Insights from Margaret Barker’s Temple Themes in Christian Worship: Part IV
In this post I will be looking at Chapter 5 of Temple Themes, entitled “Baptism and Resurrection.” In this chapter, Barker gives evidence that shows how Christian baptism was not simply an imitation of contemporary Jewish conversion rites, but had its roots in the much more ancient traditions of the royal high priesthood and the temple.
Modern Jewish Mikvah (Ritual Bath) at Chabad-Lubavitch of Greater Boynton, FL
On the History of Ritual Washing
According to Barker (p. 101), baptism (immersion) was a purification ritual required by the law of Moses, and eventually became part of the initiation into Judaism. It is extremely difficult, however, to pin down when Jews first started using baptism as an initiatory rite. Some have concluded that because John the Baptist was performing baptisms, the baptism of proselytes must have been a pre-Christian Jewish practice. Barker disputes such notions, informing us that there is no good evidence that shows that Jews practiced baptism for initiation at the time of Jesus, and, therefore, there is no proof that Christians adopted an existing Jewish custom for the initiation of converts. The first real evidence for Jews baptizing converts doesn’t come until 70 A.D. (p. 102).
Ritual washing, on the other hand, was a part of daily Jewish life. Cleanliness and purity was a big issue for Jews. Washing was necessary before eating, before and after touching the the sacred texts, before worship and entering the temple. There were deep baths, called mikvaoth in which both unclean people and vessels were immersed in order to purge them from uncleanliness, and to prepare them for contact with the sacred. According to Barker, there were dozens of mikvaoth around the Temple in Jerusalem. These places of immersion are found throughout the Jewish world, both ancient and modern. Although some forms of ritual washing involved washing only certain parts of the body, such as the hands and feet, other occasions required full immersion. The High Priest was to fully immerse himself several times before entering the Temple (Mishan Yoma 3.3).
The mikvah represented the sea, the gathered waters of creation from which life sprang forth. The “bronze sea” was set outside the Temple so that the priests could be cleansed before entering. The Temple, and more specifically, the Holy of Holies, of course, represented Heaven. This fact is interesting in light of the Jewish tradition that the awaited Son of God was expected to rise up from the waters (Dan 7:2, 13-14; 2 Esdras/4 Ezra 13:2-5, 26, 32) (pp. 104-105).
Christian baptism was not the same as Jewish ritual washing. As Barker notes, it “was not a regular cleansing ritual but marked the moment of initiation” (p. 105). For Christians, baptism was much more than becoming clean, whether physically or spiritually. Barker explains:
The effects of baptism were described in various ways: as the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:38); as spiritual birth that gave access to the Kingdom of God (John 3:5); as the washing of regeneration and renewal (Titus 3:5); as enlightenment (Heb 6:5; 10:32); as sharing the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6:4–5; Col 3:1); as putting on a new nature (Col 3:10); as becoming a son of God (Rom 8:14). The Christian passed from darkness to the Kingdom of the beloved Son (Col 1:13); was called from darkness to light as the royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9); was renewed in his mind (Eph 4:23) (p. 105).
All these various themes that surrounded Christian baptism are striking and are not necessarily a part of Jewish ritual cleansing, especially not at the time of Jesus. Some have interpreted these several images as simply the diverse ways in which Christians viewed the meaning of baptism. Barker, on the other hand, sees these themes as all part of the same rite. She proclaims: “The little that can be recovered about the initiation of the ancient royal high priests suggests that this was the origin of Christian baptism” (p. 105).
Anointing and Clothing: Part of Christian Baptism?
One of the elements that I initially had a hard time with in this chapter was the fact that Barker goes to great lengths to connect Christian baptism to, as mentioned above, the temple initiation of the ancient royal (Melchizedek) high priests. She mentions the Christian practice of anointing, clothing, feeding with bread and wine, giving a new name, etc., in conjunction, or as part of, baptism. The reason I couldn’t get my head around this is because for many Christians, including Latter-day Saints, these practices are not a part of our baptism. For Latter-day Saints, we would recognize many of these themes as part of our Temple initiatory rites. Why, then, does Barker try to make a connection between baptism and these themes? It is because they actually were (at least eventually) a part of Christian baptism.
Traditional Catholic and Orthodox baptism involves not only baptism with water, but also, among other things:
- anointing with holy oil/chrism on the head and also signing with the cross on the brow, ears, eyes, nostrils, mouth, breast, and between the shoulders (anointing, or chrismation, is also called confirmation and seen as necessary to the reception of the Holy Spirit)
- the giving of a baptismal/new name (usually the name of a saint)
- clothing with a white robe (often substituted now by a white veil on the head)
The Baptism of St. Vladimir–St. Volodymyr’s Cathedral (Кафедральный собор Святого Владимира, Владимирский собор)
I became somewhat confused by the inclusion of these practices in some Christian baptisms and the insistence of Margaret Barker on connecting Christian baptism with ancient priesthood initiation. I assumed that there must have been some mixing of practices by early Christians in the first centuries after Christ. I was much relieved when Bryce Haymond, of www.templestudy.com, shared the following quote from BYU professor John Tvedtnes in a comment here. According to Tvedtnes:
In early Christianity, following the apostasy, temple initiation eventually merged with the baptismal initiation, which included both washing and anointing with oil, along with donning of white clothing and sometimes the reception of a new name. (”Early Christian and Jewish Rituals Related to Temple Practices,” FAIR 1999 Conference)
It is no wonder, then, that Barker so adeptly picked up on the connection between these practices and the ancient priesthood initiation. Certainly, the washing, anointing, clothing, and other related rituals that were merged with baptism can be seen, as she states it, as “restoring the rites of the older temple” (p. 123).
With this understanding in mind, we are ready to explore the amazing insights that Barker provides regarding the initiatory rites performed in conjunction with the ancient Temple and Melchizedek Priesthood, as well as how the knowledge of these rites helped form Christian thought.
(To be continued…)
15 Comments
David:
I much appreciate your continuing themes on Margaret Barker and her views of temple theology. It is impressive how many things she gets right in terms of LDS theology.
As you suggest in your essay above, there could have been some merging of ritual practices over time. The Book of Mormon, of course, is clear that a standard baptism by immersion was a “pre-Christian” practice. Even so, there were a variety of different types of washings, not all involving immersion.
I very much appreciate your continuing arguments on the relevance of modern temples. Recently, I have made an attempt to write a few of my own.
Thank you for your thoughtful efforts.
Would you mind sharing some of the Christian primary texts that Barker is using to make this argument? I am not aware of any at all off the top of my head that associate baptism with the temple, and many texts such as Acts that treat them as clearly different.
Another great post!
Not being able to get your head around this process of initiation (where and when) and ascension is a common problem that plague some of us. I would suggest the following:
1.) First century Christians had the temple initiations, baptisms (the sea), washing, anointing, etc..
2.) The first century Christians did not do these in the The temple in Jerusalem.
3.) First century Christians did temple work in other places, likely regular looking buildings, or on a hill somewhere, etc.. Not discounting the holy space, but the division between the holy and the regular was less visible.
4.) Reading Cyril, we get a sense that what we call the endowment and do in three hours, was a much longer version, divided up over days.
5.) To first century Christians it would be natural to see baptisms, sacrament, and the temple rites as one initiation/ascension process. And I think their perception is the correct one.
I think it is us who have made this artificial divide in our minds. I think we should consider baptism a part of the initiation and endowment.
-David
The conclusions that David Littlefield draws are the one’s that I am most wary of. Besides the NT, the only 1st century Christian texts that we have are the Didache, 1 Clement, parts of G. Thomas, and perhaps a few fragments from other apocryphal gospels. I am not convinced that any of the conclusions that he draws can be made from these texts. Rather, it is late-second and third-century texts that are used to make this case. While these parallels are certainly interesting, I am not sure that we can import them back to the first century.
TT:
And what’s wrong with the New Testament? Why do we need to put it aside?
While I am not that well versed in this history, it seem to me these initiation rites can be found abundantly in pre New Testament times, they are pointed to in first century Christianity by the New Testament, and it’s not too hard to find them in second and third century texts.
To me, a layman, while I would not claim an unbroken chain, a forward moving flow of at least ascension rite teachings seems evident.
What conclusion do you have trouble with? That first century Christians practiced temple rites?
Thanks,
David
Okay–first, thank you gentlemen for your thought-inspiring comments. S.Faux–thank you for your words. I have shared your post on Jesus and the Temple in my shared items. I thought it was great!
David–I think what TT was looking for was evidence of baptism being connected to the Temple, not just for Temple practices among Christians. Having said that, I think you make some great points and add some details I was not aware of. I agree that it sounds right that Christians would have combined all those into one initiation, much like the ancient enthronement of the Davidic King. This is one of Barker’s main evidences for connecting them. Scholars have made connections between Jesus’ baptism and the ancient enthronement ritual, which involved the Temple. I guess my main issue is the fact that today we separate baptism from washing and anointing. What would be the purpose of having a washing if baptism does the same job? Would it not be more appropriate to do as the Catholics do and baptize, anoint, and clothe all in one ceremony? The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the baptism and washing are really supposed to serve different functions. Another factor is likely the fact that we baptize children at 8 years, but do not consider them mature enough for the initiatory ordinances of the Temple.
TT–You make some good points. To tell you the truth, I don’t think Barker has much support in 1st century documents for connecting baptism to the Temple. She is mostly going by somewhat later traditions. I think one of her strongest cases is made in the baptism of Jesus. He is immersed in the river, the heavens open, he is anointed with the Holy Spirit, he goes into the wilderness and defeats the Serpent, then establishes his kingdom. This is essentially the king-making ritual of ancient Israel. She also compares this to the priestly ordination in Test. of Levi, where the heavens are opened and Levi is declared son of God, then washed, anointed, clothed, etc. She draws on these similar themes to conclude that Christian baptism was not simply a cleansing like that which was done so frequently by the Jews–it was an initiation like those which were done in the Temple for kings/priests. She admits there is not enough info out there on baptism, nor on priestly initiation to really prove much, but she does make some interesting points. I could see some definite similarities between the purpose of the washing/anointing and that of baptism/confirmation–enough to make me wonder what the real difference is. You should read her book then tell me what you think!
Excellent post, once again. Thanks for the link.
What I think is interesting about our theology is that we believe baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost go back to the very beginning, and that through apostasy the ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood were taken from the earth (or at least from the majority of covenant Israel) -
“And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.
And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.” (Moses 6:64–65)
So these ordinances are not an early Christian novelty. This in interesting in light of the fact that we believe baptism is an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance, but does not appear to have been included in the rites of the Mosaic law, unless baptism was by a different mode in that dispensation (does anyone know the meaning of 1 Cor. 10:2?).
Let me add, why do we seem to see evidence for Melchizedek ordinances in the Old Testament in the absence of Aaronic ordinances (such as baptism)? Shouldn’t it be just the other way around?
Bryce,
You make a good point. Although this topic can get confusing, we need to remember that baptism was instituted in the very beginning. However, it is more difficult to know if that baptism always remained in the same form. 1 Cor. 10:2 is referring to the popular belief that passage through the Red Sea was a baptism for Israel. Barker says this is part of the same interpretation of baptism as Rom 6:4. Also related is this line from Gospel of Phillip:
“By perfecting the water of baptism, Jesus emptied it of death. Thus we go down into the water, but we do not go down into death.” According to Barker, this is one of the “disputed” meanings of baptism, the other (her preferred) being that of a priestly initiation.
About Melch vs. Aaronic–I won’t go into now, but I think the reason we see Melchizedek ordinances when we’re only supposed to have aaronic priesthood is bc the Aaronic priests later rewrote Israelite history to make it look like they were the only priests ever, when this just wasn’t the case. I think there were more Melch. Priesthood ordinances being performed in Solomon’s Temple (not Zerubbabel’s) than we are told of. As for Aaronic, there were plenty of ordinances being done–all their temple duties, sacrifices, etc. There were plenty of mikvaot for immersion–perhaps they did do something closer to our baptism than we have evidence for. Its just hard to know.
On 1 Cor 10:2, one can’t escape the Moses era reference to faith, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost: demonstrating faith by following the Lord’s anointed, leaving Egypt (Babylon/sin), covenanting to follow God, and then being blessed by heavenly guidance (pillar of fire/Holy Ghost).
I feel comfortable stating that all the people covenanted together (Ex 19:1–8, esp 8 or Mosiah 5:5–7.)as symbolized by the Red Sea crossing, etc, and the symbols of baptism are unmistakable and utilized to demonstrate that the covenant is again established among a sealed, ‘peculiar’ people. Noah’s experience with the flood and dove (and rainbow) point to baptism and the Holy Ghost, but I don’t see that it means that Noah’s individual baptism was then accomplished. The eternal covenant was refreshed, the signs demonstrated.
I’m not comfortable stating that the form of the ordinances an individual must receive has changed between Adam and Joseph S. I want to believe that with the exile and under the order of the second temple after the exile, the ordinances changed but not by heavenly direction; hence the great confusion. Babylon was successful in conquering Judah only because the people broke their covenant (Deut chs. 26-30). Can we not expect apostasy or loss of truth to set in under the broken conditions? As noted, Nephi’s pre-exilic order seems markedly different from the OT we have as pass down by the priests of the second temple.
From the current priesthood manual of Joseph’s teachings, ch7: “The ancients who were actually the fathers of the church in the different ages, when the church flourished on the earth, … were initiated into the kingdom by baptism, for it is self evident in the scripture—God changes not.”
“Now taking it for granted that the scriptures say what they mean, and mean what they say, we have sufficient grounds to go on and prove from the Bible that the gospel has always been the same; the ordinances to fulfil its requirements, the same; and the officers to officiate, the same; and the signs and fruits resulting from the promises, the same”
“What if we should attempt to get the gift of the Holy Ghost through any other means except the signs or way which God hath appointed—would we obtain it? Certainly not; all other means would fail. The Lord says do so and so, and I will bless you.
“There are certain key words and signs belonging to the Priesthood which must be observed in order to obtain the blessing. The sign [taught by] Peter was to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, with the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost; and in no other way is the gift of the Holy Ghost obtained”
On re-reading the above comments, I would like to clarify one point. While I don’t think it will resolve TT’s concerns regarding my “conclusions,” I suspect it may lessen them.
I have not read Margaret Barker, But, I suspect that she, and Bryce, and TT were referring to the temple, being the Second Temple in Jerusalem. And the ties of the Second Temple to the ordinance of baptism.
I however was taken a broader meaning of true temple rites, done by first century Christians. And these were not associated with the Second Temple. If the non-Christian Jews of the first century had a mikvaoth that symbolized the same thing baptism did, I don’t really know.
-Littlefield
Great insights! I’m grateful to David J. Larsen for his very professionally rendered website bringing me these LDS perspectives. And I appreciate Bryce Haymond’s excellent efforts in his Temple Study website. I have garnered the insights that impressed me most and incorporated them into my personal (computerized) commentary on the scriptures, for future study and reference.
Doug Gould
Thank you, David and Doug, for your comments. We are living in exciting times, when so much truth can be shared in such a convenient and accessible way.
can i ask? what is the meaning of white dress in the baptism? why should required white dress?
White clothing is a symbol of cleanliness and purity, a symbol of the convert’s forgiven state and new life in Christ. Also, the white clothing can represent the plain white linen clothing of the priests/angels.