The Theological Significance of the Ascension

By Kenneth Alan Daughters [1]

Introduction

Jesus Christ’s ascension has accomplished many benefits for believers. Yet its truths often go unnoticed, being overshadowed by His death and resurrection on our behalf. Few preach or write on the subject, so it is little wonder that the average believer thinks little about it. This neglect of the ascension, however, impinges on other doctrines of the Christian faith, doctrines which are crucial. “Easter is incomplete, Pentecost is impeded, and the Second Coming is impossible without the ascension.” [2] A proper understanding of the ascension is necessary to maintain the truth of the gospel. “Is Christianity simply the news that Christ died and then was alive again?” [3] Where is He now? Is He someplace in our heaven? Is He hovering in some space reserved for disembodied souls? “If he is not on the right hand of God the Father, he does not reign, and we have no King.” [4]

The purpose of this article is to examine the biblical texts concerning the ascension of our Lord to discover its theological and practical significance. Since some critics have questioned the reality of the ascension, we will demonstrate its integral part in the gospel message. Finally, in order to understand the chronology, we must determine the timing of the ascension, whether Christ ascended on Easter Sunday, forty days later, or both. It is our hope that this study will encourage believers to live in light of Christ’s ascension.

The Significance of the Ascension

The ascension of Christ is significant for at least eight reasons.

1. It Marks the End of Christ’s Self-limitation.

Though He is very God, in order to come to earth as a man, Christ voluntarily emptied Himself, making Himself of no reputation (Philippians 2:6). While on earth Christ lived as a man, choosing not to use some of His divine attributes. He veiled His glory and lived a life of humiliation. All of us, from the youngest to the oldest, feel that it was unfair for the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to be born so humbly in a stable. We all react as Peter did when we imagine what it must be like for our Lord to wash the disciples’ feet on the night He was betrayed. We are angry when we listen to the taunts of those at the foot of the cross who challenged Him to save Himself. All of these experiences and many more find their vindication in the event of the ascension. It marks the end of His self-limitation.

2. It Is the Occasion for Christ’s Exaltation and Glorification.

Jesus prayed in John 17:5, “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” The ascension accomplished the answer to this prayer. At the ascension, “God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9–11). At the ascension the Father “seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church” (Ephesians 1:20–22).

Quite simply, “the Ascension is the designation and the demonstration of his Lordship.” [5] “The Ascension is the glorious coronation of our King by His Father.” [6] He ascended that He might fill all things (Ephesians 4:10), and thereby have the preeminence (Colossians 1:18). Jesus has received what He deserves. He is reigning as King in Heaven, sitting at His Father’s right hand, and soon His rulership will extend to this earth when He returns in judgment to set up His kingdom. We know He will return to earth to reign because He has begun to rule in heaven.

It also demonstrates the Father’s acceptance of Christ’s earthly work. “By the Ascension and Exaltation of His Son Jesus, God the Father set the seal and crown upon His resurrection, and upon His whole earthly ministry.” [7] Christ successfully accomplished what He came to do. “He rose to ascend; he ascended to reign.” [8] We have assurance that our sins have been forgiven by what the Son has accomplished because the Father has accepted His work.

3. It Marks the Entrance of Resurrected Humanity into Heaven.

Jesus was the first man to enter heaven with a glorified body. He is our forerunner (Hebrews 6:20). His presence there is our guarantee that we, too, will be resurrected and taken to heaven. As Fitzmyer says, “the ascension of Christ is the guarantee of Christian destiny.” [9] Torrance insightfully remarks,

The ascension means the exaltation of man into the life of God and on to the throne of God.. .. There we reach the goal of the incarnation, in our great Prodomos [sic] or Forerunner at the right hand of God. We are with Jesus beside God, for we are gathered up in him and included in his own self-presentation before the Father. The staggering thing about this is that the exaltation of human nature into the life of God does not mean the disappearance of man or the swallowing up of human and creaturely being in the infinite ocean of divine Being, but rather that human nature, remaining creaturely and human, is yet exalted in Christ to share in God’s life and glory. [10]

Few of us think of Jesus as still being a member of our human race, though He is. Jesus as a man has entered heaven and has been exalted to the Father’s right hand. This gives us assurance that we too will join with Christ.

4. It Marks the Beginning of Christ’s New Ministry of Intercession and Advocacy.

While on earth He accomplished the provision of salvation to all who would believe. Now He begins a new ministry. As our intercessor He continually mediates for us (Hebrews 7:25). And as our advocate He continually pleads our case before the Father (I John 2:1). When we sin and need familial forgiveness, He is there for us. When we pray to the Father, He forms the bridge.

5. It Allowed Christ to Send the Holy Spirit to Indwell and Empower Us.

In John 16:7 we learn, “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.” This is the heart of the theological significance of the ascension. We join with the disciples in wishing that He would have stayed with us. We long for Him to be present in our midst. Ignorantly, we might have wished that Jesus had remained with us visibly so that He Himself could do the work of spreading the gospel. But “the Holy Spirit could not have carried on the work if Jesus had remained.” [11] Jesus said, “and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father” (John 14:12). Unless Jesus returned to the Father, we would not be empowered to do these greater works. Our works are not greater in quality. Who among us has raised a Lazarus from the dead? Our works are greater in quantity. Greater works can be accomplished because the Spirit indwells each one of us. Jesus has shared Himself with us more by sending His Spirit than if He had stayed personally. Now there are thousands, perhaps millions, of us, each indwelt personally by Christ’s Holy Spirit, taking the Good News worldwide. We may not have originally agreed, but now we can see that it truly was to our advantage that Jesus return to His Father. The sending of the Holy Spirit to indwell us is an ascension ministry of Christ.

6. It Served as the Opportunity for Christ to Give us Spiritual Gifts.

We read in Ephesians 4:8, “When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.” These spiritual gifts were actually gifts of men to lead the church. As a result of His ascension He gave us apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers. As the Spirit manifests Himself through these leaders, the saints are equipped and the church edified. Spiritual gifts are an ascension ministry of Christ.

7. It Allows the Preparation of Our Future Heavenly Home.

In John 14:2–3 Jesus says, “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” Part of the reason He is absent now is that He is away preparing our home. We realize that we are only strangers here on earth. Our home is with Christ in heaven. The preparation of our eternal home is an ascension ministry of Christ.

8. It Anticipates His Return.

Holwerda calls it “a picture of the Parousia.” [12] In Acts 1:11 we read, “This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.” Franklin comments, “What happens at the Ascension determines what is to be expected at the Parousia.” [13] And Walvoord summarizes, “This is of great significance because when Christ returns to earth to establish His kingdom, His second advent has all of these same characteristics, namely, gradual, visible, bodily and with clouds.” [14] As we wait for His second coming, our reference point is His ascension.

The Reality of the Ascension

In spite of the great theological significance of the ascension, critics have questioned its reality. Metzger suggests that “no other story in the New Testament creates for the modern reader a greater sense of conflict between what he knows of astrophysics and what he thinks the biblical account necessarily implies.” [15] Many space age Christians find the story hard to believe. Even the resurrection is easier for the modern mind to accept. A neo-orthodox theologian may speak of a physical resurrection at times, but try to find one who speaks of a physical ascension! Historically, “the Ascension is the first domino to fall.” [16] Tunnel complains that “when you put the literal question to these passages, the Ascension story evaporates into thin air. Jesus becomes a kind of first-century Superman, and heaven becomes a place located in space beyond the clouds.” [17] Bolt summarizes the consensus when he writes, “Many Christian theologians in our century have also rejected the idea of a literal ascension, considering it a crude myth that is impossible to accept in the modern world.” [18] Yet to dismiss the ascension as unbelievable is to miss the richness of its truths.

For centuries the confession of the Church has been “resurrexit e mortuis: ascendit in caelos: sedet ad dextram Patris.” [19] But increasingly, the reality of His ascension has been questioned. Dana comprehends the scope of the problem when he writes, “There is doubtless no instance of the supernatural in the New Testament which makes greater demands on faith than the Ascension of our Lord.” [20] Did Luke invent the ascension? Was it the creation of the early Church? Was it a literal event, or should we interpret it figuratively or spiritually? We cannot appreciate the significance of the event unless its reality is clearly established.

Modern Critical View

The father of the view most modern critics hold concerning the ascension is Adolf Harnack. [21] More recently, Rudolf Bultmann has persuaded many of the nonessentiality of the ascension. [22] A brief survey of scholarship exemplifies this low view of the ascension.

Those Who Deny Any Significance.

Many modern critics attribute the ascension legend to the wishful thinking of the early Church. These critics begin with the presupposition that miracles are impossible. They are excluded by science. Thus, the only resurrection the apostles could have witnessed would be a spiritual or imaginative one. It was their faith that arose, not Jesus. They were badly shaken by Jesus’ death, but once their confidence in Him returned, they began to believe that Jesus’ soul had been exalted in divine glory. [23] This gave them assurance that He was spiritually alive forever and victorious over death. As their primitive conceptions progressed, eventually they associated His body with the triumph of His spirit. They imagined that His body, too, was in glory. With time their beliefs became more materialistic, developing to the point where they claimed that Jesus’ body had physically come back to life. To substantiate this, they fabricated a growing number of stories of His appearances. They said that they saw Him eat and drink and that they had touched Him. And since His body, like His spirit, was still alive, they contrived a resurrection story, complete with women who found the tomb empty! “In short, a whole ‘legend’ grew up which expanded and substituted a physical resurrection for the spiritual triumph of primitive belief.” [24]

These critics further suppose that the early Church invented the ascension as a way to explain how Jesus in his physical body must have departed, since his appearances had ceased. Lake suggests, “This was rendered the easier by the existence of a series of traditions as to the ‘assumption’ or ‘translation’ of living persons such as Elijah or Enoch, to which the Apocalyptists added Moses, Baruch, and Ezra.” [25] Enslin agrees that “it would perhaps be only a question of time when some daring and imaginative follower would seek to visualize the snatching up to heaven.” [26]

So if we are to believe these critics, the early Church developed the ascension legend out of its own needs and desires, and Luke recorded it as if it were history. Fitzmyer comments, “Luke has not invented the ‘ascension’ as something distinct from Jesus’ resurrection—that tradition was before him—but he has historicized it in a way no other NT writer has.” [27]

Those Who Allow Symbolic Significance.

One might think that the total de-historizing of Luke’s account would remove any significance of the ascension for us today. There is a group of scholars, however, who accept the non-historicity of the account, but still see a modern application. Some of them hold to a truth behind the story and some of them do not. But they agree that Luke’s intention all along was to convey symbolic truth. Moule thinks, “It is questionable whether even St. Luke himself, for all his known tendency to ‘materialize,’ was so literal-minded as to imagine that Jesus went up vertically and sat down a few miles above the visible sky.” [28] These scholars consider a literal interpretation to be ridiculous. Instead, they prefer to see Luke using the language of space and time to convey the belief of the early Church in terms understandable to the world of its time. Richardson suggests that Luke “well knows that the mystery of the return of the risen Lord to His Father’s throne is beyond men’s understanding and beyond the power of human language to express. So he portrays the truth symbolically and tells a story, the story of Christ’s ascension.” [29]

At least these scholars allow the symbolism to have some meaning. For example, Davies thinks that the cloud that carried Jesus away was not an atmospheric cloud at all. “On the contrary, this is that ‘cloud’, mentioned frequently in the Old Testament, that was regarded as a symbol and vehicle of the divine presence or glory.” [30] Ramsey suggests that even though Jesus never actually ascended, the disciples were afforded a vision in order to convey to them the truth of their Lord’s present status.

No man saw the resurrection happen, and no man saw the ascension happen either. The story in Acts 1, even taken literally, does not tell us that men saw Jesus leave earth or enter heaven. But we have, as we have seen, some evidence that the disciples were granted a vision which brought home to them not only the resurrection but also the glorious heavenly status of their Master. What is precarious is Luke’s placing of this event in the scheme of his history. [31]

Tunnell has summarized this school of thought well when he writes that the crucial reality for the life of faith symbolized by the ascension is “the movement of Jesus from one method of being known and experienced to another—knowledge through faith replaced knowledge through personal contact.” [32]

How are we to understand the ascension, then, in light of these criticisms? Is it necessary to deny the historicity of the accounts? Is any of the significance lost if we interpret it merely symbolically?

Conservative Rebuttal

It is the contention of this writer that to deny the historicity of the ascension is to dilute its ability to convey the truth about Christ. Furthermore, if the accounts are allowed to speak for themselves, a literal, historical interpretation is mandated.

Scriptural Accounts.

Acts 1:9-11.

The central account in Acts 1:9–11 is worded in a manner that suggests a literal interpretation. [33] The first phrase, “He was lifted up,” ἐπήρθη, (epērthē), conveys the thought of “to put your hands under something and to lift or to hoist something from one place to another.” [34] This language connotes the literal removal of an object from one place to another. The second phrase, “a cloud received Him,” ὑπέλαβεν, (hupelaben), gives the impression that the cloud went under Jesus and supported Him as a vehicle supports a rider. The third phrase, “He was departing,” πορευομένου, (poreuomenou), means “to proceed from one place to another.” [35] Jesus proceeded from the Mount of Olives directly to heaven. The fourth phrase, “taken up,” ἀναλημφθείς, (analēmphtheis), suggests that the cloud provided the conveyance to transfer Jesus from earth to heaven. Taken together, these four phrases amply convey a literal ascension. Dana has summarized this passage well when he writes, “There is none of the embellishment of legendary exaggeration here, but what on the face of it would appear as a plain, concise statement of fact.” [36]

Many of the critics hold that Luke is the only author who speaks of the ascension and that the Acts 1 passage is the only legitimate text. They would suggest that Luke’s gospel account is more primitive and inferior and that the Mark 16 account is a later addition. Enslin even goes so far as to say that, “Paul is unacquainted with the story of the ascension.” [37] Fitzmyer claims that “in the majority of the books there is not a line referring to it: nothing in Matthew, Mark, most of the Pauline corpus, the Catholic Epistles, or Revelation.” [38] These types of claims are cited as evidence that the ascension was a fabrication of the early Church that Luke alone added to his theology and history.

On the contrary, there are a number of legitimate passages that teach the truth of the ascension, and even more that allude to its significance. A survey of these passages will demonstrate the richness of the teaching on the ascension.

The central passage of Acts 1:9–11 has already been examined. But that does not exhaust the references in Luke’s writings.

Acts 1:2.

In Acts 1:2 Luke also makes reference to “the day when He was taken up.” And at the close of his gospel account, Luke speaks of Jesus parting from them in a manner that assumes they were already familiar with the ascension tradition (Luke 24:51).

Ephesians.

Paul speaks of the ascension in Ephesians 4:10 where he writes, “He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.” Without describing how the ascension took place, Paul speaks of its purpose. An even clearer reference to its purpose is earlier in the epistle in Ephesians 1:20. “He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places.” This exaltation could not have been accomplished without some sort of ascension, and the one described by Luke seems to be the one understood.

Philippians.

Again in Philippians 2:9–11, Paul explains theologically what Luke implies was accomplished in the ascension. “Therefore also God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

1 Peter.

The apostle Peter spoke of Christ’s ascension using the same word found in Acts 1:11. He speaks of Jesus Christ, “who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him” (1 Peter 3:22). The tie between these two passages is close, and the theological implication is clear.

Hebrews.

The writer to the Hebrews understands well what was accomplished by Christ’s ascension. “Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession” (Hebrews 4:14). What can the passing through the heavens refer to other than the ascension, especially in light of the context of Christ as high priest? Christ’s present exaltation as high priest is subsequent to and dependent on His passing through the heavens. Similarly, in Hebrews 7:26, our high priest is spoken of as being “exalted above the heavens.” This amplifies the previous thought.

John.

Many of the critics dismiss John’s gospel as contributing nothing to our understanding of the ascension. But such is not the case. Though there are problems with the interpretation of the timing of the ascension, John 20:17 clearly has Jesus claiming that He will ascend. “Jesus said to her, ‘Stop clinging to Me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” Also, John 6:62 has Christ predicting His ascension saying, “What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?” In light of this statement, the disciples should have been expecting to witness visibly Jesus’ return to heaven.

1 Timothy.

The ancient Christian confession of First Timothy 3:16 includes the phrase “Taken up in glory.” It employs the same verb in the same form as Acts 1:2. This seems to be clear indication of the antiquity of the belief in the ascension of Acts 1.

Mark.

Though the long ending of Mark is probably not original, it certainly reflects ancient belief. Here again we find the verb from Acts 1:2 in Mark 16:19. “So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.”

Matthew.

Even though the gospel of Matthew does not speak of the ascension closing Christ’s earthly ministry, it does allude to its result in Matthew 26:64. “Hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

What these New Testament texts do is demonstrate that the belief in the ascension is more widespread than the critics would lead us to believe. Though many of the texts do not express the mechanics of how the ascension took place, they at least teach what the ascension has accomplished, and some even attribute those accomplishments to an event that is best explained as the ascension. We can agree with Dana that “a detailed examination of the New Testament text reveals an abundance of evidence that first century Christianity held widely the conception of a culmination of Christ’s career which was in harmony with the record in the first chapter of Acts.” [39]

Necessity of the Ascension.

Thus, we reject the suggestion of the critics that the ascension was invented by the early Church to meet its own need. We agree with Argyle that, “So far from being incredible, the Ascension is an indispensable part of the Christian message, without which that message would not be complete or intelligible.” [40] Belief in the resurrection necessitates belief in the ascension. Since He rose bodily from the dead and He is now reigning from heaven at the right hand of the Father, He had to leave the earth at some point. “The historicity of the Ascension cannot be questioned without thrusting the whole drama of redemption into the realm of myth.” [41]

The ascension is reality, not myth. Some theologians become confused by the spatial movement from the earth upward toward heaven. Peter Brunner charges that such thoughts are stupid, foolish, and childish. [42] We can sympathize with his point, but not totally agree. It is true that the significance of the ascension is not to be found primarily in its description of spatial movement. Metzger captures this thought when he writes, “The ascension should not be regarded as a journey from earth to heaven that required a certain number of minutes, days, months, or years to be accomplished.” [43] Scaer rightly comments, “The full significance of the Ascension is lost if it is simply viewed as a spatial event with Jesus going from one place to another. Such an understanding would mean that it would be merely a deathlike departure for Jesus.” [44] So, it is true that the primary meaning is not spatial, but one goes too far if he denies that Jesus actually left the earth and is now in heaven.

Having thus demonstrated the reality of the ascension, the question as to its timing must next be examined. If we are to properly appreciate its significance, we ought to know to which ascension we are referring.

The Timing of the Ascension

Critical View.

There is a confusion as to when the ascension took place. One might think that Luke’s statement in Acts 1:3 that Jesus appeared to His disciples over a period of 40 days would be clear enough. Traditionally the ascension has been placed forty days after His resurrection, which would be ten days before Pentecost. But a number of scholars suggest that Jesus ascended on Easter Sunday. The critics see a major conflict. A survey of a few will demonstrate the problem. Enslin claims that Paul, Matthew, and perhaps even John viewed the ascension as taking place on Easter. He summarizes that “were it not for Acts 1 probably no one would question that the separation of Luke 24:51 is represented as taking place on the evening of the resurrection day.” [45] Fitzmyer suggests that the comparison of Acts 1:3 with Luke 24:5, “is the reason for the textual omission of v. 51b.” [46] Wilson thinks that, “it may simply be that after completing his Gospel Luke received new traditions about the post-Resurrection appearances.” [47] Several critics suggest that Luke chose the number forty because it is a round number, has theological significance, and it fit before Pentecost, fifty days after the Passover. Stempvoort represents this view, concluding, “We shall not assume, therefore, a mathematical, chronological meaning for a number in this piece of old Christian history.” [48]

Whereas the ascension account is run together with the other events on Easter in Luke 24, it is not necessary to conclude that He ascended the same day He arose. Many times in the gospels separate events are spoken of in close proximity, often with great amounts of time actually separating them. The clear statement of Acts 1:3 should be used to interpret the timing which is not stated in Luke 24.

Conservative Typological View.

Some conservative expositors also hold to an Easter ascension, though for different reasons. Based on the typology of Hebrews 9:6–20, they teach that Christ presented His blood of sacrifice on the heavenly altar, just as the Old Testament high priest observed on the Day of Atonement. Hebrews 9:12 states that “through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.”

Walvoord has adequately refuted this view. [49] There is a problem with requiring Jesus to present His blood in heaven to consummate the atonement. It tends to view the work of Christ on the cross as unfinished. Also, Hebrews 9:12 “does not state that He took His shed blood with Him, but rather that it was through His shed blood or accomplished sacrifice that He was able to ascend to heaven.” [50]

Furthermore, if one holds that Christ ascended on Easter, He must have done it between His appearance to Mary and His appearance to the other women. This time frame is cramped, probably allowing less than an hour. Rather that interpreting John 20:17 as the ascended Christ, it is better to see Him predicting His future ascension. [51]

Thus, it is best to hold the traditional view that the ascension took place forty days after the resurrection. There is no need to hold to an Easter ascension. Having thus established the proper timing of the ascension, we conclude that our theological understanding of the ascension is unimpeded.

Conclusion

In this article we have examined the theological significance of the ascension, established its reality, and fixed its proper timing. Even though a number of critics have questioned the fact of the ascension and consequently its meaning, we have seen its great importance in declaring what Christ has accomplished. Rather than dismissing it as a legend of primitive Christianity, we saw how a large portion of New Testament theology is built upon it. Having gained a greater appreciation for its significance, we agree with Donne when he writes, “Theologically, the Ascension of Jesus Christ is at the very heart of the New Testament.” [52]

Notes

1. Ken Daughters is a faculty member at Emmaus Bible College and is the Book Review editor of The Emmaus Journal.
2. Robert F. Ramey, “That 40th Day!” Interest, 47 (May 1982): 6.
3. Joseph Haroutunian, “The Doctrine of the Ascension,” Interpretation 10 (July 1956): 276.
4. Haroutunian, “The Doctrine of the Ascension,” 270.
5. Robert H. Lauer, “The Richness of the Ascension,” Christianity Today 5 (April 24, 1961): 17.
6. A. W. Argyle, “The Ascension,” The Expository Times 66 (May 1955): 241.
7. Argyle, “The Ascension,” 241.
8. Haroutunian, “The Doctrine of the Ascension,” 278.
9. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” Theological Studies 45 (Sept. 1984) 425.
10. Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 135.
11. A. T. Robertson, “The Significance of the Ascension,” The Bible Student 5 (Jan.-June 1902): 28.
12. David E. Holwerda, “Ascension,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 5 vols., ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 1:312.
13. Eric Franklin, “The Ascension and the Eschatology of Luke-Acts,” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (May 1970): 192.
14. John F. Walvoord, “The Ascension of Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 121 (Jan.-Mar. 1964): 10.
15. Bruce M. Metzger, “The Meaning of Christ’s Ascension,” Christianity Today 10 (May 27, 1966): 3.
16. David P. Scaer, “Jesus Did Not Leave—He Reigns Through Us,” Christianity Today 26 (May 21, 1982): 24.
17. James R. Tunnell, “The Timeless Reign of Christ,” Pulpit Digest 50 (May 1970): 21.
18. John Bolt, “The Ascension of Christ in the Space Age,” The Banner 119 (May 28, 1984): 10.
19. Translation: “He rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven, he sits at the right hand of the Father.”
20. H. E. Dana, “Historical Evidence of the Ascension,” The Biblical Review 14 (Apr. 1929): 191.
21. Adolf Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Studies, Vol. III, trans. J. R. Wilkinson (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1909), 155ff.
22. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols., trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1951), 1:45 ff.
23. Pierre Benoit, “L’Ascension,” Revue Biblique 56 (Avril 1949): 174.
24. Pierre Benoit, Jesus and the Gospel, 2 vols., trans. Benet Weatherhead (New York: The Seabury Press, 1973), 1:224. “Bref, toute une ‘légende’ se formait, qui allait en se grossissant et substituait une Résurrection corporelle au triomphe spirituel de la foi primitive.” Revue Biblique, 56 (Avril, 1949): 175.
25. Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity: Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, Vol. V, eds. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966 [1932]), 17.
26. Morton S. Enslin, “The Ascension Story,” Journal of Biblical Literature 47 (1928): 60.
27. Fitzmyer, “The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” 424.
28. C. F. D. Moule, “The Ascension—Acts 1:9, ” The Expository Times 67 (1957): 208.
29. Alan Richardson, “The Ascension,” The Expository Times 79 (1968): 248.
30. J. G. Davies, “Jesus Christ (6): The Glorified Christ,” The Expository Times 87 (Aug. 1977): 334.
31. A. M. Ramsey, “What Was the Ascension?” Bulletin of the Studiorum Novi Testamento Societas, 3 vols. in one. (Cambridge: University, 1963, [Vol. 2, 1951]), 2:50.
32. Tunnell, “The Timeless Reign of Christ,” 22.
33. Joe Temple, “He Ascended into Heaven,” Good News Broadcaster 40 (July-Aug. 1982): 48.
34. Temple, “He Ascended into Heaven,” 48.
35. Temple, “He Ascended into Heaven,” 48.
36. Dana, “Historical Evidence of the Ascension,” 194.
37. Enslin, “The Ascension Story,” 66.
38. Fitzmyer, “The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” 409.
39. Dana, “Historical Evidence of the Ascension,” 200–201.
40. Argyle, “The Ascension,” 242.
41. Lauer, “The Richness of the Ascension,” 18.
42. Peter Brunner, “The Ascension of Christ: Myth or Reality,” Dialog 1 (Spring 1962): 38.
43. Metzger, “The Meaning of Christ’s Ascension,” 4.
44. Scaer, “Jesus Did Not Leave—He Reigns Through Us,” 24.
45. Enslin, “The Ascension Story,” 61.
46. Fitzmyer, “The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” 418.
47. S. G. Wilson, “The Ascension: A Critique and an Interpretation,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 59 (1968): 271.
48. P. A. Van Stempvoort, “The Interpretation of the Ascension in Luke and Acts,” New Testament Studies 5 (Oct. 1958): 34.
49. Walvoord, “The Ascension of Christ,” 5–8.
50. Walvoord, “The Ascension of Christ,” 5.
51. Walvoord, “The Ascension of Christ,” 7.
52. Brian K. Donne, “The Significance of the Ascension of Jesus Christ in the New Testament,” Scottish Journal of Theology 30 (1977): 568.