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

comings have occurred.” Both of these assertions are simply false. The word erchomai
usually means “to come,” and it sometimes means “to go.” It does not mean “comes and
goes.” The truth of this can be easily demonstrated by simply translating the verb
erchomai as “comes and goes” in the places where it is used in the New Testament. The
result is nonsensical. Nor is the word erchomai used adverbially here to describe the
manner in which Jesus’ many comings have occurred. It is a verb that means “to come.”
Timothy James
Timothy James’ argument against the traditional interpretation of Acts 1:9–11 is
based on his understanding of the words “in the same way.” He rejects the idea of a
physical second advent because Jesus will come “in the same way” that he went, namely,
“in a cloud.” However, as we have seen, even if Christ ascended with or “in” the cloud,
this did not immediately render him invisible during the entirety of his ascension. The
entire passage repeatedly stresses the visibility of the ascension, and the two men in white
explicitly say that the apostles “saw him go into heaven.”
Others
Insofar as Kenneth Davies adopts Randall Otto’s interpretation, the same
objections that apply to Otto’s interpretation apply to his as well. Unfortunately, Davies’
abbreviated quotes from Otto’s work result in an assertion that is not only contrary to
what Otto says but is also demonstrably false. In his discussion of the Greek word
epairō, Otto claims that in the active voice, this word refers to physical lifting but that in
the passive voice it has the figurative meaning “to exalt.” While Otto’s claim regarding
the meaning of this word in the passive voice is itself seriously problematic, Davies’
incomplete quotation of his argument results in something that is completely false. In his
quotation of Otto’s argument, Davies fails to mention the fact that Otto says the active
form of the verb “does describe the physical action of lifting up an object.” Instead,
Davies summarizes Otto’s argument by quoting only what he says about the passive form
of the word. Davies writes, “This word ‘does not have to do with an active physical
lifting up but with a lifting up of someone in stature or divinity” (p. 253). The “use of
this word does not denote a literal and physical elevation of the person, but rather
49