A brother responded to the ideas in last week’s post (here). He said, “I disagree with your reading/understanding of this simple text. I believe the text supports the traditional view of it being a visible, physical, and bodily return of our Lord.” He referred me to Dr. Keith A. Mathison’s paper, Acts 1:9–11 and the Hyper-Preterism Debate.1 This brother rejects my interpretation because of the arguments Dr. Mathison provides.
This post will review these arguments. It will concentrate on those that affect our explanation of Acts 1:9–11. Dr. Mathison’s other observations will receive only brief attention. Our analysis will follow his paper’s structure.
Before we begin, I want to mention some of Mortimer Adler’s observations about how to interact with books. His comments also apply to blog posts like this one and papers like Dr. Mathison’s.
Adler says, “Reading a book is a kind of conversation.”2 As such, “there is an intellectual etiquette to be observed.”3
A good book deserves an active reading. The activity of reading does not stop with the work of understanding what a book says. It must be completed by the work of criticism, the work of judging. The understanding reader fails to satisfy this requirement, probably even more than he fails to analyze and interpret. He not only makes no effort to understand; he also dismisses a book simply by putting it aside and forgetting it. Worse than faintly praising it, he damns it by giving it no critical consideration whatever.4
This criticism is not the fruit of arrogance. The opposite is true: “The most teachable reader is . . . the most critical.”5
Honest reading for information requires either agreement or disagreement with the author’s work. But, “to agree without understanding is inane. To disagree without understanding is impudent.”6
Intellectual etiquette requires much of readers. “Not simply by following an author’s arguments, but only by meeting them as well, can the reader ultimately reach significant agreement or disagreement with his author.”7
Adler provides four rules to guide disagreement. They,
can be briefly summarized by conceiving the reader as conversing with the author, as talking back after he has said, “I understand but I disagree,” he can make the following remarks to the author: (1) “You are uninformed”; (2) “You are misinformed”; (3) “You are illogical—your reasoning is not cogent”; (4) “Your analysis is incomplete.”8
Adler shows how to implement the above four remarks. He says,
Before we proceed to [the] fourth remark, one thing should be observed. Since you have said you understand, your failure to support any of [the first] three remarks obligates you to agree with the author as far as he has gone. You have no freedom of will about this. It is not your sacred9 privilege to decide whether you’re going to agree or disagree.10
We will try to follow these rules as we analyze Dr. Mathison’s paper. And, we ask those who disagree with us to also follow them.
Introduction
In his introduction,11 Dr. Mathison says his main goal is to refute “a doctrine that may be termed ‘hyper-preterism.’” This system teaches “all New Testament prophecy was fulfilled in the first century.”
Inmillennialism is not a form of “hyper-preterism” according to this definition. It says major prophecies remain unfulfilled, including the conversion of the nations, the bodily resurrection, the complete restoration of God’s creation, and the final judgment.
But, inmillennialism takes a non-traditional view of Acts 1:9–11. So, some of Dr. Mathison’s comments on this passage will apply to our prophetic model.
Various Interpretive Positions
Dr. Mathison devotes over 16 pages to describing various views on Acts 1:9–11.12 He says the traditional view is that this passage teaches “the personal, visible, and bodily Second Coming of Jesus Christ to earth.”13
Inmillennialism says Jesus linked his “coming” to the destruction of the Temple in his generation. We have no record of a “personal, visible, and bodily” coming in AD 70. So, if Acts 1:9–11 teaches the traditional view, inmillennialism needs major modifications. This makes Dr. Mathison’s exposition below of interest to us.
We need not look at the other views Dr. Mathison discusses in this section. Inmillennialism agrees with his rejection of the rationalist view, the demythologized view, modern skeptical views, and the various hyper-preterist views he mentions.14
Examination of the Text
Introductory Questions
We agree with Dr. Mathison’s answers to his introductory questions.15 Luke wrote the Gospel that bears his name and Acts. He composed Acts “between A.D. 62 and A.D. 64.” “Luke intended his Gospel and the Book of Acts to accurately present the things that actually happened according to eyewitnesses.” Nothing in this section disagrees with inmillennialism’s view of Acts 1:9–11.
The Text
Dr. Mathison now comes “to the key question in the debate: ‘What saith the Scripture?’”16 He proceeds “with a positive exegesis of the text.” In this exegesis, he discusses the “objections and alternative interpretations” of the hyper-preterists. We will pass over these discussions since we, too, reject these interpretations. Our focus will be on the exegesis that seeks to establish the traditional view.
The Context
We agree with Dr. Mathison’s emphasis on the context of this passage.17 “It is important . . . to understand it in the broader context of the narrative of Luke-Acts.” Our last post (here) made this point.
Dr. Mathison recognizes the central role of the kingdom in this book. He says, “The book of Acts begins [Acts 1:3] and ends [Acts 28:31] on the subject of the kingdom, and the ascension of Christ, as we will see, is what cemented the apostles’ understanding of this key doctrine.”
Amen! But, as we will soon see, Dr. Mathison negates the impact of the disciples’ kingdom consciousness as it applies to Acts 1:9–11.
Acts 1:1–8
Dr. Mathison discusses the events leading up to Acts 1:9–11.18 He calls attention to the ascension’s location. “The apostles have gathered together with Jesus on the Mount of Olives (cf. Acts 1:12) just east of Jerusalem.”
However, he fails to mention how this location might affect his central thesis—“the personal, visible, and bodily Second Coming of Jesus Christ to earth.”
Just 45 days earlier, these disciples had been with Jesus on this mount. They had heard the Lord say his “coming” would occur in their generation (Luke 21:27, 32). This recent teaching—on the same subject and at the same place—informed the disciples understanding of the “coming” in Acts 1:9–11. Dr. Mathison, “your analysis is incomplete” on this important detail.
Dr. Mathison criticizes the disciples’ understanding of the kingdom. He says, “The apostles’ question indicates that they continued to conceive of the kingdom in too limited and exclusive a sense. They continued to think only in terms of the nation of Israel.”
This is, at best, speculation. At worst, it is a censure of the Lord’s teaching ministry.
Jesus taught the disciples about the kingdom throughout his ministry. They knew he was to be “a light to lighten the Gentiles” (Luke 1:32). The prophets’ teaching that “he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. . . . And in his name shall the Gentiles trust” (Matt 12:18, 21) was not foreign to the disciples. Gentile inclusion was a key element in Jesus’s kingdom teaching during his ministry.
Jesus provided the disciples with even more concentrated kingdom-teaching after his resurrection. Luke says Jesus “shewed himself alive after his passion . . . being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3; emphasis added).
Why assume the disciples were still in error? A better assumption would be that Jesus’s teaching was effective. That the disciples knew the manner in which God would “restore again the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:7). The disciples’ preaching 10 days later reinforces this assumption (Acts 2:29–36). They then understood God’s kingdom agenda. That understanding originated in Jesus’s previous teaching.
The disciples also knew the events required to establish the kingdom. Jesus taught them about those events standing on this same spot 45 days earlier. We call that lesson the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21:5–38).
The ascension and Pentecost reinforced what the disciples already knew about the kingdom. We say to Dr. Mathison, “You are illogical—your reasoning is not cogent” on this point.
Acts 1:9
Dr. Mathison devotes over 7 pages to Acts 1:9.19 He refutes odd hyper-preterist views. These views deny the disciples saw Jesus ascend visibly and physically. Inmillennialism agrees in general with Dr. Mathison’s arguments against the hyper-preterists. So, we will look at one of his points and then move on to his next section.
Dr. Mathison admits a “possible allusion to Daniel 7:13–14 in Acts 1:9.” He says Jesus “speaks often of the Son of Man coming in clouds (Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27).” Then, in a footnote, he says,
If Jesus was using these words to refer to the events surrounding his ascension and the inauguration of his kingdom (including the judgment of the nation of Israel) rather than to his Second Advent, then his assurances that this “coming” would happen very soon are much more readily comprehensible.20
This statement comes close to the inmillennial position. We would make one change. Inmillennialism says Jesus’s “Second Advent” (e.g., Matt 24:30) is identical to his “coming” in Acts 1:11. Both passages use the same word (Gk. erchomai). The disciples heard these two statements in 45 days while standing on the same spot.
But, Dr. Mathison will use Acts 1:9–11 to make the “Second Advent” differ from this “coming.” His logic is as follows. The “coming” in Luke 21:27 cannot be the same as the “coming” of Acts 1:11. Why? Because Acts 1:11 refers to “the personal, visible, and bodily Second Coming of Jesus Christ to earth.” If Dr. Mathison fails to make his case about Acts 1:9–11, he endangers his teaching of a “Second Advent.”
Acts 1:10
Inmillennialism agrees with Dr. Mathison’s analysis of Acts 1:10.21 This verse shows the ascension “was objectively visible to all.”
Acts 1:11
In his section on Acts 1:11,22 Dr. Mathison discusses several Greek words. We agree with his analysis as far as it goes.
He again mentions the Greek word translated “come” (erchomai). His does so to refute various hyper-preterist arguments. But, as we said above, Dr. Mathison fails to mention the disciples heard this word on the Mount of Olives twice within the space of 45 days. Jesus said he would “come” (Gk. erchomai) in their generation (Luke 21:27, 32). Now, the men “in white apparel” say Jesus will “come” (Gk. erchomai). Why would the disciples think the same word referred to two different “comings” separated by thousands of years? Dr. Mathison does not tell us.
He devotes much space to the phrase “in like manner” (Gk. hon tropon). A standard lexicon says this phrase “means ‘in the manner in which’ or ‘just as.’”23 Several hyper-preterists fail to adhere to this definition. This failure invalidates their positions. We agree with Dr. Mathison.
Dr. Mathison lists the passages in which the words hon tropon occur. He says, “for other uses of this construction in the New Testament, see Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34; Acts 7:28; 15:11; 27:25; 2 Tim. 3:8.” We mentioned each of these in our last post.
Dr. Mathison says, “Based on the way these words are used elsewhere in the New Testament, it is unnecessary to press the words hon tropon to mean ‘exactly the same in every detail.’”
Dr. Mathison then selects some details of the ascension and rejects others. He says that because Jesus’s “ascent was visible and bodily, the manner in which he will come will likewise be visible and bodily.” He adds, “the two men do not say that the circumstances of Christ’s coming will be the same as the circumstances of his going.”
These are confusing statements. If the words hon tropon do not require every detail be the same, why do they require some details be the same? “Visible and bodily” are two circumstances of Jesus going. They are each “a condition, fact, or event accompanying”24 the ascension. Dr. Mathison does not tell us the basis for his selection of these two facts. He does not say why Jesus’s “coming” must match these two conditions and not others.
This confusion springs from a glaring omission in Dr. Mathison’s analysis. He appeals to “the way these words are used elsewhere,” but never discusses these other passages. Do they require matching of details between two things? If so, is the required matching partial or complete? Dr. Mathison does not say.
Still, he insists “that whatever else ‘in like manner’ means, it does not mean in a completely different manner.” We agree. The phrase does not mean a completely different manner, but it allows it. For example, a hen gathers her chicks “in a completely different manner” than Jesus sought to gather Israel (Matt 23:37). In this example, the phrase hon tropon does not require that any circumstances match. The similarity between the two things exists only in the act of gathering.
The same is true for Acts 1:11. “In like manner” (Gk. hon tropon) focuses on the action of movement—going and coming. (The Greek word erchomai represents both actions.25) Jesus “went” at the ascension. He would “come” when the Temple fell, just as he promised (Luke 21:6, 32). There is no more justification for making the circumstances of this “going” and “coming” match than there is in the comparison of Jesus to a hen.
Summary of Problems with the Various Hyper-Preterist Views
Dr. Mathison provides a lengthy critique of several prominent hyper-preterists.26 Most of his observations do not interest us. But, two statements deserve attention.
First, Dr. Mathison accuses Edward E. Stevens of “pressing the details of the Day of Atonement ritual too far.” He asks, “Why press a detail such as the incense cloud but not the repeated entrances into the Holy of Holies?”27
This is the same question we are asking Dr. Mathison. He is “pressing the details” of the ascension too far. Why press a detail such as visibility but not the number of witnesses, for example?
Second, Dr. Mathison says William H. Bell, Jr. teaches “other biblical references to the parousia indicate that it would definitely occur within the first century.” He then says, “Those who are not hyper-preterists, however, do not believe [this] premise is true.”
I am not a hyper-preterist as Dr. Mathison defines this term. Still, I believe the parousia28 was part of first-century events. I base my belief on the words of Christ. He said, “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming (Gk. parousia) of the Son of man be” (Matt 24:27). He then said, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Matt 24:34). Our prophetic models must fit the parousia of Christ into the first century. This requirement does not make us hyper-preterists.
Here I say to Dr. Mathison, “You are misinformed.”
Conclusion
We will bypass Dr. Mathison’s section on “A Three-Tiered Universe?”29 It deals with objections raised by skeptics. These do not affect inmillennialism’s view of Acts 1:9–11.
In his conclusion,30 Dr. Mathison says he has done “a careful examination of the text of Acts 1:9–11.” We beg to differ.
He has provided good lexical definitions of key Greek words, including “coming” (Gk. erchomai) and “in like manner” (Gk. hon tropon). However, he has not shown how erchomai can apply to one “coming,” then 45 days later signify a different coming. Why would the disciples think Jesus’s “coming” in Luke 21:27 differed from his “coming” in Acts 1:11? In both instances, they heard this word spoken on the Mount of Olives. What contextual evidence points to this supposed change? Dr. Mathison does not say. So, we respectfully say, Dr. Mathison, “Your analysis is incomplete.”
The same is true about details surrounding the ascension. Dr. Mathison fails to support his selectivity. How can he insist the “coming” match the ascension’s “visibly and bodily” and reject all other details? He tries to do so by calling all other details “circumstances.” This makes a distinction where none exists. “Visibly and bodily” are circumstances, too. Dr. Mathison, “You are illogical—your reasoning is not cogent.”
Dr. Mathison also fails to examine other contexts that contain the key phrase “in like manner.” None of them require matching details (or circumstances) between two comparable things. Sometimes, such matching is impossible. Dr. Mathison’s “analysis is incomplete.”
Dr. Mathison’s other works have blessed me greatly.31 This encouraged me to be a “teachable reader” of his paper on Acts 1:9–11. As Adler said, this required me to be critical.
I have sought to follow Dr. Mathison’s arguments and meet them. They do not alter the conclusions we reached in our last post (here).
I request my readers to use the same approach regarding this post. Please make sure you know my arguments. If you agree with what I have written, do so with understanding. If you disagree with any of my reasoning, do me the honor of stating the reasons for your disagreement.
Please do not condemn this post “by giving it no critical consideration whatever.”
Footnotes
- Links provided in this blog do not represent an endorsement of all material on the target web pages.
- Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading (n.p.: Touchstone, 1972), 137.
- Adler and Doren, How to Read a Book, 138. The emphases in these quotations are Adler’s.
- Adler and Doren, How to Read a Book, 138–39.
- Adler and Doren, How to Read a Book, 140.
- Adler and Doren, How to Read a Book, 143.
- Adler and Doren, How to Read a Book, 153.
- Adler and Doren, How to Read a Book, 156.
- We take this word to mean “inviolable” in this context.
- Adler and Doren, How to Read a Book, 160.
- Keith A. Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11 and the Hyper-Preterism Debate.” (2004): accessed October 3, 2018, https://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/pdf/2004_mathison_acts_1-11.pdf.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 2–18.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 2.
- This rejection does not include every element of these positions. Our point is that none of them fit within the inmillennial prophetic model. And, most of them do not agree with our exegesis of Acts 1:9–11 (here).
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 18–19.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 19–20.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 20–21.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 21–22.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 23–30.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 30n90.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 30–32.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 32–38.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 35. This definition is from Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. τρόπος, 1 (p. 1017).
- Philip Babcock Gove, ed., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1981), s.v. circumstance.
- Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), s.v. ἔρχομαι.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 38–50.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 41.
- This word means “presence.” The prophet Ezekiel spoke of this presence in Ezek. 48:35. The image in this post is The Heavenly Jerusalem/The Bound Devil by Matthias Gerung (1500–1570). This file (here) is in the public domain (PD-US).
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 50–52.
- Mathison, “Acts 1:9–11,” 52.
- I think especially of Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1999).
9 comments
I agree Mike. Although I must say that reading your arguments demands much serious thought from your readers and the temptation to simply agree or dismiss the arguments is strong in this day and in an age of rush and lack of quiet thinking and our busyness and of course the ever present pressure to conform to the status quo position, taking the easy way out.
As I reflected on the fact that only 45 days previous the disciples were told his coming would occur in their generation, it seems most likely that Luke understood that the two men were telling the disciples he would come in THEIR lifetime rather than to the millions and millions of followers in 2000 plus years hence. “As he was taken up from YOU he will come”.
Also in the discourse in John 16 Jesus tells them ‘in a little while you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me” (John 16:16). But he must first go to the Father (John 16:17-18) and it is inconceivable to me that he would be “seen” exactly as they had seen him previously.
O! for critical feedback of the kind Mortimer Adler described. Interactions characterized by Christian “intellectual etiquette” would be profitable for all and glorifying to God. I’m reading Os Guinness’s “Fit Body, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to Do about It.” Very convicting!
Your reflection on the 45 days is very encouraging. I think the apostles took the “you” pronoun personally.
Your mention of John 16 makes me smile. The disciples said, “What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith” (John 16:18). Most of the Lord’s disciples still have this problem. They often don’t understand or can’t accept the meaning of “a little while,” “soon,” “this generation,” etc.
Thanks for your continued feedback and prayers.
Hi brother,
Always good to read what you have written on this topic! I think your general analysis is very good, and I would be in agreement with it.
However, I don’t know that I can totally agree with what you say below. The reason is that, through the book of Acts, we see the initial hesitation of the disciples (and even the apostle Peter) to receive the Gentiles into the body. It almost seems as if the Holy Spirit had to be teaching the preachers as they preached and Gentiles were converted.
It does appear that even the apostles, along with the church, had to grow gradually in their understanding of the kingdom and of the end times. At first, it does seem to me that they were mainly thinking that the kingdom of God would only extend to the nation of Israel. It seems, to me at least, that God had to change their mind, which happened with the conversion of the Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius and then the many others through the ministry of the apostle Paul. By the time the book of Acts was written, we can see a very full development of their mindset. At the first, though, it doesn’t seem quite as clear to them.
One possible interpretation of Acts 1:9-11 is that Jesus ascended in victory, and that he would also descend in victory after he has conquered all his enemies by extending his rule throughout the nations. For me personally, I tend to think the above, but also tend to think that it might also refer to a visible, physical coming…in the future to us.
As you point out, it is easy to pick and choose the “circumstances” you think must be true. If you take everything in an absolutely literal sense, the disciples must also be there at Jesus return, since they were there at his ascension. 🙂
Your thoughts?
John
Thank you for these observations. You make a good point and I probably overstated my case. I hope to respond more fully in the future.
Your response, I believe, was both respectful and insightful. Thanks, again…
I enjoyed this post. I thought you did a good job with it.
Thank you for your comment! It means a lot to me.
I did not read Dr. Mathison’s take on Acts 1:1-9 but I agree with your view that Christ’s return in the first century was not “visible and bodily,” well, at least not bodily. I do believe it was visible if one knew what to look for. I also loved that you pointed out that Christ described His return as “lightening” (Mt 24:27). I was on the edge of my seat as I was reading waiting for you to deploy “the kill shot” but sadly it didn’t come. Please take this with all the love and respect in the world, which I have for you. I agree wholeheartedly but feel your case could have been made stronger.
The key to Acts 1, IMHO, is this, “This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” You see, it isn’t how He ascended, it’s how, “HE WENT INTO HEAVEN” that’s the key to understanding the nature of His return. How did Christ look as He was entering heaven? Twice the angel says, “into heaven” as the point of emphasis. Did His appearance change into a very bright light (Rev 18:1) as He left our realm and entered the spiritual realm? If He appeared as a flash of bright light when “He went into heaven” logic tells us He appeared as a flash of bright light when He returned – like lightening perhaps?
Then you have the parable of the 10 Virgins, 5 didn’t bring enough oil and left to buy more and missed His return and were not allowed in. Then of course Paul instructs to “watch and be sober” implying that if you don’t, you might miss the “day of the Lord” which comes as a “thief in the night” (1 Thes 5). This is another important clue, He comes at night – the virgins had lamps to watch for the Bridegroom. You don’t need lamps during the daytime.
Then of course critics of our view cite Rev 1:7 claiming that the entire planet would see Christ return. Did the whole planet see Christ ascend into heaven? If it did, there would likely be far more believers in 70 AD. Of course we know that the “every eye” dealt only with “the (12) tribes of the earth” in other words, “those who pierced Him.” They mourned because judgment was upon them and they were on the wrong side of the “divided house.” Whether it was the actual Roman solders who pierced Him on the Cross returning with Titus now present in Jerusalem or whether it was the descendants of the Jewish religious leaders responsible for the Cross makes little difference, either way, it had to be a first century event and both groups responsible for piercing Him were there.
Again, the key to this whole debate is how Christ was seen entering heaven, not as He was seen leaving earth and ascending towards heaven. A fully glorified Christ as Paul saw on the road to Damascus is how one should expect to see Christ return and clearly, not everyone would see it, or understand it. Please keep sharing the good work dear brother, I always read your posts with great interest although we do have a minor disagreement on the nature and timing of the resurrection, which I believe was also a first century event.
Thank you for the comments on the blog post. I tend to see Jesus’s language more as symbols than literal fact. The comments Josephus made intrigue me, but I hesitate to make too much of them. Scripture had used lightning and cosmic collapse imagery many times in the past to describe God’s judgment of a people or city. But, I admit, I could be wrong.