In Like Manner
Since Jesus ascended to heaven in a physical body, must he therefore return in a physical body?
“Now when He [Jesus] had spoken these things, while they [the disciples] watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men [angels] stood by them in white apparel, who also 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 in like manner'” (Acts 1:9-11).
If this were the only passage about the second coming, I could understand how one might interpret it as teaching that Jesus will one day return physically. However, this is not the only passage about the second coming–far from it! And many of those other passages say Jesus would come (again) within the lifetimes of his first-century audiences. For example, Jesus told his first-century audience: “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt. 16:28; see also Matt. 10:23, 24:30–34, 26:64, Rev. 22:12). So it must have happened in the first century. And since Jesus did not return physically, it must have been a spiritual event.
Even in the gospel of Luke–the same Luke who wrote the book of Acts, by the way–Jesus said (in AD 33) that he would come on clouds within “this [first century] generation” (Luke 21:27, 32). And there is no biblical reason to think Luke 21 is referring to a different coming than Acts 1:9–11. At least Luke never said these were different comings. In fact, had Luke been referring to different comings in these two passages, common sense strongly suggests Luke would have said so in order to avoid confusion. Yet he never even hints at such a thing.
Keep in mind, also, that Acts is essentially just a continuation of Luke, which means a mere four chapters separate these two discussions (as there are only twenty-four chapters in Luke). Once again, common sense strongly suggests that if Luke were talking about different comings in Acts 1 than in Luke 21, the author, Luke, would have said so! Yet he didn’t, which means it is likely the same event…the one that happened in Jesus’s generation.
Possible objection: Acts 1:9–11 does not contain a timing indicator, whereas Luke 21:27–32 does. Therefore, the passages are referring to different “comings.”
Response: Or maybe Luke did not think he had to repeat the timing indicator again in Acts 1 after he had just given it “four chapters earlier” in Luke 21 (see discussion above).
Just because these two coming passages do not contain the exact same elements does not mean they refer to different comings. Second coming passages often differ in the attendant events they include and leave out. For example, in 2 Peter 3:1–10–which all Christians acknowledge refers to the second coming–Peter mentions the judgment, the last days, the burning up of the elements, and the establishment of the new heaven and earth. However, Peter does not mention the many other attendant events associated with the second coming, such as the resurrection, the last trumpet, a shout, angels, and the gathering of the elect.
In 1 Thessalonians 4:15–18, which all Christians agree refers to the second coming, Paul mentions a shout, the trumpet, and the resurrection–yet Paul does not mention the judgment, the new heaven and earth, the burning up of the elements, or the last days.
And in the Acts 1 passage under discussion, which Christians agree refers to the second coming, Luke mentions clouds–however, Luke does not mention the resurrection, the last days, the shout, or the trumpet blast.
As we see, second coming passages often differ in the attendant events they include and leave out. Therefore, just because Acts does not contain a time indicator–while Luke does–this does not mean the passages are describing different comings. To justify that conclusion, one would need scriptural evidence, such as a statement by the author to that effect…and that is sorely lacking.
Some futurist[1] commentators acknowledge that Acts 1:9–11 is referring to the same coming as Luke 21:27–32 (and all those other second coming passages such as Matt. 10:23, 16:28, 24:30–34, 26:64; Rev. 22:12). Yet these commentators argue that since Acts 1 says Jesus will return in the manner in which he ascended, in a physical body–which has not happened yet–therefore, all those other passages could not have happened yet either…despite the clear timing indicators. These commentators essentially allow the one statement in Acts to override all those clear time statements.
This is a very one-sided and unwarranted method of biblical interpretation, said Milton Terry, author of the highly acclaimed textbook Biblical Hermeneutics:
“To make the one statement of Acts 1:11 override all the other sayings of Jesus on the same subject and to control their meaning is a very one-sided method of biblical interpretation. About all that the angel’s words [in Acts] necessarily mean is that as Jesus ascended into heaven, so he will come from heaven, and this main point agrees with Jesus and the prophets [in all those other passages with time statements].”[2]
Terry’s point is that the Acts passage is not even discussing the nature of Jesus’s second coming (whether he will come physically or spiritually). All the passage is saying is: As Jesus ascended to heaven, so Jesus will come from heaven. This interpretation not only fits the context of Acts, but it also avoids the untenable position of having to explain away all those clear time indicators in the other passages.
Those who insist Jesus must return in exactly the same manner in which he ascended are often oblivious to their internal inconsistency. For these same people also say Jesus will return with trumpet blasts and shouts, and that “every eye” (which they define as “every single person who has ever lived”) will witness it. They also say Jesus will return riding on a white horse, with ten thousand angels. The inconsistency, of course, is that none of these things happened when Jesus ascended. There were no trumpet blasts, no shouts, and no white horses. In fact, only a handful of people saw Jesus ascend; so how could “every eye” (as futurists define it) see him return? Furthermore, Jesus ascended by himself–so how could he return “in like manner” with ten thousand angels? The futurist interpretation is highly inconsistent!
Some futurists attempt to get around this inconsistency by arguing that “in like manner” refers only to the visible and bodily travel of Jesus–and nothing else! (How convenient.) Keith Mathison, professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College, argues: “If the manner of Jesus’s ascension was visible and bodily (the fundamental emphasis of the passage), and if Jesus will come again in the same manner that he ascended, then Jesus’s return will be visible and bodily.”[3]
I disagree. Admittedly, the disciples did see Jesus’s physical body ascending upward; however, there was a lot more going on besides just that. Notice that as Jesus was ascending, “a cloud received Him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9, italics mine). It is at this point that the angel says: “This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). In other words, Jesus would come in a cloud, which is the same manner in which he ascended.
Alarm bells should be going off about now because “in a cloud” is exactly how Luke–who wrote both Acts and Luke–said Jesus would come: “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.” And when does the Luke passage say this would happen? “Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place” (Luke 21:27, 32, italics mine). Acts 1 and Luke 21 are describing the same cloud coming, the one that happened in AD 70!
By the way, the book of Revelation also prophesied about Jesus’s cloud coming: “Behold, He is coming with clouds” (Rev. 1:7). And by the time Revelation was written in around AD 65, it was the eve of fulfillment: “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near” (Rev. 1:1–3, italics mine). Revelation concludes by repeating this again: “Behold, I [Jesus] am coming quickly!…Do not seal [set aside] the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand” (Rev. 22:6–10, italics mine). This, too, is describing the same coming, the one that happened in AD 70!
Possible objection: Commenting on Acts 1:9–11, futurist theologian Kenneth Gentry argues that Jesus must return physically and visibly because the phrase “in like manner”–on tropon in Greek–always refers to visible identicality.
“The Greek word on tropon literally means “what manner.” The Greek phrase never indicates mere certainty of vague resemblance; but whenever it occurs in the New Testament, denotes identity of mode or manner…That is, just as surely as your eyes saw this going [Jesus ascending to heaven], likewise his coming will be in that same visible manner.”[4]
Response: All that’s needed to disprove Gentry’s argument is to look at some of those other passages in which on tropon is used, because when we do, it becomes clear that on tropon does not always refer to visible identicality, as Gentry claims. It often refers to metaphorical likeness.[5] For example, in Matthew 23:37, Jesus says: “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 [on tropon] a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.” Was Jesus saying he was identically like–physically and visibly–a mother hen with wings trying to gather her chicks? Of course not. Jesus was simply using a metaphor that his first-century audience would have understood.
In 2 Tim. 3:8, Paul says the scoffers in his day resisted truth as (on tropon) Jannes and Jambres in Moses’s day. Jannes and Jambres were the two magicians who challenged Moses by throwing their staffs down to the ground, which become like snakes (Exod. 7). Was Paul saying that the scoffers in his day were identically like Jannes and Jambres? Of course not. The scoffers in Paul’s day did not throw down rods which turned into snakes. Paul’s point was simply that the scoffers of his day were opposing God, similar to how the magicians in Moses’s day opposed God.
In another passage, Acts 7:28, Stephen recounts the time when Moses tried to settle a dispute between two Hebrews, after having just killed an Egyptian. One of those Hebrews said to Moses: “Are you going to kill me as [on tropon] you killed the Egyptian?” Was this Hebrew worried that Moses would kill him in exactly the same manner as Moses had killed the Egyptian? Or was he just (sarcastically) suggesting that Moses might kill him too, somehow? Obviously the latter. The exact method of execution (visible identicality) was not the issue.
As these examples show, on tropon does not always refer to visible identicality, as Gentry claims. It often refers to metaphorical likeness. And this is the case in Acts 1 too. As Jesus ascended to heaven, so Jesus would come from heaven–and he did in AD 70.
There is another problem with the popular futurist interpretation of Acts 1:9–11. In fact, this problem could rightfully be called a glaring problem. The common futurist interpretation of Acts 1:9–11 is as follows: Since Jesus ascended physically to heaven at his ascension in AD 33, therefore, Jesus must descend physically “in like manner” back down to earth at the second coming. What’s the glaring problem, you ask? Such a descension would be the exact opposite of an ascension. Think about it: Jesus ascended upward. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) version says Jesus was “lifted up” (Acts 1:9). Therefore, that is how Jesus must “in like manner” come: ascending upward, being lifted up–not descending downward. The angel never said anything about Jesus’s descension.
Jesus had already descended at his first coming. The Word became flesh and descended to earth (John 1:14). Jesus “made himself of no reputation…coming in the likeness of man” (Phil. 2:6–7). As a man, Jesus’s divinity and glory were veiled by his physical body/flesh (although his miracles and great wisdom certainly gave glimpses into his divinity). Jesus was slandered, beaten, spit upon, and crucified. Jesus’s first coming–as a man–was the ultimate descension.
But his second coming would be different. This time, Jesus would come in vindication and power! This time, Jesus would come “in the glory of the Father” (Matt. 16:27–28)–that is, in the manner in which his Father had come numerous times before, as seen in the Old Testament (Isa. 19:1; Ps. 18:7–17; Ez. 32:7–8, 15). This time, Jesus’s enemies would “mourn when they saw him coming on clouds of glory” (Matt. 24:30). Clouds are associated with divinity, and that is precisely how Jesus would come the second time–as God! This would be Jesus’s ultimate ascension in stature, from man to God. Jesus would come the second time in judgment and power and glory and vindication, and he would prove once and for all to his critics that he was exactly who he claimed to be–the Son of God! Jesus would come the second time as the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).
Jesus’s ascension in AD 33 would no doubt have been an awesome sight to behold. It caused those who witnessed it to “gaze upwards” (Acts 1:10, NASB). However, this ascension was but a foretaste of Jesus’s ultimate ascension at his second coming. At the second coming, Jesus would come in the glory he had shared with the Father since the world began (John 17:5). This time, Jesus would come as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords–not in his lowly, glory-hiding flesh (Heb. 10:20). This time, Jesus would come as God; and God is Spirit (John 4:24).
As Jesus ascended to heaven in a cloud in AD 33 (Acts 1:9), so he would ascend “in like manner” in a cloud at his second coming (Luke 21:27; Rev. 1:7). This is the angel’s point in the Acts 1 passage–not the directional travel of Jesus’s physical body!
The Ascension in Daniel 7
All this talk of ascension should remind us of Daniel 7’s prophecy about the Son of Man ascending to the Ancient of Days in a cloud of glory. This is yet another prophecy about Jesus’s second coming in AD 70.
“I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man [Jesus], coming with the clouds of heaven! He came [ascended] to the Ancient of Days [God], and they [the angels] brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed” (Dan. 7:13–14).
As many scholars have pointed out, Jesus quoted this passage in the Olivet Discourse. Compare the various elements that both Daniel and Jesus mention: the Son of Man coming (Dan. 7:13, Luke 21:27), on clouds (Dan. 7:13, Luke 21:27), in glory (Dan. 7:14, Luke 21:27), with his kingdom (Dan. 7:14, Luke 21:31). Daniel and Jesus are clearly describing the same event, the same coming! And when did Jesus say this coming would happen? “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place” (Luke 21:32). In fact, Jesus specifically linked this coming/ascension to the destruction of the temple (vv. 5–6)–which historians acknowledge happened in AD 70. Therefore, this is when Daniel 7:13–14 must have happened too.
Possible objection: Some commentators argue that the cloud coming of Daniel 7:13–14 refers to Jesus’s ascension in AD 33, not his cloud coming in AD 70. After all, Daniel describes the Son of Man ascending upward to the Ancient of Days, which is how Jesus ascended to heaven in AD 33 (Acts 1:9).
Response: There are at least four problems with that view: One, as just pointed out above, Jesus specifically linked this cloud coming to the destruction of the temple (Luke 21:5–32), which all historians affirm happened in AD 70. In fact, a “cloud coming” is essentially a judgment (see Ezek. 32:7–8, 15; Isa. 13:9–13, 19:1), yet there was no judgment at Jesus’s ascension in AD 33! The judgment did not happen until AD 70.
Two, the cloud coming of Daniel 7:13–14 cannot possibly be referring to Jesus’s ascension in AD 33 because verses 21–22 (see also vv. 15–16) say this cloud coming would happen after the persecution of the saints. Yet the widespread persecution of Christians did not begin until Nero in the 60s. In fact, prior to this, the Romans actually restrained the Jews from persecuting Christians (Acts 23:12–22, John 18:31). Therefore, this cloud coming must have happened after AD 60, which means it cannot possibly refer to Jesus’s ascension in AD 33.
Three, the New Testament says nothing about a third coming. Jesus was only supposed to come twice: “But now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself [first coming]…To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time [second coming], apart from sin, for salvation” (Heb. 9:26–28, italics mine). Jesus was only supposed to come twice. Therefore, if he came with clouds at the ascension in AD 33, then this would have been his second coming. And then his cloud coming in AD 70 (Luke 21:27–32) would have been his third coming. And if he’s coming yet again someday–as futurists claim–that would be his fourth coming! This goes way beyond what Scripture teaches.
Four, Jesus’s cloud coming was still future when Revelation was written in AD 65 (Rev. 1:7, 22:12), which means it cannot possibly refer to the ascension in AD 33.
Conclusion: Daniel 7:13–14 is clearly describing Jesus’s second coming in AD 70…not his ascension in AD 33.
For more about this subject, and a whole lot more, see my book The End Is Here: How the New Testament’s Prophecies Were Fulfilled.
Alex Polyak, The Bible Fulfilled 2/9/24
[1] Futurists believe the second coming is yet future. Preterists believe the second coming happened in AD 70.
[2] Milton Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1898), 246–247.
[3] Keith A. Mathison, ed., When Shall These Things Be? (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2004), 187.
[4] Kenneth Gentry, Have We Missed the Second Coming? (Fountain Inn, SC: Victorious Hope Publishing, 2016), 46.
[5] Don Preston of the Preterist Research Institute pointed this out in one of his YouTube videos about Acts 1 (exact source unknown).