Luke 24:44-53 & Acts 1:1-11: My Thoughts

LUKE 24:44-53 & ACTS 1:1-11

I have to start out tonight with a confession of sorts: I don’t really know what to make of the ascension of Jesus to heaven. Not from a preaching perspective anyway. There are a variety of issues in it that are worth exploring in this kind of context but from a preaching perspective this story tends to leave me a little bit … well … cold. What’s the point of it? How is it relevant today? Years ago I heard a friend of mine preach a sermon about the ascension and her take on it was that the ascension was like a coronation – that Jesus being taken up into heaven was essentially the equivalent of a king or queen being crowned. Queen Elizabeth had already been Queen for 16 months before being crowned in June of 1953. In the same way, my friend said, Jesus was already King of kings and Lord of lords; the ascension to heaven was just the last stamp of his authority in a sense. I suppose I can buy that. If one wants to understand the ascension even more basically, there has to be some way to account for Jesus not being here in any physical way. The story of Pentecost seems to presuppose Jesus’ absence – so what happened to him? The ascension deals with that. But to be frank it still leaves me saying “OK. So …?” Maybe someday I’ll set myself to the task of actually writing a sermon based on the ascension of Jesus. But for now …

 I want to address once again the issue of geography first. Now we’re in Bethany. Luke’s Gospel (and Luke is actually the only author who includes a reference to the ascension – perhaps because, as I noted above, Luke also is the only author to include a description of Pentecost - in Acts - so he needs to have a “bridge” between the Great Commission and Pentecost.) At the beginning of the passage in Luke’s Gospel the disciples are in Jerusalem. They then move on to Bethany where the ascension takes place. Bethany is only a couple of kilometres from Jerusalem and it’s at the Mount of Olives. It’s not likely that the Mount of Olives was the “mountain” Matthew referred to. First because it’s kind of small to be called a “mountain” (it’s about 800 m tall) but also because it’s not in Galilee. We know from last week that according to Matthew the disciples had journeyed to Mount Tabor to receive the Great Commission. There’s no reference to Mount Tabor here – but there is Luke’s version of the Great Commission: “… repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in [Jesus’] name, beginning from Jerusalem.” So there’s no Mount Tabor for Luke. It’s kind of confusing, and to be perfectly honest you can pull your hair out trying to perfectly reconcile all the different elements of all the Gospels. I think I’ve said before that reading the Gospels describe the “Jesus-event” is like listening to different witnesses describe a car accident. Everyone has different details. As you might have noticed I like things that seem to suggest authenticity and it’s the so-called discrepancies in the Gospels that make them more authentic to me. If the story were a fake then someone somewhere at some point would have tried to clean the story up. But from the beginning the church didn’t seem concerned by the fact that all the details of the various Gospels didn’t line up. To me, the more important thing is whether there’s something in the substance of the message that’s contradictory and there really isn’t. The Great Commission in Matthew is fleshed out more than the version we find in Luke, but it’s essentially the same, except that it’s given from a mountain rather than in Bethany. I don’t see how the venue makes a substantive difference, so it doesn’t really bother me. I do find it interesting that in Luke Jesus gives the disciples a specific mission to Jerusalem, whereas in Matthew the commission was simply to go into all the world. Matthew’s version was a shift from Jesus being for Israel and being extended to all the world. Luke has seen Jesus as being for all the world from the very start, so now he seems to be making sure that he stresses the importance of the Jewish origin of Christianity. I just found that interesting. And of course Luke makes sure to say “from Jerusalem.” The message doesn’t end in Jerusalem; it starts in Jerusalem.

The initial question of the disciples for Jesus was whether he was now going to “restore the kingdom to Israel.” In some ways that sounds kind of cryptic, but it really isn’t. Actually, once you think about it, it’s crystal clear. One of the expectations of the Jewish Messiah was that the Messiah would restore the throne of David. Luke doesn’t stress the Jewish Messiah-ship very much, as I’ve pointed out, but he’s clearly aware of it and he notes that the disciples were still confused. This suggests that the issue that led to the change in the mood of the crowd on the day when Jesus entered Jerusalem (from hailing him as a king to demanding that he be crucified) was still an issue even for Jesus’ own disciples. “Restoring the kingdom to Israel” was the equivalent of kicking out the Roman occupiers of Judea. So even at this point after everything they’ve seen, those closest to Jesus still wonder why he hasn’t led a rebellion and when he’s going to. The insistence on identifying Jesus (or God) as a military and political figure continues to this day. People start to associate their political ideologies with Jesus, countries assume that God marches with their soldiers in times of war, even while the other side assumes the same thing. Today there are people who really do seem to think that Jesus will just take care of them through COVID. Jesus’ power and purpose are often misunderstood. I find the words of Jesus in John 18:36 especially meaningful in addressing issues such as this: “My Kingdom is not of this world.” Jesus’ Kingdom is not a political Kingdom focused on power and might and control; it’s a spiritual Kingdom focused on grace and forgiveness and reconciliation. But even Jesus’ own disciples – according to this passage – have trouble with that concept right up to the end.

Before getting to the actual ascension, I’ll note that before he ascends, Jesus’ blesses his disciples by lifting up his hands. As he’s doing that “he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.” (Lk 24:51) While the ascension itself might be a difficult topic to grasp, I do find that a powerful image. The last image the disciples have of Jesus as he disappears from their sight is of him blessing them. That to me is powerful, and in the imagery of the story I take it that this seems to be a promise of Jesus’ never-ending blessing upon his disciples (including us – his disciples today.) Blessing the world is what Jesus is doing as he leaves the world. I can only say again – I find that powerful.

Cosmology plays a huge part in the ascension. Cosmology refers to how we see creation structured. Science has given us a very complex cosmology. We can grasp that the universe is huge (larger than we can possibly imagine.) We understand the concept of stars and planets and super novas and black holes and pulsars and quasars and galaxies. We can even grapple with the possibility of different dimensions and of the hypothetical multi-verse – the idea that this universe we live in might not be the only universe that there is. In Luke’s day cosmology was much simpler. There was a 3-fold understanding of creation. There was what was below you, what was around you and what was above you – so there was earth and there was heaven and hell. Hell was the mysterious world below us  that we couldn’t see, heaven was everything we could see in the sky above us, and earth was what was all around us. That was a 1^st century cosmology. It begs the question of whether the story of the ascension should be taken literally. I think the answer is probably that it shouldn’t be. Luke portrayed Jesus as ascending to heaven because in Luke’s understanding (and in the understanding of the people of that day) heaven was “up there” in the clouds. Where else would Jesus go? He would have to go up. But we know heaven isn’t “up there” in the clouds. It’s said that when the Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space he reported back that he found no God up there and therefore all religion was false. But of course he was mocking a 1^st century cosmology. I would suggest that by the 20^th century the real issue is that heaven isn’t really a place – it’s an image or expression for humans to use to speak of where God “lives” in a sense. The biblical image is still with us, of course. People of faith do speak of God being “up there” but I think most know that it’s an expression – that God isn’t really “up there” – God is everywhere.

There’s tension in the story. “Heaven” (regardless of which cosmology you adhere to) is a spiritual place, but there seems little doubt that Luke is describing a physical ascension – Jesus’ body ascended to heaven. That’s mysterious and probably impossible to really understand but it does speak to the relationship between Jesus, God and humanity. Jesus ascends to heaven; heaven is where God is; therefore, Jesus and God are one. But – Jesus ascends to heaven in his human flesh; human flesh is thus a part of heaven’s experience; God is therefore not detached from the human experience. The physical ascension is another testimony to the idea that God understands humanity – even our frailties and weaknesses. God is not some aloof deity who has no idea about our fears and struggles; God knows us and identifies with us and comforts us and assures us that our trials and afflictions and pains don’t have the last word because the risen and ascended Jesus is still one of us and is with God and has conquered all the things that oppress us.

Verses 52& 53 of the Gospel point out that the early Jewish Christians were just that – they functioned as both Jews and Christians. So the point is made that they both worshipped Jesus and were also “continually praising God in the temple.” This helps to reinforce a point I tried to make a few weeks ago – being excluded from the synagogues (because by the time John’s Gospel was written there was no temple) was a significant loss of fellowship and identity for Jewish Christians, for whom regular worship of God with the Jewish community (even those who didn’t believe in Jesus) in the temple was the norm.

I want to finish with just a couple of points about the beginning and the end of the passage from Acts. The Book of Acts is addressed to “Theophilus.” This probably isn’t a proper name. It’s a combination of two Greek words – Theos and Philos – and essentially means either “lover of God” or “friend of God.” So we’re not eavesdropping on a private letter from Luke to a particular individual. We, as Christians, would also be “Theopil-i” (which would be the plural form.) He is writing this book (and also the Gospel, which also begins with an address to Theophilus) for any who claim to love God. Also, although the NRSV translates Luke as saying that he wrote an account of “all that Jesus did and taught,” the actual Greek words are “all that Jesus began to do and teach.” It’s an unfortunate translation by NRSV because it gives the sense that Jesus’ work is finished, whereas read in Greek the point is that Jesus’ work and teachings have only just begun. The end of the Acts passage promises the return of Jesus in the same way that he had left. So, again, leaving behind the literal interpretation of Jesus going up into the clouds, the point is that Jesus will return suddenly and unexpectedly – but his return will be noticed; it won’t be hidden. So if someone says “Jesus has returned – and he’s in (wherever)” – well, probably not. You’d know if Jesus had returned.