Re: the ascension
andrew (amandell@jpusa.chi.il.us)
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 04:41:04 -0500
Hi George in regards to my ? on the ascension you said:
> 1) To begin with, the picture makes use of the common "3 decker" cosmology
>of the biblical writers and their audience, in which heaven is "up". Even
when no
>picture is involved, the same language is used - e.g., the Nicene Creed's
"he came down
>from heaven." I don't think we need to be embarassed by this any more
than by the
>"firmament" on Gen.1.
> 2) The "cloud" of Acts 1:9 is not simply a fleecy mass of water vapor.
It's
>the "cloud" which covered Sinai (Ex. 24:16-17) & filled the Temple (I
Kg.10-11), the
>cloud from which the voice of God comes at the Transfiguration - i.e., the
presence of
>God.
> 3) The Ascension of Christ terminates in his "Session" - i.e., sitting
"at the
>right hand of the Father" (e.g., Eph.1:20). & as Eph.1:23 & especially
4:10 ("He who
>descended is he who also ascended far above all heavens, that he might
fill all things")
>makes clear, this session does not mean being limited to a particular
place in a
>localized heaven. It means that the divine-human Christ is present to the
entire
>universe. (Cf. Luther, "The right hand of God is everywhere.")
> Shalom,
This is all well and helpful but I still am left with this. If the new
testament is reporting history than did the Lord really seem to lift up in
the clouds when he "left" earth? Some say that calls the account into
question which is to arrogant a claim for my taste but any thoughts? Do you
take the account at face value?
Andrew