A Visible Return

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inmillennialism differs from the other prophetic models regarding Jesus’s coming. After he rose from the dead, he spoke with the apostles about the kingdom (Acts 1:3, 6). As he ascended into heaven, an angel said, 

Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come (Gk. erchomai) in like manner (Gk. hon tropon) as you saw Him go into heaven. (Acts 1:11)

This post will present the traditional view of Jesus’s coming in Acts 1:11, discuss some difficulties with it, and present our model’s proposed correction.

The Traditional View

The four major prophetic views—amillennialism, postmillennialism, historic premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism—agree regarding the nature of Christ’s return in Acts 1:11. Their agreement springs from the words “in like manner.” J. A. Alexander says, “The Greek phrase never indicates mere certainty or vague resemblance; but wherever it occurs in the New Testament denotes identity of mode or manner. (See Mark 13:26; 14:62; Matt 24:30; 26:64).”¹ Everett F. Harrison defines that mode or manner: “a personal, visible return was promised.”²

This traditional view implies something about the timing of Christ’s return. If the angel meant it would be a “personal, visible return,” we can assume it has not occurred. Therefore, Jesus’s return must be in our future.

Problems With the Traditional View

This inferred timing of Christ’s return in Acts 1:11 creates a problem. We can show this using three statements Jesus had already made about this subject.

First, about two years earlier, Jesus had sent the apostles to preach that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 10:7). He had told them, “you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes (Gk. erchomai)” (Matt 10:23).

Second, less that a year before his ascension, Jesus had said 

The Son of Man will come (Gk. erchomai) in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming (Gk. erchomai) in His kingdom. (Matt 16:27–28)

Third, forty-five days before his ascension, Jesus had spoken at length about his coming. In his Olivet Discourse, he had said, “they will see the Son of Man coming (Gk. erchomai) on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matt 24:30). He said, “this generation will by no means pass away” (Matt 24:34) before he returned.

Summarizing, Jesus said his coming would occur (1) before the apostles finished preaching the kingdom in the cities of Israel, (2) before some of his hearers died, and (3) in his generation.

The traditional view of Jesus’s coming mentioned in Acts 1:11 contradicts these time limits. It says the coming will be in our future. It does so because of its assumption about the nature of that coming.

Inmillennialism’s Solution

Inmillennialism proposes a simple two-stage solution to this problem. First, we should allow Jesus’s timestamps regarding his return to stand.

The apostles did so. They reflected this timeframe in their future writings. Paul told the Romans, “The night is far spent, the day is at hand” (Rom 13:12). To the Corinthians he said, “the time is short” (1 Cor 7:29) and “the ends of the ages” had come on their generation (1 Cor 10:11).

 The writer of Hebrews mentioned “the age that is about to come” (Heb 6:5, Wuest³). Regarding the coming of Christ, he said, “For yet a little while, And He who is coming (Gk. erchomai) will come and will not tarry” (Heb 10:37).

James spoke of the soon-coming judgment of Israel. He said, “the Judge is standing at the door!” (Jas 5:9). Peter said, “the end of all things is at hand” (1 Pet 4:7).

John said, “Little children, it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18). He wrote about “things which must shortly take place,” saying “the time is near” (Rev 1:1, 3). These things included Jesus “coming (Gk. erchomai) as a thief” (Rev 16:15). He emphasizes the words of Jesus: “I am coming (Gk. erchomai) quickly!” (Rev 22:7, 12, 20). 

Jesus imposed these time limitations on his coming. The apostles adopted them without qualification. So should we. The coming (Gk. erchomai) of which the angel spoke in Acts 1:11 happened in the apostles’ generation.

Second, to solve our problem we should reexamine the Greek phrase (hon tropon) translated “in like manner” in Acts 1:11. Does it mean “identity of mode or manner” as the traditional view requires? Inmillennialism answers in the negative.

The quote from Alexander above hints at the weakness of his definition. We will provide it again for ease of reference: “The Greek phrase … in the New Testament denotes identity of mode or manner. (See Mark 13:26; 14:62; Matt 24:30; 26:64).”⁴ 

None of these verses contain the Greek phrase hon tropon! Alexander assumes they show that the return of Christ would be identical in “mode or manner” to the ascension. In doing so, he commits a logical fallacy called “begging the question.” This error “occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion.” In this case, Alexander assumes these verses teach the “personal, visible” nature of Christ’s return. But that is what he is trying to prove in Acts 1:11! 

The verses Alexander gives do not prove his position. We saw above that two of them occur in passages with explicit, this-generation timestamps (cf. Mark 13:30; Matt 24:34). If Jesus did not return in that generation, he made a mistake. If he returned as promised, it was not “a personal, visible return.” Alexander’s appeal to them is futile. 

To determine the meaning of “in like manner” (Gk. hon tropon), we should examine the six other places it occurs in the New Testament: Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34; Acts 7:28; 15:11; 27:25; and 2 Tim. 3:8. Space considerations allow us to look at only one of them here. 

Jesus used this phrase on the same day he gave the Olivet Discourse (i.e., Tuesday of Passion Week). As we said above, this was forty-five days before his ascension. He said, 

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as (Gk. hon tropon) a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! (Matt 23:37)

Jesus’s proposed gathering of Jerusalem and a hen gathering her chicks share a central idea—the gathering of individuals for protection. Jesus did not mean to specify “identity of mode or manner” between these two gatherings.

This shows “hon tropon … does not necessarily place emphasis on the similarity of the manner of the act.”⁵ So, “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.’”⁶

We should go further. James Campbell uses the other New Testament passages to show:

“in like manner” (hon tropon) . . . in no case is it to be taken literally, but always as implying mere certainty.… There are in all seven instances in the New Testament, besides that in the text already quoted [i.e., Acts 1:11], in which the expression hon tropon occurs, and it is safe to say that in not one of them is it employed in a modal sense.… All that can be legitimately drawn from the expression hon tropon is … that Jesus would come again even as his disciples had seen him go away. The emphasis is not to be put upon the form of his going or coming, but upon the fact that he was to come just as really as he had gone.⁷

Inmillennialism uses this perspective to interpret Acts 1:11. The angel was stressing a central idea: Jesus had departed, he would return. The phrase “in like manner” does not mean “identity of mode or manner” between these actions any more than it does between the two gatherings in Matt 23:37.

This understanding allows Jesus’s return in Acts 1:11 to be his coming to destroy the Temple and end the Mosaic age (Matt 24:1–3) in his generation. He would come in his kingdom before some of his hearers died (Matt 16:27–28). And, “the kingdom of God [would] not come with observation” (Luke 17:20).

The Precise Difference

The existing prophetic models agree on a core set of events that will occur in our future. God will raise the physical bodies of the saints just as he raised Christ’s physical body. The glorified saints will then enjoy Christ’s physical presence throughout eternity. Inmillennialism agrees with these points.

The traditional models also posit a physical, visible return of Christ in our future, usually based on Acts 1:11. Inmillennialism does not deny this will happen. In fact, it recognizes that some event must occur that brings the resurrected Christ together with his resurrected saints.

The single question at issue is whether Acts 1:11 is referring to that event. The traditional views answer in the affirmative; inmillennialism takes the negative. The following chart summaries this difference:

Doctrine	Traditional View	Inmillennialism
The physical resurrection of Christ	Yes	Yes
The future physical resurrection of saints	Yes	Yes
Fellowship of Christ and saints in their physical, resurrection bodies in eternity	Yes	Yes
Physical, visible return of Christ in Acts 1:11	Yes	No

Conclusion

The coming (Gk. erchomai) of Christ in Acts 1:11 is the same coming (Gk. erchomai) Jesus mentioned forty-five days earlier in Matt 24:30. It would occur when the Temple fell in the apostles’ generation (Matt 24:1–3, 34).

The phrase “in like manner” (Gk. hon tropon) in Acts 1:11 has the same meaning it did forty-five days earlier in Matt 23:37. It does not mean “identity of mode or manner.” Rather, it assured the apostles of a central idea: Jesus had departed, he would return.

We should allow the multitude of clear passages that identify the timing of Christ’s return to stand. Jesus would return in his generation. 

We should also allow other New Testament passages to determine the nature of that return. We must allow those passages to dictate what “in like manner” means in Acts 1:11. This phrase gives assurance Jesus would return. It does not mean that return would be visible.

Doing so reinforces the inmillennial prophetic model.

1. Joseph Addison Alexander, The Acts of the Apostles Explained (New York: Charles Scribner, 1857), 1:16. Emphasis added.
2. Everett F. Harrison, Acts: The Expanding Church (Chicago: Moody, 1975), 41. Emphasis added.
3. Kenneth S. Wuest, Expanded Translation of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 521.
4. Alexander, The Acts of the Apostles Explained, 1:16.
5. Joh. Ed. Huther, “Timothy and Titus,” in Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 9, (Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications, 1980), 250.
6. 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.
7. James M. Campbell, The Presence (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1911), 110–11.