In the New Testament, our Gospels
specifically, discrepancies are “all around the map.” One response for these
inconsistencies would simply because the gospels are not written as historical evidence.
In fact, “The Gospels are filled with
non-historical materials, accounts of events that could not have happened...If
you have two contradictory accounts of the same event, both accounts cannot be
accurate.”[1] Even
one of our best arguments in defence of our gospel, to say that they were
written purposely for the propagation of faith is not an excuse for veracity
inquiry. However, I am not probing here any biblical events whether it is
historically accurate or not like what Bart Erhman did. To do so is beyond my
competence. What I’m trying to elucidate here are the probable reasons our
gospel authors have in mind while writing down the traditions of Jesus. On the
matter pursued here, the places where Jesus’ Ascension took place.
I
understand ordinary lay person, catholic or not, would crumble upon
encountering this findings in the Bible. We have esteemed the Holy Scriptures
as revealed by God. Consequently many believed it to be inerrant. So to speak,
it is without error. Everything is accurate. Indeed, the Holy Bible is inerrant
in its revelatory message, the Good News that is, God's revelation which
culminates in Jesus. Yet, we should humbly recognize that God's instruments,
the authors of books in the Bible were human beings, and they use mediums of
communication best available of their times. Both the writers and their
mediums, namely the language and genre were all limited. Besides its abundance
it can never fathom the richness of God.
Fr.
Munachi E. Ezeogu, CSSP
in one of his homilies wrote, “Luke-Acts
the Ascension takes place in Jerusalem, whereas in Matthew and Mark it takes
place in Galilee.” Many if not all Christians not excluding priest are
eluded with this revelation. They never bother what these accounts means. But for
curiosity sake, let us try to look at it closely to find out what is in there
which might lead us to a more profound meaning of the accounts.
Did it happen in Jerusalem?
Lucan account of the Ascension, Luke
24:50-52, where we read the text as follows, “When he had led them out to
the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing
them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then
they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy” (underlined
words is my emphases). And Bethany
was considerably at a distance from the holy city of Jerusalem. “Now Bethany was less than two miles (“about 3 kilometers” according to some
translation) from Jerusalem,” John
11:18. Based from these accounts the Ascension did not happen in the city of Jerusalem
but in some distant, albeit not too far a place called Bethany.
What’s
in Jerusalem which we can decipher in this account is something else other than
the Ascension. Try to look at the accounts in Acts:
“On one occasion,
while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do
not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have
heard me speak about.” Acts 1:4
“But you will receive
power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Acts
1:8
At a closer look, I would say, specifically
it is not the Ascension which took place in Jerusalem but the descent of the
Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, traditionally called the Pentecost. From the
city of Jerusalem, Jesus led His Apostles out to the vicinity of Bethany (cf. Luke
24:50-52). There He ascended into heaven. But before leaving He commanded them
to stay in Jerusalem until the promised Paraclete would come upon them.[2]
Thus, it is said the Apostles “returned
to Jerusalem with great joy.”[3]
This Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, would give them the strength and courage to
carry on the mission starting from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. See Luke 24:47, “and repentance
for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem.”
Why should chose Bethany as the locus
for His Ascension? Could he not ascend in the city of Jerusalem? These are
guide queries which would direct our biblical exploration to the probabilities
of theological underpinnings of this written tradition. Let me remind you
again, we are not probing here something historical but we are trying to
decipher possible spiritual message. Let our queries, what is in the place or
what is in the name of the place, as our guide questions to further our
research.
But as far as the gospel of Luke is
concern, to strictly rely on the said gospel on our endeavour, I’m afraid we
cannot dig deeper far from we are expected to attain. Our extreme obstacle, so
to speak, is that we don’t have much information about the place Bethany from
the gospel of Luke. Let us proceed though.
First, Bethany in Aramaic: בית
עניא, or Beth anya, which means "house of misery/poverty" is
recorded in the New Testament as
the home of the siblings Mary, Martha, and
Lazarus, as
well as that of Simon the Leper. Strategically,
“Bethany lay below to the southeast, out
of view of the Temple Mount,
which may have made its location suitable as a place for care of the sick,
"out of view" of the Temple.” [4] It
is the place where Christ possibly chooses to ascend into heaven as a sign of fulfilment
of the promised liberation and salvation of the poor and the oppressed (Luke
16:19-31; 21:1-4), sinners (Luke 19:1-9), the sick and the disabled (Luke 17:11–19; 18:35–43),
children and women alike
(Luke 7:36–50; 18:15–17), that someday somehow they who are suffering with
Christ on earth will be one with Him in Heaven. In the words
of Richard Mcbrien, Jesus was “delighted
in eating meals with the religious outcasts of his day, the “tax collectors and
sinners,” and saw in these meals a joyful anticipation of the heavenly banquet,
at which the poor and the socially and religiously marginalized would also have
a place.”[5]
His ascension at Bethany could be confirmation that indeed these lowly people
led by His apostles have a rightful place in His Kingdom in heaven.
Second was believed to be as the
pre-figurations of Jesus' glory. It was in Bethany where Jesus raised to life
His closed friend Lazarus who was allegedly dead for four days upon His arrival
(John 11:1-44). It could be possibly said that Bethany was the place Christ
chose for His Ascension to confirm what He said in v. 4, "This illness is not to end in death, but is for the glory of God,
that the Son of God may be glorified through it" and v. 25, “I am the resurrection and the life.” He
resurrected himself after three days in the tomb and his ascend into heaven
truly authenticates what He said, He is the life. His ascension nonetheless
proves that He lives with the Father in eternity.
Both traditions, however, agree that
it took place on a mountain. In Luke-Acts the Ascension happens forty days
after the Resurrection during which period Jesus appears repeatedly to his
followers. In Matthew and Mark there is no indication of this time period
between the Resurrection and the Ascension, rather the first appearance of
Jesus to his disciples after the resurrection is also the last. The gospel
writers apparently were not aiming at accuracy in historical details; they were
more concerned with transmitting a message.
Did it happen in Galilee?
Both gospels of Matthew and Mark
related the scene where Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James and Salome
visited the tomb of Jesus but could not find His body but most probably an
unnamed angel relating also the command of Jesus to tell His Apostles and Peter
to go to Galilee where He had to meet them. Let's read the accounts:
“Then
go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going
ahead of you into Galilee. There you
will see him.’ Now I have told you.” Matthew 28:7
“Then
the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them
to go.” Matthew 28:16
“But
go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There
you will see him, just as he told
you." Mark 16:7
To answer the question either by Yes
or No is an attempt classified as intellectual dishonesty. Why? It is simply
dishonest to ascertain what is beyond our means to prove. Besides, we have no
eyewitnesses to recall the exact event of the resurrection of Jesus, whether it
happened in Galilee or in Jerusalem.
However,
we are not left empty handed here by the gospel authors. We can ascertain some meanings
relevant to the gospels' context and intention.
Let's
find out what's in there in Galilee?
1.
Jesus started
his ministry in Galilee.
2.
Jesus first called
His disciples in Galilee.
3.
Jesus' first
self-manifestation as God was in Galilee (John 2:1ff; John 4:46).
4.
John 4:43
Galilean welcomes Jesus.
Let's
consider these facts as our initial findings to what is the meaning of this
account. But this is not enough. Take note what is peculiar in this account in
comparison with that of Luke is the command "Go
into the whole world and preach the goodness" (Matthew 28:19; Mark
16:15). So it is ministry related. The gospel writers would like to depict the
following:[6]
1.
Jesus' mission ends
where it begins - Galilee.
2.
The continuity
between Jesus' ministry and that of the church.
3.
Jesus' presence
in the Church never ends.
4.
It is by the
hands of Jesus that the church fulfils its mission.
So
where do you think Jesus' ascension occurs? It will never matter now which
place you refer to as you answer this question. What matters most is how it
affects you as a believer, how it heartens you a church member and how it
deepens your faith in Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment