THE LORD'S ASCENSION
THE LORD’S ASCENSION
Luke 24: 50 - 53; Acts 1: 6 - 14
JT The thought is to seek to develop the truth as seen in these two scriptures, in relation to the Lord’s ascension. There was only one ascension, although it might seem that there is a discrepancy in the accounts, yet they report one ascension; that is to say, the ascension of the Lord Jesus into heaven. Luke 24 contemplates it as taking place at Bethany, but mount Olivet was very near to Bethany, and therefore the connection with it as concerning the ascension is undoubtedly to bring out the truth that Luke 24 relates to Israel and Christ’s connection with it, whereas the mention of mount Olivet has allusion rather to what belongs to christianity. The time would come in which christianity should stand out by itself as it is today, but in the early days it was not so, and what is now in mind is to distinguish between the two chapters to show that Luke 24 alludes to God’s patience with Israel, the promises having still a place. Israel presently would be regarded as having crucified the Lord Jesus in ignorance indeed it is said, “I know that ye did it in ignorance, as also your rulers” (Acts 3: 17), but the time would come when the guilt of the murder of Christ would be attributed to Israel. After the death of Stephen, it was. At the end of the book of Acts, Paul says that the salvation of God is sent to the gentiles and that they will receive it. But at first it was sent to the Jews. The promise was to them and to their children and to as many as were afar off. The gentiles were in mind, only distantly, but at the end of Acts, they are in mind directly and immediately. “This salvation of God has been sent to the nations; they also will hear it”,
RWS Would what was in the mind of the disciples in Acts 1 as to the kingdom bear more on the Jewish side of the position?
JT That would be so, I would say, and in general the early chapters of the Acts bore on it. The message to the gentiles through the ministry of Peter did not actually begin to take effect until Caesarea.
AR Do you think there is a tendency with us to mix judaism with christianity?
JT Well, there is. We know, according to Galatians, that judaism was formally being introduced as a part of christianity. Circumcision and other features were insisted on by certain, but the epistle to Galatians was used of God to clarify the whole position. Paul and Barnabas were recognised and the fruit of their ministry in effect is seen in Titus; circumcision was not insisted on, so that the truth was gaining ground. But there is ever a tendency to mix up judaism with christianity. It is in the ministry of Paul that the matter is clarified and settled, so that we are to understand, from Ephesians 2, that the gentiles were recognised as “built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit”. Today, it would be difficult to find believing Jews in any number, so that the fact is apparent that the gentiles form a great number of those who are to be regarded as christians.
ANW So that many expressions in the letter to the Hebrews do not necessarily apply to christians generally.
JT I suppose the apostle Paul, who is undoubtedly the writer of the letter, was seeking to bring in christian terminology as much as possible. There were many Jews, of course, at that time, who were still genuine. Many had accepted the christian faith at Jerusalem; there were many in Judaea and throughout the world, indeed. And the apostle, in writing the epistle, would be very tender and sympathetic and would avoid hurting them unnecessarily; but still,
[p. 368] the gradual tendency of the epistle is to establish christian terminology. We might term it a christian’s vocabulary rather than linking everything with judaism. At the beginning, according to Luke 24, the Lord led the disciples out as far as to Bethany, as far as to — not further, and they returned to Jerusalem full of joy and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. But that was not intended to continue. The tent of Sarah was hardly intended to continue. At the beginning, according to the type in Genesis 24, Sarah’s tent was the place, but that was not to continue. It does not continue now. The assembly itself has a great place.
AR In Acts 20 it says that on the first day of the week they came together to break bread.
JT Yes; showing the time had come for the new order to be established. Instead of the sabbath, it was the first day of the week, and that has continued until now. So that the Lord’s day and the first day of the week synchronise.
CFM What would you say as to the addition, in Acts 1, of the two men appearing and speaking to the disciples, saying, “This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall thus come in the manner in which ye have beheld him going into heaven”?
JT We should revert to Luke 24, to link on what had happened. In verse 4 it is said: “And it came to pass as they were in perplexity about it, that behold, two men suddenly stood by them in shining raiment”.
Now what you allude to is in Acts 1: 10: “And as they were gazing into heaven, as he was going, behold, also two men stood by them in white clothing, who also said, Men of Galilee, why do ye stand looking into heaven?”. There is a difference in their external appearance. In Luke 24 the two men are said to be in shining raiment, whereas in Acts 1 they are said to be in white clothing. Now the question may arise,
[p. 369] Why should there be a difference? It would look as if the whole position in Luke 24 is to bring out the fulness of the bearing of the resurrection, that it was to be heavenly. The shining garments would suggest that, whereas in Acts I would think the thought is rather to emphasise purity because of the actual beginning of things at Jerusalem. What was so necessary at that time was to assert purity, not exactly heavenliness but purity. Mark would say the same thing as to the young man in the sepulchre: “And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right, clothed in a white robe, and they were amazed”, Mark 16: 5. So that the idea of whiteness, or purity, is in Mark and in the Acts. In Mark it would allude to what is needed in the service of God, in levitical service, whether preaching or teaching. Acts 1 would also stress the need for purity in view of the inauguration of christianity. It was to be begun in purity.
WWM Would the Bethany position be connected with those who had been affected by the baptism of John, and possibly not going as far as Acts 1? John the baptist’s ministry would have taken on those that repented. But the Lord has something further to go on to in what Paul brings out with the twelve men at Ephesus.
JT It is just a question as to the place John’s ministry had; whether it had any place in Acts 1. What corresponds with it is Luke 24. It is the same position. Luke, the writer of the two treatises, has the same line of thought in mind, only in the first something needed to be added. He begins the Acts by referring to the former treatise, which evidently was not complete. Time brought out that it was incomplete, and the fact of the incompletion is a matter to be noted now, because we are all apt to be incomplete. And so we have to wait for Paul for completeness. It is through him the word of God [p. 370] was completed. Through him the whole matter of christianity was completed, because to him were given the ministry of the glad tidings, the ministry of reconciliation, the ministry of the mystery and other ministries. So that the gospel by Luke was not complete; the completion is in the second treatise. John the baptist is only brought in incidentally in the record in the Acts, and what came out was that those who followed John and took up what he gave out were incomplete. They had to be baptised and to receive the Holy Spirit. And it is constantly seen that in the pursuance of christianity there is great incompleteness, generally, and a constant need of adding and of coming back to what we have overlooked. Hence the moral importance of connecting these two parts of Scripture is evident. What we get in Luke 24, while bringing in the heavenly side in the shining garments, is but a preliminary suggestion. What was in the mind of heaven was to set up things at Jerusalem; they were not to depart from it until they were endued with power from on high. Therefore Acts 1 brings out not only the great facts of the resurrection and ascension but of the coming in of the Spirit. It was to overcome and adjust and amend all that was needed to establish christianity. That is really what is in mind in the book of Acts.
FNW Would there be instruction in Luke’s use of words? In Luke 24 He was “separated from them”, and in Acts 1 it says that He “was taken up” from them.
JT That is good. The truth of the mystery would not be while He was separated. All that is important and it awaited Paul to adjust everything. Christianity was there in power yet there was continual need for adjustment and adding to the completeness of what had been received. That runs on even now for there is constant evidence of incompleteness in ministry and in state of soul amongst the [p. 371] saints.
RWS Where in point of time would Rebecca leave Sarah’s tent and have her own place?
JT I do not think you get that in the type. We are dealing with types in referring to Rebecca, and Sarah’s tent. I do not think we could find the thing in the type, because Sarah was not raised. She was buried. The question is how far the time would extend till the Jewish position was given up and the christian position accepted and recognised. I think it was by the epistle to the Hebrews; that is to say, it was to become a question of revelation, and the revelation was to be through Paul, to show that he completed everything. “He is an elect vessel unto me”, the Lord said, and the completion of things was in abeyance until he arrived and then things were adjusted. And now, the question is as to how far we have gone in the adjustment, and how slow we are at times to come into the completion of the truth.
ABP Would the fact that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to those whom he was not especially commissioned to serve, be the reason why he does not identify himself as the writer, as though he did not publicly or officially encroach on Peter’s domain?
JT That might be. The introduction to the letter says, “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son”. He does not say a word about his apostleship, and I suppose that is because of the delicacy that enters into it. But there can be no doubt that Paul was the apostle who wrote it. The internal facts, the substance of the letter show that he was the writer; in fact, Peter refers to it when he says, “Our beloved brother Paul also has written to you”. He recognised that Paul had come in, and that it was necessary for him to come in, although he had not received the commission to the circumcision. Yet,
[p. 372] morally he rose above all that, and God used him to adjust and settle the whole matter of judaism.
CFE Would these two men in white be on the fine of adjustment? “Why do ye stand looking into heaven?”.
JT I think they were. Being clothed in white would give them moral authority; indeed it is the case at all times that along with the ministry there is the great need of asserting purity.
AR There may be a tendency with us to be religious instead of spiritual.
JT Just so; although we must not overlook that James says, “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, to keep oneself unspotted from the world”, James 1: 27. That is what we have alluded to in the idea of whiteness; both in Mark and in the Acts there is suggested the need of whiteness, of purity, in the ministry.
TNW Was there nothing for the flames of fire in Acts 2 to consume?
JT I should say that is right; there was not a thing there to be consumed. I think the matter was set up in perfection, as far as it went, on the moral side.
Rem Stephen fixed his eyes on heaven, but the disciples were asked by the two men, “Why do ye stand looking into heaven?”.
JT That is good. Stephen really became the test case, and the truth henceforth would be linked with heaven. He lifted up his eyes to heaven and “saw ... Jesus standing at the right hand of God”. Hebrews has often been referred to as the book of the opened heavens. It synchronises with Stephen. It is a question of what is in heaven now, and that we are going into it and are being prepared for it now. So that the shining was proper with Stephen. Paul was there; he was a witness. He was not shining, alas,
[p. 373] but the facts come out how quickly he was taken up and how quickly he became useful, and how quickly he became suitable for the work the Lord had in mind for him. He was an elect vessel unto the Lord.
AR First you have a “sound out of heaven” (Acts 2: 2), and then a sheet descending from heaven in chapter 10.
JT That is in keeping with what we are saying. The sheet from heaven had certain contents. It was a “certain vessel” in the form of the sheet, knit at the four corners; it was held together. It is a further thought of a vessel. Paul was to be a vessel, but the sheet was a vessel too, inclusive of what was in the mind of God.
CAM Would you say that in the end of Luke the disciples were occupied with a divine Person going into heaven from a place where He had been known and loved, but in Acts 1 when they returned to Jerusalem they were expecting another divine Person? And the location is called the mount of Olives. Does not that designation couple the thought of the Spirit’s coming with heaven?
JT I am sure that is the thought that enters into the mount of Olives. The term would indicate the Holy Spirit in the sense of the anointing, I would think. That was needed. That was not at Bethany in Luke 24. Love was at Bethany, but more than love is needed to bring out the full thought of christianity; that is to say, the Spirit is needed, and the mount of Olives would point to that, I would think, so that you can hardly avoid taking into account the geographical position. On the other hand it is a question how far it should be taken into account-whether our minds should admit of any difference — because there is only one ascension, and what happened in Acts 1, as associated with Olivet, is the same thing that happened in Luke 24 in relation [p. 374] to Bethany.
CAM Might not the Holy Spirit be anticipating a certain flexibility in our spiritual apprehension of things to make room for Paul?
JT That is a good way to put it, because flexibility is a very important word in regard to divine things. It means that we are capable of extension, expansion of things, and yet they are not altered in being expanded. The same idea is to carry through.
CAM What you are saying gives us a key to the understanding of the end of Luke and Acts 1.
Rem In Mark 13 the Lord sat on the mount of Olives over against the temple and taught His disciples.
JT That also would enter into what we are saying. The buildings had been made much of by the disciples: “See what stones and what buildings”, they had said. The house that was built at Jerusalem was a very great affair. It was magnificent, but the Lord says, “Not a stone shall be left upon a stone”, which is a most remarkable thing. The Lord said that and went to the mount of Olives. That would point to what the servants should understand and how they should speak of things and the power that is needed for it, in the sense of purity, and at the same time, in the spirit of the anointing.
FHL Would you say that the Person is in view in Acts 1: 6? The place is not mentioned until verse 12.
JT Yes. They returned to Jerusalem from the mount called “the mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath-day’s journey off”. The geographical position is not so extensive as one might at first think. The distance to Bethany was fifteen stadia and would probably be nearly twice as far as to the mount of Olives, but really it was a very short distance. It would be less than two miles, and the other is called a “sabbath day’s journey”, which would be about half the distance to Bethany. It is a question [p. 375] of our understanding what that means. It is a question of the journey that one might take on the sabbath.
CAM The journey would be a spiritual idea?
JT It would. A sabbath day’s journey would include judaism, but properly it does not when you come to christianity.
CAM The sabbath day’s journey is over, is it not?
JT Just so.
Ques Whiteness speaks of purity. In Matthew 28: 3 the clothing of the angel at the tomb was as white as snow. Would that enhance the thought of purity?
JT And a certain amount of terror would be attached to it, because Matthew is more exacting and severe on judaism than Luke is. And so Matthew records that the Lord linked on with the disciples in Galilee. It is the idea of distance.
RWS The disciples came back, in Acts 1: 13 “And when they were come into the city, they went up to the upper chamber”. Had they not morally taken a sabbath day’s journey out of Jerusalem?
JT I would say that; that is the position we are in now. It was where the Lord’s supper was inaugurated. I would say the basis of it all is the Lord’s supper. It is a question of where the service of God links on.
DAP Was heaven now to become the new operative centre and the disciples had to come to see that?
JT That is right. The upper room would dislodge from the mind all thought of religious architecture. Our minds need to be disabused of thoughts of religious architecture of every kind, even if it be the place in which we meet. The upper room is intended, I believe, to do that. It is but a step into heaven from the upper room. Anyone who attends a cathedral is hardly fit to go into heaven. Certainly there is a journey from a cathedral to heaven, but the upper [p. 376] room is, you might say, the suitable place for the christian. It is out of sight religiously; it has no pretension religiously. The value of it is in what it contains; it is where the disciples were.
ANW When the sabbath day’s journey is over it would be the first day of the week. The temple is in Luke 24, but the upper room is in Acts 1.
ABP Does all this link on with the thought of departing which Moses and Elias spoke with Jesus about on the mount of transfiguration? Would their testimony link on with the testimony of the two sets of two men of whom we have been speaking?
JT It would; the two men in Luke 24 were in shining raiment, and the two men in Acts 1 were in white. On the mount of transfiguration Moses and Elias appear in glory; which would be power. It is well to analyse these three pairs of persons. I think they synchronise. You can see that those on the mount of transfiguration were speaking of the Lord’s departure which He was about to accomplish in Jerusalem; that is, His death. The word really is exodus; a going out. It is the way the Lord Jesus was to go out, and they were speaking about that with Him, which is to be noted. So that we can see how these three pairs of persons link on together and synchronise in what they are engaged with.
AR In each instance Luke calls them men, full development. Paul’s ministry would bring about full growth in all of us.
JT Very good.
FNW It is His departure in Luke. Would you say it is our departure with Him in John 13? He was about to depart out of this world to the Father but He has others in mind.
JT I think that the Lord did not have in mind that they were going into heaven, but that they were to be down here with their feet washed. It links up with John 20, for in John’s gospel, generally, it is the [p. 377] continuance of the testimony here in suitable conditions, in life. John’s thought is not to take us to heaven but rather that Christ goes to heaven; He ascends; He has the dignity to do that; He has a right to do that according to His dignity. The disciples linked up with Him as His brethren, are to continue here for Him. I believe that is the position.
GVD Is that the reason why the Lord prayed not that they would be taken out but kept from the evil in the world?
JT Just so. Therefore, He says to the Father, “Sanctify them by the truth: thy word is truth”. That is the position. The power of sanctification is the continuance of purity and heavenly shining.
FHL Is the upper room on the level of the mount of Olives?
JT It is. The actual upper room was on a street in Jerusalem, but morally it was out of the world.
FHL Is it the same room to which they followed the man with the pitcher of water?
JT I think so. So that ecclesiastical architecture is shut out entirely. The upper room shuts that out. There would just be a room; there must be a place of meeting, but it is a question of where the disciples are.
Ques Would it be right to say that every bit of ministry we receive is part of the whole? It is not an appendix, something that is added.
JT That is right; it is one whole. Christianity is one whole and the truth of christianity is one whole. The Lord speaks of Himself as the truth and in John’s ministry in his epistles it is a question of love of the truth. There is only one ‘truth’, it is one whole. It must be according to the truth that was at the beginning. John’s epistle begins with that.
APf How does Acts 13 fit into this? It was at Antioch that the apostle Paul taught at [p. 378] first.
JT It shows that God could have another place; that He has a right to have His assembly in any place, and so the two letters to Corinth are addressed to “the assembly of God which is in Corinth”. That is yet another place, but it indicates how free God was in inaugurating things, and taking up towns or cities as He may wish; and so He took up Corinth. If the natural man were to make a selection, he would have passed by Corinth and taken up Athens because Athens was the place of learning, but God took up Corinth. He says, “I have much people in this city”. It evidently was a terrible place, and the saints themselves were affected by the place, but God chose to set the testimony there.
Ques The Lord introduces the thought of power.
He says, “Ye will receive power”. He turns them from the kingdom to the matter of power. Is that characteristic of Christianity?
JT He says, “It is not yours to know times or seasons, which the Father has placed in his own authority; but ye will receive power, the Holy Spirit having come upon you, and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth”. It is good to bring that up. We have spoken about purity and holiness, but the one thing that was needed was power, and that is in the Spirit. His coming upon them is seen in Acts 2, the wonderful power that came in from heaven. The sound out of heaven filled the house where they were sitting.
DAP When did the faith system come into operation?
JT Let us see where it begins here: “And having said these things he was taken up, they beholding him, and a cloud received him out of their sight”. That is when the faith system began. It had been a sight system, as it will be in the millennium, but now it [p. 379] is a faith system. He was received out of their sight, and the two men in white ask, “Why do ye stand looking into heaven?”. The cloud had received Him out of their sight, so that faith must replace sight. Therefore we are in the faith period. That is in mind in Galatians 3: 26: “Ye are all God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus”. We are sons by faith.
Rem Christianity in that way takes precedence over judaism.
JT It does. Christianity is a faith system. It is the greatest of all the dispensations, too.
FSC Would you say why the disciples are called “Men of Galilee”?
JT I think it is to show the reproach that was attached to them. They were not the learned men from Jerusalem. Christianity did not depend on that. They were Galileans; men would recognise them by their accent; they were not of the Greek class, as men might speak. Christianity, publicly, soon developed into a system of education, with colleges and universities, but it did not begin with that. The apostles were men of Galilee.
AR Receiving power would suggest that they would do things. Did not Peter and John, particularly, have ability to do things?
JT That is just what is said: “Ye will receive power, the Holy Spirit having come upon you, and ye shall be my witnesses”. That word ‘power’ is in the dynamic sense. There are two ideas in power; one is in the sense of authority or right, but the other is in the sense of literal power. Both of these attach to Christianity, literal power in the Spirit, as well as authority.
Ques Is a principle set out by the Lord in leading the disciples out as far as Bethany?
JT It says, “As far as Bethany”. One is reminded of Paul’s words, “Caught up to the third heaven”.
The thought there is ‘as far as’, it is altitude, and so He led them as far as Bethany, meaning that the Lord would continue with the Jewish system, as it was needed, but it was not the final thought. The disciples were in the temple but that was not to be permanent. It was just for the moment. The mount of Olives represents what was in the Lord’s mind, involving the Spirit; Bethany would not involve the Spirit. It is a question of love in the family at Bethany. The land of Canaan was in God’s mind, and He will come back to that, but now He has gone as far as the ends of the earth.
AP With regard to flexibility in learning, do we see it when Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos and taught him the way of God more exactly? Apollos was ready to learn.
JT That is good; and so the apostle enlarges on that in his instruction to Timothy. “Occupy thyself with these things; be wholly in them, that thy progress may be manifest to all”. Each one of us is to have before him that we have not yet reached finality: we are in the learning time. And I believe John’s writings, especially his gospel, are to stress the idea of learning, and learning quickly. Nicodemus did not learn quickly; he was a learner and a true man, but he was sluggish; he did not get on rapidly.
RWS Is there some connection with the fact that the Lord had led the disciples out to the mount of Olives after they had sung a hymn? In Acts 1 they return from the mount of Olives to the upper room. It would be the same way over which the Lord had taken them.
JT They went back to the upper room; the place where the disciples were, where they could carry on divine education and learn from one another, giving themselves to continual prayer. All these things are in the upper room in principle.
[p. 381] Ques What enabled these persons to differentiate between the temple and the upper room? The Spirit had not yet come.
JT It shows how extensive the work of God in the new birth may be. See how much Peter can do now, and only a little while ago he had denied the Lord. He does it of himself, for the Holy Spirit had not yet come. It is to bring out what the Lord’s own word was to the disciples before the Spirit came. And yet it was not final. Peter knew what to say and do before the Lord sent down the Spirit. They proposed to cast lots and the principle was accepted. It is remarkable how much they had learned from the Lord before the Spirit came.
CAM We are not all quick learners. Perhaps we will be from now on, but we have not been. It was many years ago that you brought out that the upper room is a moral idea. We are not very quick in getting hold of a moral idea.
JT It is remarkable how the brethren have been helped in getting suitable places in which to meet. A meeting room is necessary for serving the Lord in the wilderness.
CAM It would seem that the best rooms are on the ground floor so that the upper room must be a moral idea.
JT Just so; it would be unwise to say we must build three stories so that you can have an upper room. We want to be constituted morally and be able to adapt ourselves.
RWS Why is the breaking of bread in the early Acts connected with the house and not the upper room?
JT It is to bring out the family thought. It had not fully developed yet, because it awaited Paul, as everything had to. I believe the family was in mind; where a man might live and have his family. But when we come to the formation and ordering of things, Paul says, “Have ye not then houses for eating and drinking? or do ye despise the assembly of God?”. Of course Aquila and Priscilla had a place in their house for a meeting, and the epistle to Philemon alludes to “the assembly which is in thine house”, but clearly the mind of the Spirit was that, normally, there should be a place formally arranged for the brethren to meet without any family interference or influence.