Acts 1:9-11 and the Hyper-Preterism Debate by Keith A. Mathison

ascent, he was no longer visible to the apostles. As we have already noted, either
interpretation is exegetically possible.
The question remains: in what manner did the apostles see Jesus go into heaven?
The primary emphasis throughout these verses is on the visible manner of the ascension
event. The ascension of Jesus occurred “as they were looking on” (v. 9). As Jesus
departed, they were “gazing” intently (v. 10). The two men in white ask the apostles why
they are standing there “looking into heaven” (v. 11). And it is explicitly asserted that the
apostles “saw him go into heaven” (v. 11). There is little else Luke could have said to
describe an event that was objectively visible. Whether the manner of his ascent was also
in or with a cloud does not alter the fact that Jesus remained visible. The ascent was also
a bodily ascent. The apostles are talking to the resurrected Jesus immediately prior to the
ascension. They are not having a collective visionary experience. They are not talking to
the incorporeal “spirit” of Jesus (cf. Luke 24:39). Jesus is standing before them in his
resurrected body, and he ascends as they look on.
The two men in white tell the apostles that Jesus will come in the same manner
that they saw him go. Since the manner of his ascent was visible and bodily, the manner
in which he will come will likewise be visible and bodily. Furthermore, the implication
of the word translated “will come” is that Christ will return to the place from which he
departed, namely, this earth. It must be noted, however, that the two men do not say that
the circumstances of Christ’s coming will be the same as the circumstances of his going.
Thus the objections of Russell, Noē and others who point out obvious differences
between Christ’s ascension and his second coming are largely irrelevant and beside the
point. Those differences have to do with the surrounding circumstances, not the actual
manner of his ascension and return. Since the ascension and Second Coming have
different purposes in the outworking of redemptive history, we would expect there to be
different surrounding circumstances. The ascension of Christ is part of the nexus of
events (e.g., the resurrection, the ascension, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc.) that marks
the inauguration of the kingdom, while the Second Coming of Christ is part of the nexus
of events (e.g., the Second Coming, the general resurrection, the final judgment, etc.) that
marks the consummation of the kingdom. Acts 1:11 simply affirms that Christ will come
in the same manner (visibly and bodily) that he ascended. Acts 1:11, by itself, does not
37