The ascension of King David to heaven

by Leolaia 26 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    There is a rather obscure statement in Acts 2:34 that specifies that "David himself never ascended to heaven". The obvious question that arises from this remark is -- who ever believed that David ascended to heaven? To answer this, we need to look where else but to the pseudepigrapha. But the text in Acts 2 does provide some interesting clues. The text is part of an extended midrash on Psalm 16:8-11, a psalm attributed to King David. In this miktam on Yahweh as one's heritage, David states:

    Psalm 16:8-11

    "I keep Yahweh before me always, for with him at my right hand nothing can shake me. So my heart exults, my very soul rejoices, my body, too, will rest securely, for you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, nor allow the one you love to see the Pit; you will reveal the path of life to me, give me unbounded joy in your presence, and at your right hand everlasting pleasures."

    Most Bible scholars understand that this verse originally did not refer to a resurrection but to salvation from death; it is expressing a sort of "everlasting love" hope, that his relationship with God is so total and complete that not even death could break his devotion to Yahweh. It is on this basis that some later believed that indeed David never did die. Peter counters this by saying that the actual referrent of the psalm was not King David himself but his descendant, his successor to the throne, who died but was indeed resurrected so that his body "did not see corruption" (the LXX equivalent of the Hebrew "Pit"). The proof of this, Peter says, is that "no one can deny that the patriarch David himself is dead and buried; his tomb is still with us" (Acts 2:29).

    Indeed, there were those who believed that David and other patriarchs (e.g. "ancient worthies") were preserved in Paradise. But Peter's proof against this view, that tombs of these people existed, is actually based on a misunderstanding. Enoch and Elijah were both mentioned in the OT as bodily taken by God; in the case of Elijah, physically to heaven (Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 2:1). The removal of the patriarchs and David to Paradise presented more of a problem because their death and burial was an accepted fact and their tombs were known as shrines. This problem was circumvented in the pseudepigraphal testaments by noting that the soul of each patriarch was removed to be with God though the body itself was buried. The Testament of Abraham, for instance describes the death of Abraham as follows:

    "Isaac his son came and fell upon his breast weeping. Then also his wife Sarah came and embraced his feet, wailing bitterly. Also all his male and female servants came and encircled the couch, wailing greatly. And Abraham entered the depression of death. And Death said to Abraham, 'Come, kiss my right hand, and may cheerfulness and life and strength come to you.' For Death deceived Abraham. And he kissed his hand and immediately his soul cleaved to the hand of Death. And immediately Michael the archangel stood beside him with multitudes of angels, and they bore his precious soul in their hands in divinely woven linen. And they tended the body of the righteous Abraham with divine ointments and perfumes until the third day after his death. And they buried him in the promised land at the oak of Mamre, while the angels escorted his precious soul and ascended into heaven singing the thrice-holy hymn to God, the master of all, and they set it down for the worship of the God and Father. And after great praise in song and glorification had been offered to the Lord, and when Abraham had worshipped, the undefiled voice of the God and Father came speaking thus: 'Take, then, my friend Abraham into Paradise, where there are the tents of my righteous ones and where the mansions of my holy ones, Isaac and Jacob, are in his bosom, where there is no toil, no grief, no moaning, but peace and exultation and endless life.' " (Testament of Abraham 20:6-14)

    This story explains a number of otherwise obscure things in the Gospels. First, there is the reference to the "Bosom of Abraham" in Luke 16:22-23 as a place of bliss for the righteous dead. This is the same place referred to in the Testament of Abraham. The parable in Luke 16 in fact presents Abraham as still living and having a conversation with the dead rich man (Luke 16:27-31), drawing on the popular conception as Abraham being rescued into Paradise. Luke 20:37-38 similarly refers to God as "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now he is God, not of the dead, but of the living." While this is applied by Luke to the resurrection, it also draws again on popular conceptions of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as still alive in Paradise.

    The Testament of Isaac 7:1-2 thus mentions the assumption of Isaac into Paradise: "When Isaac had said this, the Lord took his soul from his body and it was white as snow; he took possession of it and carried it with him upon his holy chariot and ascended with it to the heavens, while the cherubim were singing praises before it, likewise his holy angels. The Lord bestowed upon him the kingdom of heaven, and everything which our father desired out of the abundance of blessings from God he had." The description of the assumption is probably dependent on the description of Elijah's chariot-bound ascension in 2 Kings. The Testament of Jacob tells a similar story regarding Jacob:

    "Jacob is again taken up, this time to heaven, where all is light and joy. He sees Abraham and Isaac and is shown all the joys of the redeemed. Jacob returns to earth, gives instructions for his burial in the land of his fathers, and passes away at the age of 147 years. The Lord comes down with the angels Michael and Gabriel to bear Jacob's soul to heaven. Joseph orders his father's body to be embalmed in the Egyptian manner." (Testament of Jacob 5:10-14)

    Again, the burial of a physical body does not rule out the ascension of the patriarch's soul to Paradise. The question of what happens to the body is significant, however, in view of the hope of a later resurrection of the patriarch on the Day of Judgement. This issue comes up specifically in the case of Moses, the subject of the Assumption of Moses. Like the other assumption tales of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Elijah, this story tells of Moses' soul ascending to Paradise but it also mentions a dispute with Satan over the fate of Moses' body. Although the original ending to the story has been lost, Jude 9 summarizes the story:

    "Not even did the archangel Michael, when he was engaged in argument with the Devil about the corpse of Moses, dared to denounce him in the language of abuse; all he said was, 'Let the Lord correct you.' " (Jude 9)

    Ancient authorities such as the Council of Nicea and others recognizes that Jude was alluding the Assumption of Moses, and there are literary allusions elsewhere in Jude as well (e.g. Assumption of Moses 10:5-6 = Jude 12-13; Assumption of Moses 7:3-4 = Jude 18-19; Assumption of Moses 7:9 = Jude 16). The role of Michael the archangel in Jude 9 is parallel to his role in the Testament of Abraham and the Testament of Jacob. Although the reason for the dispute over Moses' corpse is not preserved, it probably has something to do with the later resurrection and judgment. The episode in the Assumption of Moses, which incidentally also concerns Joshua and the last testament Moses gives to him, may also have something to do with Zechariah's vision of Joshua in Zechariah 3:1-2 which involves a dispute between Joshua and Satan and the "angel of Yahweh" saying to him, "May Yahweh rebuke you, Satan, may Yahweh rebuke you."

    The Ascension of Isaiah also relates the story of Isaiah's ascension to heaven and presents a legend on Isaiah's death alluded in Hebrews 11:37. The Apocalypse of Moses, otherwise known as the Life of Adam and Eve, also relates the story of Adam's deliverance to Paradise after death.

    But what of David? Some Jewish writers did regard him as having ascended to heaven as well. This view is most clearly stated in the first century B.C. Apocalypse of Zephaniah:

    "Then a great angel came forth having a golden trumpet in his hand, and he blew it three times over my head, saying, 'Be courageous! O one who has triumphed. Prevail! O one who has prevailed. For you have triumphed over the accuser, and you have escaped from the abyss and Hades. You will now cross over the crossing place. For your name is written in the Book of the Living.' I wanted to embrace him, but I was unable to embrace the great angel because his glory is great. Then he ran to all the righteous ones, namely, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Enoch and Elijah and David. He spoke with them as friend to friend speaking with one another. (Apocalypse of Zephaniah 9:1-5)

    A later Christian Apocalypse of Paul, inspired by the experience in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, elaborates this notion further:

    "And I saw in the midst of the city an altar exceeding high. And there was one standing by the altar whose face shined like the sun, and he held in his hands a psaltery and an harp and sang praises, saying: 'Alleluia.' And his voice filled all the city. And when all that were upon the towers and the gates heard him, they answered: 'Alleluia,' so that the foundations of the city were shaken. And I asked the angel and said: 'Who is this, Lord, that is of so great might?' And the angel said to me: 'This is David. This is the city of Jerusalem; and when Christ the king of eternity shall come in the fullness of his kingdom, he shall again go before him to sing praises, and all the righteous together shall sing praises, answering: "Alleluia" '. And I said: 'Lord, how is it that David only above the rest of the saints is at the beginning of singing praises?' And the angel answered and said to me: 'Because Christ the Son of God sits at the right hand of his Father, this David shall sing praises before him in the seventh heaven.' " (Apocalypse of Paul 29)

    The view of Peter (or perhaps more properly, Luke's conception of Peter) in Acts 2 disputes this notion but fails to adequately refute it by attacking a "straw man," pointing to the physical corpse in the tomb when believers in David's ascension apparently believed in the ascension of David's soul to heaven as what happened and fulfilling his words in Psalm 16 (which in the original Hebrew, makes no mention of the "corruption" of David's body, only the abandonment of his soul in Hades and the "Pit"). Peter is misled by the LXX translation, which renders Hebrew shachath "Pit" as "corruption" (Gk. diaphthoran), which in proximity to the mention of "my flesh" (Gk. sarx mon) in vs. 9 seems to allude to the decay of human flesh at death:

    9 dia touto hufranqh h kardia mou kai hgalliasato h glwssa mou eti de kai h sarx mou kataskhnwsei ep elpidi 10 oti ouk egkataleiyeis thn yuchn mou eis adhn oude dwseis ton osion sou idein diafqoran

    But the believers of David's ascension who were not dependent on the Greek Septuagint (e.g. such as native Aramaic speakers or those who read Hebrew) would not have necessarily understood Psalm 16 the same way as Luke-Peter and would not have necessarily understood the resurrection of Jesus before his body decayed as a fulfillment of Psalm 16:9-10.

    Finally, John goes much further than Luke by saying in John 3:13 that "no one has ascended up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven." Although Luke allows for the presence of Abraham in Paradise (which is ambiguously located as an abode of the righteous in Hades, though a common view at the time was that the gate to Paradise was located in Hades but Paradise itself was in heaven), John wants to limit heavenly ascension only to Jesus. The reason for this is quite clear when we consider the otherwise anti-Gnostic rhetoric of the gospel (which, incidentally, draws on a Gnostic source of Jesus sayings). The Gnostics believed that Deity resides in all people, humans originate in heaven but through the Demiurge are born in corruption on earth, and through correct self-knowledge may return to heaven and live with immortality and incorruption. By limiting past ascensions only to Jesus, John refutes the Gnostic notion and argues that only with faith in Jesus, and not through anyone's own natural right, may people have "eternal life" (as the Son is the source of life, John 5:25-26) and join him in heaven when he returns (John 6:40; 14:1-3).

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Thanks again Leolaia.

    One related issue may be the differences between Lukan and Johannine christologies.

    Lukan christology, although not quite consistent, seems to be mostly adoptianist, in line with mainstream early 2nd century Catholic Church. It implies no preexistence (even the virgin conception in Lk 1--2, although rather loosely connected to the rest of the work, appears as the very beginning of the "Son of God"'s existence). The concept of adoption at baptism, as suggested by all Synoptics, is even more evident with the Western variant quoting Psalm 2:7 in Luke 3:22. The discourses in Acts regularly associate the titles of Son, Christ and Lord to the resurrection (e.g. 2:36; 13:33). This goes hand in hand with a very "realistic" (i.e., antidocetic) concept of resurrection, and the subsequent ascension (which, again, is only Lukan). Whence, IMO, the insistance on bodily resurrection as contrasted with "corruption" of the corpse (with the help of the LXX).

    GJohn, on the other hand, always implies preexistence, as the logos in the Prologue, or elsewhere as the Son of Man (1:51; 3:13ff etc.). But preexistence may not be the exact word, because the whole vision of time is different. You seem to retain the lectio difficilior "the Son of Man who is in heaven" in 3:13, in fact I find it very compatible with texts such as 8:56ff or 12:41 (implying Abraham and Isaiah, in their own time, had seen the true timeless Johannine "Jesus" -- "I to I" if I dare write). So in fact Jesus acts the eternal Revealer, and the sentence "no one has ascended into heaven" serves a function very similar to "no one has ever seen God" in 1:18 (cf. 5:37; 6:46; 14:8f). (Implied, I still see GJohn as protognostic, not antignostic, and its Jesus as the occasion, not cause, for salvation of those who already and always were "from God". But we've already discussed that earlier... )

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Following Koester, I tend to view John's logia source as proto-gnostic like the Gospel of Thomas, following the basic gnostic paradigm but unelaborated in theology like the later Coptic gnostic works. I would not disagree in calling John proto-gnostic as well, especially since he still retains much latent gnosticism, but it is clear from the way he adapts the Jesus sayings that he departs considerably from the proto-gnostic Jesus of the GThomas -- especially in the theory of salvation and restricting (maybe not perfectly) divine descent to Jesus alone. Koester, for instance, points out that in John 14:2-6 believers are fully dependent on Jesus in their quest for the kingdom ("No one comes to the Father but by me") while the gnostic version of the same saying claims the opposite: "No one will enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding" (Apocryphon of James 2:29-34). Although the proto-gnostic Jesus promises his followers in GThomas and other works that those prepared spiritually can follow the Savior into the heavenly realms (cf. GThom 1, 19, 49; Apoc. Jas. 2:23-27), the Johannine Jesus repeatedly reminds his disciples that they cannot follow him into his realm and must wait until he returns to take them with him (John 7:34-36, 8:21-22, 13:33). Thus Jesus in Apoc. Jas 2:23-27 says "I shall go to the place whence I came. If you wish to come, come with me," but the Jesus in GJohn says: "I am going away and you will seek me...where I go you cannot come" (John 8:21-22). This reversal of gnostic Jesus sayings, Koester explains, is not accidental but is part of an overall de-gnosticizing trend in John's gospel -- reflected also in the rejection of docetism in 20:24-29.

    Back to the David issue, I found it very interesting how this is an instance how an "OT messianic prophecy" arose because of a peculiarity of translation in the LXX and how Luke-Peter misunderstood the beliefs of those who claimed that David ascended to heaven. Incidentally, since Peter was a native speaker of Aramaic, while Luke wrote in Greek, and since the logic of Peter's argument in Acts 2 is based entirely on the LXX and not the original Semitic, this may constitute evidence that the Petrine speech in Acts 2 was a construct of Luke's mind and not a historical report of something Peter said.

    Leolaia

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    This thread is as good as anything online, great discussion. once again you two have identified opposing themes running concurrent in Gjohn. Does not the primacy of John model best answer this? Why not a Gnostic proto-john predating Matt and Luke and possibly Mark being reworked by a later antignostic hand? Or possibly the later hand was also Gnostic but of a different and less docetic stripe? The term Gnostic is after all a catch all. Even apart from the very late Catholic additions the layers stand out rather prominently once we recognize what to look for.

    Also i am coming to accept that Peter is a late literary creation. His character formed from orthodox need for textural support for central hierchy. (peter in Rome -Rock- Paul going to see Peter etc) Possibly some of his actions in the narrative were originally those of an Ebionite named Cephus and MMagdelene. The Lukan speaches and various conversations with jesus tho are likely simply apologetics. How does this sell with you?

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    I'll toss in that there is a very real possibility that the original author of Gjohn was mary mag. Or at least a woman that later became identified as MM. This requires a lot of explaining, I think peter Kirby has a link to some of this at his Xtian Writings site. otherwise a Google will get there.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    My pet "speculation" at the moment is that the proto-gnostic precursor of GJohn was the gospel used by Cerinthus, or alternatively, the gospel used by Cerinthus drew from a common source to GJohn. I don't dispute that such proto-John precursors may have antedated the publication of Matthew and Luke between A.D. 80 and 90, and I think we had earlier sources like the Semeia Source and a GThom-like logia source which were contemporaneous with Q and proto-Mark. It is quite clear that it went through redaction under anti-docetist hands when it passed through the community responsible for the anti-docetist tract 1 John, and addition of the ch. 21 appendix may have had something to do with anti-docetist John the Presbyter responsible for 2, 3 John (cf. John 21:24=3 John 12).

    I think regarding Peter mostly as a "late literary creation" is a bit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Accepting 1 Corinthians as a genuine Pauline letter (as Clement of Rome does in 1 Clement in writing to the Corinthians), I would say that Peter's original importance was as a popularizer of the notion of Jesus' resurrection and thus as one of the earliest leaders of the new movement. I also don't doubt that Peter's mission included Gentiles, as Galatians and Acts both attest (and I regard Acts as containing some historical information, despite its novelistic features). The association between Peter and the orthodoxy may instead rest with Peter's involvement with proto-orthodoxy (e.g. the Jewish and Gentile chuches Paul was involved with), and the later ecclesiastical organization of the Gentile church at the end of the first century is possibly in part an adaption to the loss of the Jerusalem church and its earlier centricity to the Gentile mission. Seeking a figure to centralize around, and preferring a member of the Twelve (and the first witness to the risen Christ) over Paul, Peter was then made post facto the founder of the orthodoxy. Thus, in the 80s and 90s, we find a proliferation of writing asserting this -- such as Matthew making Peter the "rock" Jesus would build his church, Acts fleshing out Peter's mission to the Gentiles, 1 Peter putting to paper the "orthodox" teaching of Peter and locating him in Rome, 2 Timothy confirming Peter's location in Rome (via Mark), 1 Clement describing Peter's martyrdom and describing him as one of our "greatest and most righteous pillars," the appendix to the Gospel of John (ch. 21) making Peter the shepherd of the flock, and the Gospel of Thomas even reacting to Peter's orthodoxy by parodying Peter's confession that led Jesus to bestow upon him primacy (in their version, this primacy is instead bestowed to Thomas and Peter in fact showed he misunderstood Jesus' significance). I doubt such a widespread claim could have succeeded so early (and addressed even by the opponents of the orthodoxy) if Peter had no historical connection with the emerging orthodoxy.

    Leolaia

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    I see what makes the Mary Magdalene thesis attractive -- the reference to the author as the "Beloved Disciple" and Mary's relationship with Jesus in later gnostic works, the claim in John 19:35 to be a witness to the crucifixion (which Mary was and which few of the other disciples were), and the connection of Mary with gnostic revelation and the gnostic character of GJohn's precursor. The account of Mary's epiphany experience in John is also independent to that in Mark and Matthew. Against this view I would point out the lack of connection between the sayings in the GJohn and the Gospel of Mary. A connection might be expected if GJohn and GMary both originated from the same Magdalene tradition. This is not decisive, of course, since the later GMary did not necessarily have to derive from the same earlier "Magdalene traditions" to be accepted as a revelation of Mary by later Egyptian Christians.

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    I take on one minor exception in this conversation. It's implied that all...or most Catholics were adoptionists in the 2nd century. Actually...we have two extremes and everyone in between in the 2nd century as Christiology developed. We have the Adoptionists on one side, and the Docestitst/Gnostics on the other. On side favored viewing Jesus as merely human and adopted as God's son...the other side viewed Jesus as divine and only appearing to have a human body...eventually we get to the middle road of the homostatic union...Christ being 100% God and 100% man with out confusion of the two natures.

    Back to the program.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Leolaia...If you look again at 1Cor you'll see Peter is not there only an ebionite named Cephas is. The only reference to "Peter" in any of "Pauline" works is Gal 2:7 and it is an interpolation made for the very reasons being discussed. The fact that all surrounding verses use "Cephus" (who was an early Ebionite) makes this awkward and an obviously distinct hand.

    One reconstruction as I understand it is that the protognostic novel like source stories contained no Peter. his character was early on created to disguise the female roles in the tales. Much like the attribution of GJohn to a man. (bear with me as it gets messy) Is has been suggested that a female lover/wife of jesus was in fact the betrayer in the original tale. possibly over jealousy of his involvement with MM a very grateful convert. Her role was then assigned to a male, a trusted confidant to conceal his love interests. Perhaps in the Ebionite form of Matt he was named Peter but it seems more probable that this would have occured first in a Greek community. Either way he became known as Peter.
    Later yet this was felt unbefitting the chosen leader of the new Orthodoxy so a 'Judas Ischariot' was invented to be the betrayer. (a character about whom nothing is known other than obligatory introduction of him and a motive inserted into the narrative) His expanded role in the orthodox mission was gradual. Even in Acts we find him second fiddle to James in some episodes. This is likely because of the assumption of Cephas into the Peter character.

    I know it's not possible to prove any of this, but this reconstruction seems to adaquately explain the absence of Peter in Paul and the odd narrative stream. It also explains the multiple names given to this composite character, (Symeon,Simon, Cephas) The name Peter in greek (rock) also seems a bit too etiological to not be contrived. (a name not used by any other character).

    The stickiest part is the how the Ebionite community understood the role of Peter. Or did their recension of Matt not use the name Peter? Did they like the Nazarites (apparently) interpret many things allegorically so that if Peter was in their story, he was not literalized? The Gnostics of course would have had no problem as Peter was not part of their tradition.

    Well anyway it's a theory. A theory that wallows in a great deal of speculation. How much we need more documentation from this early formative century!

    I've hijacked the thread, sorry. I again want to thank you for your explanation of the David in heaven passage, great stuff. My mind obviously is not as disciplined as yours.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Pete:
    The names have been changed to protect the innocent, huh?

    The idea of many of the main characters of the NT being female and changed to male, to suit some kind of orthodoxy, sounds almost as miraculous as the events portrayed. If there were clear evidence to that end, my mind might have a better chance of rebelling against the notion. I don't believe that there are any "token" females in the account, as it stands. The fact that they were more given to faith (as also appears to be the happenstance of our modern era), only heightens the role of those reported as having such gender.

    May I ask if there is anything left of the biblical canon that you hold as historic, or is it all a fiction, to your mind?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit