30.05.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The traditional view of <strong>Acts</strong> 1:9–<strong>11</strong> is also found in numerous commentaries.<br />

Simon Kistemaker is representative of those who teach this view. Commenting on <strong>the</strong><br />

promise of <strong>the</strong> two angels in <strong>Acts</strong> 1:<strong>11</strong>, he writes,<br />

The angels’ place Jesus’ ascension <strong>and</strong> his return in equilibrium. As he has<br />

ascended, so he will come back. Jesus will return physically, in <strong>the</strong> same<br />

glorified body with which he went to heaven. 8<br />

As Dennis Johnson explains,<br />

With respect to his resurrected body — <strong>the</strong> body that his friends touched <strong>and</strong> with<br />

which he ate among <strong>the</strong>m (Luke 24:39–43) — Jesus is now in heaven. God’s<br />

messengers promise that he will return physically, visibly, as he departed (<strong>Acts</strong><br />

1:<strong>11</strong>), but not until <strong>the</strong> divinely scheduled season of total restoration (3:21). 9<br />

There have been numerous o<strong>the</strong>r commentators <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ologians who have taught <strong>the</strong><br />

traditional view of <strong>Acts</strong> 1:9–<strong>11</strong>, but since this is readily acknowledged <strong>by</strong> all, <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />

need to belabor <strong>the</strong> point<br />

The Rationalist View<br />

With <strong>the</strong> advent of <strong>the</strong> Enlightenment, rampant skepticism toward <strong>the</strong> teaching of<br />

Scripture arose throughout <strong>the</strong> Western world. Critical scholars ransacked Scripture,<br />

radically reinterpreting or simply dismissing anything <strong>the</strong>y found that couldn’t be squared<br />

with <strong>the</strong> dictates of dogmatic rationalism. Of course, <strong>the</strong> traditional interpretation of <strong>Acts</strong><br />

1:9–<strong>11</strong> was quickly dismissed. The interpretation presented <strong>by</strong> <strong>the</strong> rationalist H.E.G.<br />

Paulus (1761–1851) presents a striking example of what was offered in place of <strong>the</strong><br />

traditional view.<br />

He [Paulus] believed that Jesus had not died on <strong>the</strong> cross but had only slipped into<br />

a coma. After <strong>the</strong> crucifixion, not being mortally wounded <strong>by</strong> <strong>the</strong> spear thrust, he<br />

was moved from <strong>the</strong> cross <strong>and</strong> placed in <strong>the</strong> tomb where aromatic spices soon<br />

made him regain conscience [sic]. He could leave <strong>the</strong> grave because an<br />

earthquake removed <strong>the</strong> stone. He <strong>the</strong>n stayed forty days in <strong>the</strong> company of his<br />

disciples. At <strong>the</strong> end of this period he departed from <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> with his last<br />

strength walked off into a mist cloud on <strong>the</strong> mountain, where he finally<br />

succumbed to <strong>the</strong> injuries of his body. The disciples <strong>the</strong>n mistook two casual<br />

8 Simon Kistemaker, <strong>Acts</strong>, New Testament Commentary (Gr<strong>and</strong> Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 57.<br />

9 Dennis E. Johnson, The Message of <strong>Acts</strong> in <strong>the</strong> History of Redemption (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing<br />

Company, 1997), 18–19.<br />

3

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!