples are thrust into a new relationship with their Lord. They move into the “time between the times”—the period between Christ’s first and second advents; the time we are now passing through.
The scriptural description of Jesus going into heaven is consequently more than a passing remark. The event was branded into the memory of all of the apostles. It was the final no to their hopes of an earthly Messianic kingdom. At the same time it was a summons to an “agonizing reappraisal” of the nature of the Messiahship and of their own role in God’s reconciliation of the world. How should they now understand the assertion of Jesus that he came to seek and to save that which was lost?—Or the promise that he would be with them always? Suddenly they found themselves in the “fourth dimension” of their relationship with Christ. It took the descent of the Holy Spirit to enable them fully to comprehend the nature of their new existence in Christ, but the Ascension was the initial impact which drove them toward that understanding.
HE LED CAPTIVITY CAPTIVE
The quotation of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8 portrays a beautiful aspect of the Messianic picture: “He led captivity captive.” The Ascension is the triumphal return to heaven of the Son of God. He has conquered and he returns with the captives of war. Sin and death, those enemies of man and God, those tyrants which had enslaved man, are themselves now subjected and held captive to him who openly triumphed over them. The power of sin is broken; it shall not have dominion over the believer; and death “is swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor. 15:54), its tyrannical reign ended. Christ the Conqueror rules; and he shall rule “till he hath put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor. 15:25).
Thus the Ascension helped to clarify the nature of the Messiahship to the apostles. They expected a Davidic king, whereas the Crucifixion presented them with a Suffering Servant. Then the Resurrection proclaimed a King after all. The Ascension further clarified the nature of his Kingship. The kingdom of Christ is indeed not of this world. He will reign, but it shall not be simply from an earthly throne. His kingdom will be glorious, but it shall not be the glory of this world. He shall be victorious, but his victories shall not be achieved through the blood and steel of men. The Cross was the decisive and atoning conflict; the Resurrection was the proclamation of triumph; the Ascension was the Conqueror’s return with the captives of war which issued in the enthronement of the victorious King!
Robert H. Lauer is Pastor of Salem Baptist Church in Florissant, Missouri. He holds the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Washington University (St. Louis, Missouri) and B.D. degree from Southem Baptist Theological Seminary.
