Questions and Answers — Part 4: A Visible Return? (Acts 1:9–11)

Job’s hope is secure in inmillennialism. He said, “I know that my Redeemer lives, And He shall stand at last on the earth” (Job 19:25, NKJV). Our prophetic model says Job’s redeemer—Jesus Christ—stood on the earth in the “last days” (Heb 1:2) of the Mosaic age.

Job also said, “And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me” (Job 19:26–27). 

Inmillennialism says Job will experience this sight in the resurrection. God will give him a glorified body at the end of the messianic age. He will then see Jesus’s glorified body face-to-face.

But, we must not misuse Scripture to secure this glorious future. A reader’s question about Acts 1:9–11 will allow us to show what we mean. In that passage Luke writes:

And when he [Jesus] had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come (Gk. erchomai) in like manner (Gk. hon tropon) as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The reader says, “The obvious question is this: if they visibly saw the Lord ascend, then is it reasonable to believe He will visibly return?”

Many Christians ask this question when they encounter inmillennialism. They realize Jesus ascended in a manner visible to the physical eye.¹ They conclude, based on this passage, his return will be visible, too.

Inmillennialism says Jesus returned in his generation. But, no visible “coming” occurred in that timeframe. So, these saints conclude our prophetic model is incorrect.

Most commentators say these words require physical identity. Lenski provides an example: “He departed visibly, he shall return visibly; he went to heaven, he shall come from heaven; he went away bodily, he shall come back bodily.”² Such statements represent the majority and traditional view.  

Inmillennialism says this is a mistake. The words Luke used do not require Jesus to return visibly. This assertion will shock some readers, so we ask for patience as we reason together.

To prove this point, this post will examine Acts 1:9–11 from three perspectives: 1.) the context of “coming”; 2.) the details of “coming”; and 3.) the usage of “in like manner.”

The Context of “Coming”

The best way to determine an author’s meaning is from context. “Before listing any verse in support of a position, we should first check the literary context to insure that the passage is about the same subject and really does have the meaning that proves the point.”³ 

The majority view overlooks the historical and literary contexts of Acts 1:9–11. These contexts show the “coming” Luke mentions would occur in the disciples’ generation. Our reasoning follows.

A Year Earlier

We begin our analysis with an event that happened less than a year before Jesus’s ascension.⁴ The Lord had given the disciples a mission to Israel. They were to “preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 10:7; emphasis added). Jesus said they would not finish this campaign before his return. “Verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come (Gk. erchomai)” (Matt 10:23; emphasis added).

This commission linked the coming of the kingdom to Jesus’s return. Both would occur before the disciples finished their commission.

Later, the disciples again heard Jesus link his coming to his kingdom. He said, “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming (Gk. erchomai) in his kingdom” (Matt 16:28; emphasis added).

Some who heard Jesus speak would see him return in his kingdom. Jesus linked his “coming” to his kingdom. He placed both in his near future.

45 Days Earlier

We will now limit ourselves to Luke’s writings. His gospel and the book of Acts create a literary unit (Acts 1:1; cp. Luke 1:1–4). This also allows us to see the literary context of Acts 1:9–11.

Let’s move forward almost a year in our analysis of context.⁵ Forty-five days before his ascension, Jesus again told his disciples about his “coming.” He did so in the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21:37; cf. Matt 24:3). Luke reports Jesus’s words:

And then shall they see the Son of man coming (Gk. erchomai) in a cloud with power and great glory. . . . So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:27, 31–32)

Here, again, Jesus linked the kingdom to his “coming.” He placed both in the disciples’ generation. We should not divide what he has joined.

During the Previous 40 days

Jesus ascended 45 days after giving the Olivet Discourse, 40 days after his resurrection. After rising from the dead, he often talked with his disciples.

Luke describes these discussions. He says the Lord rebuked his disciples for not believing the prophets.

He said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25–27; emphasis added)

Jesus said all the prophets had written about the glory he would soon enter.

Luke also says the Lord identified this glory with his coming kingdom. Jesus “shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3; emphasis added).

We know, from previous Scriptures, that the kingdom would come before some of these disciples died (Matt 16:28). It would come in their generation (Luke 21:31–32). Jesus would “come” (Gk. erchomai, Luke 21:27) to establish it.

At the Ascension

Forty-five days after the Olivet Discourse, Jesus spoke to his disciples. This discussion occurred just before his ascension (Acts 1:1–8). 

The place was familiar—the Mount of Olives (Luke 24:50.)⁶ So was the subject. “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6; emphasis added). Jesus responded to this question as he did in the Olivet Discourse (Acts 1:7; Matt 24:36).

After Jesus ascended, two men “in white apparel” (angels?) spoke to the disciples. They said, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come (Gk. erchomai). . . ” (Acts 1:11; emphasis added).

The kingdom and the “coming” here are identical to those Jesus had mentioned in his recent discussions. They would occur in the disciples’ generation. Nothing in the context shows these men were speaking about a different “coming.”

The following chart summarizes the above points:

We should not make Jesus’s “coming” (Gk. erchomai) in Acts 1:11 mean something different than it meant a year earlier. The term did not change meaning during the previous 45 days. Luke gives no hint of such a change. The context shows Jesus’s “coming” would occur in the disciples’ generation.

The Details of “Coming”

Some readers may object to our conclusion. They might say Acts 1:11 itself requires a different “coming.” The words “in like manner” imply this change. They show a physical and visible return. Since this kind of “coming” has not occurred since Jesus’s ascension, it must be in our future.

This problem is more apparent than real. The phrase “in like manner” (Gk. hon tropon) does not mean the physical details of Jesus’s return would match those of his ascension. It does not mean that because Jesus ascended visibly and bodily, he would return visibly and bodily.

Let us show why this is so. We will begin by noting physical details of Jesus’s return that cannot match his ascension. 

Commentators recognize these discrepancies. Lenski, for example, notes several details about the Lord’s return that Luke omitted. Here is one. In Luke’s account,

It is not added that every eye shall see him when he returns, also those who pierced him, Rev. 1:7. But one may ask how this can be possible when the earth is a globe, and when he who appears on one side of the globe cannot be seen on the opposite side.⁷

The phrase “in like manner” does not imply a correspondence of this physical detail. Many more witnesses would see Jesus’s “coming” than saw his ascension.

There are other similar difficulties. John said he “looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle” (Rev 14:14; emphasis added). 

Inmillennialism says John is using prophetic imagery,⁸ but our point remains. Jesus did not leave wearing a crown and carrying a sickle—either literally or figuratively. These details of his ascension and “coming” differ.

John says Jesus would ride a white horse when he returned. He would “judge and make war.” His eyes would be “as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns.” He would be “clothed with a vesture dipped in blood.” “Armies were in heaven [would follow] him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword.” “On his vesture and on his thigh” would be “a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS” (Rev 19:11–16). These descriptions do not correspond to the physical details of Christ’s departure in Acts 1:9–11. 

Inmillennialism rejects a selective use of these details. How can we insist on a bodily and visible return of the Lord without insisting other details also match his ascension? 

This passage—Acts 1:9–11—does not require an identity of detail. So, it cannot justify the selective identity the traditional prophetic models require.⁹

The Usage of “In Like Manner”

The difficulties for the majority view of Acts 1:9–11 increase when we consider the phrase “in like manner” (Gk. hon tropon) in other passages. These passages show it cannot mean correspondence of physical details.

Jesus used this phrase when he spoke to apostate Israel. He said the following on Tuesday of Passion Week (AD 30)—the same day he gave the Olivet Discourse:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as¹⁰ (Gk.  hon tropon) a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!” (Luke 13:34)

To insist “as” (Gk. hon tropon) requires matching physical details leads to absurdities. Jesus’s physical actions were not those of a mother hen.

The Lord did not mean to compare physical details when he used the words hon tropon. He meant to stress the similarity of his actions to those of a hen in a more general way. A gathering is present when a hen protects her chicks. This provides a picture of how Jesus sought to gather Israel so she could avoid destruction. There is no correspondence of physical details between the two gatherings.

Luke uses this phrase in his account of the first Christian martyrdom. He says Stephen spoke to apostate Israel about Moses trying to stop a fight. One of the two combatants asked Moses, “Wilt thou kill me, as (Gk. hon tropon) thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday?” (Acts 7:28). 

Let’s place this sentence parallel to Acts 1:11:

Will you   “kill me              as                 (hon tropon)   thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday?”
Jesus will “come      in like manner     (hon tropon)   as ye have seen him go.” 

The question contains little (if any) reference to physical details. The man was not asking if the murder weapon would be identical. Or, the place of burial. Or, the time of day. His focus was on the central idea of murder. Nothing more.

The same is true of Acts 1:11. Jesus would return as he had promised. The words mean nothing more. They do not imply matching details of the ascension and the “coming.”

Paul told Timothy, “Now as (hon tropon) Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim 3:8). What we said above is true here, too. “These two Egyptian charlatans are not mentioned because of their pretended miracles, nor because they, too, were surrounded with silly women.”¹¹

Physical similarity of these two situations is not the issue. The central thought is resistance. As the magicians resisted Moses, so reprobates now resist the gospel. There is no thought of correspondence of details.

This phrase occurs in only two other passages. In one, Peter compares Jewish and Gentile salvation. He says, “we shall be saved, even as (Gk. hon tropon) they” (Acts 15:11). He is comparing two non-physical things. 

In the other passage, Paul encourages his fellow travelers during a storm at sea. In a dream, an angel promised Paul deliverance from the storm. The apostle then says, “I believe God, that it shall be even as (Gk. hon tropon) it was told me” (Acts 27:25). This statement compares a dream to deliverance from a shipwreck. 

A correspondence of physical details is impossible in either of these situations. 

We have now examined all Biblical instances of the words “in like manner” (Gk. hon tropon). They allow a comparison of two events or things. They do not demand a similarity of details between them. Sometimes, a correspondence of physical details is impossible.

These words perform the same function in Acts 1:11. They mean Jesus would return as surely as he departed. There is no requirement for correspondence of physical details. This passage does not teach a bodily, visible “coming” of the Lord.

Conclusion

Inmillennialism interprets Acts 1:9–11 as a guarantee of Christ’s return. It says the “coming” (Gk. erchomai) here is the same “coming”  (Gk. erchomai) Jesus mentioned 45 days earlier (Luke 21:27). It would occur in the disciples’ generation (Luke 21:32). The contextual evidence shows Luke uses this term consistently.

The Biblical writers provide many details surrounding Jesus’s “coming.” These details differ from those of his ascension. We must not interpret Acts 1:9–11 in a way that creates a conflict between Jesus’s “coming” and his “going.” The traditional view of this passage makes this mistake. It requires a visible, bodily “coming” that matches the ascension. This implies other details should match, too.

The Biblical writers use the phrase “in like manner” (Gk. hon tropon) in a way that refutes the traditional view. In no case do these words show an identity of details between two things or events. Most times, such correspondence is impossible.

Inmillennialism says Jesus fulfilled his promise to “come” in the disciples’ generation. He destroyed the Temple in AD 70 (Luke 21:5–6, 32). 

This fulfillment secured Job’s hope of seeing his Redeemer. We saw this in our recent post When He Shall Appear in 1 John 3:2. Here is John’s reasoning: if Jesus appeared in that generation, then we shall see him as he is in the resurrection at the end of the messianic age (cf. 1 John 3:2, ASV). 

He did and we will. Job’s resurrection body—and ours—will be like Christ’s glorified body. We shall see our Redeemer!

We do not need a misinterpretation of Acts 1:9–11 to establish this hope. It stands on other passages that teach our bodily resurrection. 

I thank the brother who asked this question. It has allowed me to address a common objection to inmillennialism.

1. The image in this post is The Ascension by Benvenuto Tisi  (1481–1559). This file (here) is in the public domain (PD-US).
2. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1961), 37.
3. William W. Klein, Craig. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation ed. Kermit A. Ecklebarger (Dallas: Word, 1993), 218.
4. We are using the dates in A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ (New York: Harper, 1922).
5. The calculation of this number of days assumes Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse on Tuesday of Passion week. See Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels, 159.
6. At Luke 24:50, Gill says “this Bethany . . . began at the Mount of Olives.” — John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments in The Baptist Commentary Series (Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), 7:734.
7. Lenski, Acts, 37. Emphasis added.
8. See The Seven Mystic Figures — Part 7: The Son Of Man.
9. We compare these models here.
10. Cp. “even as” in Matt 23:37.
11. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1961), 826.