Acts 1:11 and Divine Embodiment

Which is also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up in heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:11)

This is a common text that Latter-day Saints appeal to as implicit evidence of divine embodiment. In the LDS view, if Jesus can be truly divine and embodied throughout eternity, then there should be no problem for God the Father being embodied. It also refutes the frankly stupid claim that belief in a God who is embodied is something that “limits” Him.

Interestingly, the anti-LDS “response” has been greatly eisegetical. In his 2001 book, The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible, J.P. Holding argued that Acts 1:11 does not state that, in between the ascension and Parousia, that Jesus remains embodied—he argued that, just as a party guest promises to return to the next New Year’s party with his fancy bowtie does not mean that he will wear the bowtie 24/7 for the year, Jesus, just because He ascended with, and will return with, with a body does not mean He will be embodied in the time in-between.

Then-LDS apologist, Kevin Graham, wrote the following in response to Holding’s absurd eisegesis of Acts 1:11. The article is no longer online, but I did save it a few years back:

 Acts 1:11

Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven

The question pertaining to this verse is whether or not Jesus kept his resurrected body. Christ's ascension took place after He revealed himself with a physical body: “For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Lk 24:39). The scripture informs us that “this same Jesus”of flesh and bone is what we can expect upon his return. Latter-day Saints will naturally understand this as evidence against the argument that God doesn’t have a body, especially given our critics' devotion to the divinity of Christ. For how can anyone argue that Christ, being fully God, can have an eternal physical body, while at the same time argue that God has no body? We must keep in mind that Trinitarians insist the Father and Son, while distinct “persons,” are in fact the one being. This is the paradox they have yet to reconcile. What we will find in this section is that Holding’s concept of the trinity is contradicted by the Orthodox concept, which maintains that Jesus Christ keeps his resurrected body throughout eternity. But we will get back to this in a minute. As for the verse in question, Holding responds with,

The verse indicates nothing about the state of Christ between his ascent and return

Let’s get this straight. The Bible tells us Christ had a physical body at His resurrection (Lk 24:39). The Bible tells us that Christ kept his physical body when he entered heaven (Acts 1:11). The Bible tells us that Stephen saw Christ “standing” beside God the Father (Acts 7:55-56). The Bible on numerous occasions describes Christ as “sitting” and “standing” next to the throne of God after his ascension (Heb 1:3;10:12;12:2; Col 3:1). Lastly, we are encouraged that Christ shall return with this same resurrected body (Acts 1:11).

Now this is a significant amount of data the Bible provides us on this issue. So what we can gather from this is that in all likelihood Jesus Christ retains his body between his ascent and return. Impossible! This “indicates nothing,” Holding says. This response speaks for itself. We're expected to ignore several points of fact and adopt a view which is supported nowhere in any verse of scripture. He then reverts to analogy to illustrate his point:

Let us suppose that a person at a birthday party wears a bow tie that the host likes. He says, "You don't need to stare at it. I will return next year wearing the same outfit." The guest is not implying that he will wear the tie all year until the next party; nor were the angels implying that Christ's body was a permanent, unalterable addition to his natural existence. [1]

However, it is safe to assume this person kept his physical body during the twelve-month period. Holding is reading into the text while failing to acknowledge that he is merely begging the question. The problem with this analogy is that neither Christ nor his angels refer to his body, as a temporary “outfit” that is to be removed like clothing. According to the New Testament, the body will be resurrected not only the spirit. Bodies become glorified but never transformed from corporeal to incorporeal. To this Holding responds,

Nor would they need to, if the Jewish contextual understanding was that such bodies would be temporary. This is again where Graham falls for a Western, low-context understanding.

If Holding’s statement had a firm basis one would have expected him to back it up by now. But with all his talk about “high-context,” in reality he just expects us to take his word for it. As far as the Jewish understanding, Holding doesn't even seem to realize how this thwarts his argument. He admitted earlier that according to, “the Jewish view, ‘I’ is a body, and a spirit, together in one essential identity.” So now he says the Jews would have understood a division. Holding's statement about temporary bodies also flies in the face of Job 19:26. There Job declares, “Though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” As Schwarzchild explains, “We require the doctrine of resurrection, therewith to assert what is nowadays called the psychosomatic unity, or the embodied soul, of the human individual and the infinite ethical tasks incumbent upon him or her.” [2] In other words, they couldn't fathom one existing without the other. So the theory of a disposable or “temporary” body is dragged out from left field to fill in this huge hole in his argument. The Semitic Totality concept undermines his argument. In his haste, Holding offers what can only appear to be double-talk, all the while accusing us of reading like “Westerners,” which, presumably, is a temptation only he and a few really smart Evangelicals can resist. He maintains that our view,

...is not "logical" but is an anachronistic, "plain English" reading of the text with its source in Joseph Smith, a Westerner and a literalist.

Nothing by way of Jewish evidence is presented in his book to support this argument. Nothing. This is why he had to come up with a “western-minded/plain English” analogy to illustrate his logic. When that logic is turned on him he decides to appeal to some elusive Jewish evidence that he claims to have presented us in his book. We must keep in mind that Holding is working off the false premise that says Judaism always understood theophanies to be temporary manifestations which had nothing to do with the deity’s nature. But this review has already put that question begging to rest. Likewise, he works off the quasi-orthodox premise of his version of the Trinity which insists God is three persons in one being. Holding begins with trinitarianism of the later centuries and reads backwards into the text, foisting a later theology upon the Ancient Jews. Our anachronism specialist now has one of his own making.

As far as his comment about Joseph Smith being the source of this belief, this is indubitably absurd. For what influence did Joseph Smith have on the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Last year I was discussing this issue with CRI contributor, and up and coming Evangelical author Richard Abanes. He nearly had a conniption fit when I explained Holding’s argument to him. He then reassured me that the “Christian position” is that Jesus Christ retains his body throughout eternity. [3] I investigated this matter further by emailing several Christian websites, and in fact they all confirmed what Mr. Abanes asserted. The Incarnation of Christ is in fact an eternal concept.

What Holding argues is nothing short of heresy, for Christ is conceptualized as fully divine and fully human simultaneously. His resurrected body is something He retains all throughout eternity. Now Holding wants to redefine Christian doctrine, and it appears he doesn’t expect anyone to notice. Ultimately, what this all means is that Holding is not setting up a Mormon vs. Christian view as his book suggests. Holding might have a tougher time arguing his point within his own Evangelical circle, and in fact he might consider cleaning up his own house before proposing to “correct” alleged misinterpretations by Latter-day Saints. Given the overall data, there is every reason to believe Christ retains his physical body, and practically zero evidence to support Holding's position of an incorporeal Christ. But Holdng isn't interested with dealing with burdens of proof. From his perspective, it is always his opponents who have that burden.

---

[1] Holding, 23.
[2] Menachem Kellner, The Pursuit of the Ideal: Jewish Writings of Steven Schwartzchild, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990). Pp. 209-228.
[3] It disturbed him so much that he refused to believe this was Holding’s exegesis, until I provide a citation from his book.