That's certainly not how the book of Acts sees it. In Acts 1, the story of Jesus' ascension is followed directly by the appointment of Matthias to fill the vacancy on the apostolate left by Judas' betrayal. Matthias is called to be a witness to the resurrection, but in order to bear that witness he must have been with Jesus throughout his ministry, from the baptism of John right through to the ascension. That is the content of the apostles' witness, according to Peter's speech in Acts 1: the life and work of Jesus, from his baptism through to his ascension.
I guess you could argue that the rest of the NT drags in a few outliers: the infancy narratives especially in Matthew and Luke's gospels. In fact, those things present an intriguing parallel. The appearance of angels precedes the impossible coming of God-with-us, his advent declared in advance; the appearance of angels follows the impossible going of the Son, declaring his return to heaven. Everything between these two points is the content of the apostolic witness.
The claim being made here is that we can put a thick line around the earthly line of Jesus and say: this is it. This is the thing to which the prophets looked forward, and this is the thing to which the apostles looked back. Here is the real thing. Everything within this border: that is God's revelation, God's history within our history.
If Jesus had not gone up, there would have been no completed work. God would have become a permanent part of human history. God would be a factor in our existence. But would he then be the transformation of our history and our existence? Would there be something to which a band of apostles could bear witness as the turning point of human existence? The New Testament says no. The New Testament says that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit followed on Jesus' ascension, because Jesus' ascension no less than his virgin birth is the marker of where revelation is to be found, and the marker of his completed work.
No comments:
Post a Comment