When we read in Luke 24.50-51 and Acts 1.9-11 that Christ was taken into heaven we ignore how this imagery made sense to the ancients in light of their cosmology: heaven is above and earth below. Now that we’ve sent satellites, spacecrafts, and even humans into space we realize that this up-and-down universe doesn’t quite exist. Where did Jesus go? Can modern Christians find meaning in the ascension?
Last week I saw this clip from ‘The Jesus Film’ depicting Jesus’ ascension from his point of view:
I admit thinking that it was a bit ridiculous. Why is Jesus floating like a balloon into the sky?
Of course, God could have taken Jesus into his heavenly realm in such a way that it would have made sense to the ancients. Jesus didn’t keep going into space, past Jupiter, to some floating New Jerusalem a few miles past Neptune. Rather, Jesus disappeared into a parallel reality, yet God accomplished this in a way that would have conveyed symbolic meaning to the disciples.
This leaves us with another problem though. The return of Christ is presented to us in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 in the same cosmological terminology. Jesus is depicted as coming from heaven above to earth below. How do we read this now? Do we read this Daniel 7 imagery as Paul using symbolic language not intended to describe the return of Christ in literal imagery (as I think N.T. Wright has suggested)?
Brandon G. Withrow wrote a piece for The Huffington Post titled, “Science and the Up and Down of Christ’s Ascension” that discusses some of these very things (including the scene from ‘The Jesus Film’ that I shared). He frames the same question this way:
“Christ’s ascension and return mentioned in Acts made sense in this up-and-down universe; it was not like anyone had ever been to space. This was eventually challenged, however, when the astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) introduced the heliocentric view, namely that the earth and the planets move around the sun (helio).
“There were many implications for Copernicus’ position. To reject the idea of heaven as above runs counter to the record of Acts and it could put Jesus’ return into question, particularly since Acts says his return will happen the same way as he left.”
The Johannine language regarding the Second Coming is more compatible with the modern mind. It speaks of Jesus’ “appearing (1 John 2.28).” But do we want to act like the concordist who try to match Genesis 1 to modern science or should we let the ancient worldview stand on its own, let it tell us a theological truth–Christ will return–without trying to explain how this “works?”
__________
See also:
Larry Hurtado, Jesus’ “Ascension”
the archives near Emmaus 
I don’t think an up-and-down cosmology, theologically, causes any problems; nor do I question the ascension being an actual bodily-physical ascension. In fact, in line with the Apostle Paul’s teaching on pleroma, throughout his epistle to the Colossians; I see his ascension as literally countering the prevailing notion of the Gentiles at that time, that there were demiurges filling the void between creation and the divine light or source. Further, pace something like Paul’s Ephesians 2, I see the ascension of Jesus highlighting the reality, against Hebraic understandings of Beelzebub; that he (Jesus) has dominion OVER the ‘prince of the power of the air’. But coming back to the theological significance of the ascension vis-a-vis creation; I think it signifies that Jesus is Supreme OVER all of creation; and so in this sense an up-down cosmology should be thoroughly conceived of in ‘Christ-conditioned’ ways as it depicts both God’s humiliation in ‘coming-down’ (in the Incarnation), and humanities’ ‘going-up’ in the ascension of the resurrected God-Human, Jesus Christ. In other words, and up-down Christ-conditioned cosmology=grace. In my view there is no need to reinterpret the ascension or second advent through the modern advances in the sciences; this, to me only represents a kind of fashionable quid-pro-quo interpretative posture that seems to be all too common in Evangelical exegesis of our day. Or, this is what happens if theological exegesis is not given pride of place in the interpretive process.
I guess I’m not seeing the problem here, according to scripture Jesus ascended to the Father and was seated at his right hand in the invisible heavenly sanctuary, which would seem to rule out a few miles past Neptune or any other part of the visible creation, so it’s not as if scripture presents us with a view of the ascension that is patently ridiculous. Still, I guess it is somewhat of an open problem as to how Jesus’ first disciples fully conceptualized the relevant cosmogony of Jesus’ ascension and return.
Bobby
This is a very insightful comment. I had not thought of the polemic that could be included in the Ascension regarding demiurges, Beelzebub, etc. This seems applicable to a critique of gnosticism as well. Did any of the early church fathers use these ideas to combat gnostic cosmology?
resident
I agree that the idea is that Jesus went into another “realm” (for lack of a better word), though it does seem that God’s way of bringing Jesus into that realm occurred in a fashion that would have had symbolic meaning for ancients (heaven above, earth below).
Somewhat of a tangent, but I don’t agree with Withrow and others (e.g. Enns, Walton, etc.) who think that Gen 1 teaches the existence of a solid dome-like “firmament” that holds back the “waters above.” Am I the only non-concordist who doesn’t buy this interpretation of raqiya and thinks that this just another example of parallelomania flattening the reading of ANE texts? It seems obvious to me that the “waters above” the raqiya are simply the clouds and that these are beneath the “raqiya of the heaven” that contains the sun, moon, and stars (i.e. the clouds are clearly a source of water that can cover the heavenly bodies elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible); indeed, the birds are said to “fly above the earth [in the raqiya] under the face of the raqiya of the heaven” in Gen 1:20. Can’t wait for scholars to get their act together on this one.
Paul touches on this up-down cosmology in when he writes in 2 Corinthians 12:2 that a man, by revelation, was “was caught up to the third heaven” and (in v4) “was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words.” He states it in such a way as to make it 3rd person, but it is generally agreed that he is speaking of himself, so his testimony is of being taken “up” in a personal experience.
Jim
That is a good example of another use of this up-and-down language. What is the “third” heaven? Is it God’s heaven above the sky and high sky? What did he mean?
@Brian,
I can’t give you any biblio info on Patristic usage of Colossians/Ephesians, but Irenaeus’ recapitulation and Athanasius’ theology both would fit into this Pauline emphasis on Christ as creation’s emphasis; both in its protological and eschatological shape. John Knox also had a robust teaching on Christ’s ascension as the necessary piece for atonement theory; wherein the Priestly vocation of Christ inheres at the right hand of the throne of the Father (Heb 7.25) and salvation is secured once and for all through his intercessory/mediatorial work (this is also a Calvinian theme).
Bobby
I have been thinking a bit more about about how the ascension relates to Christ’s priestly vocation. After talking a bit with David Moffitt at SBL last November he mentioned that this was part of his work on Hebrews and it makes good sense of the ascension. Christ goes to reign, yes, but also to intercede in the heavenly temple before the Father.