Another Word on Resurrection
Resurrection of Jesus-- He Lives by Simon Dewey
A great insight that Barker gives us that I did not include in my last post has to do with both the resurrection and the priesthood. In my last post, I cited a portion of the Gospel of Phillip:
The Tree of Life is in the midst of Paradise, and from [it] comes chrism, and from chrism comes resurrection. People who say they will die first and then arise are mistaken. If they do not first receive resurrection while they are alive, once they have died they will receive nothing (CG II:3:73).
The Gospel of Phillip is making a contrast here between the notion of the resurrection of the body after death and the idea that the resurrection, in reality, begins before death. Perhaps we could say the resurrection necessarily involves priesthood ordinances involving anointing to be effectuated.
On this note, it is interesting that in Temple Themes, Margaret Barker sees the power of resurrection as the difference between the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods (p. 112). This distinction is seen in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Aaronic priests are described as receiving their priesthood by “descent,” whereas the Melchizedek priesthood is received by “ascent.” The author explains that Jesus “arises” (Barker notes that the original Greek denotes resurrection) “after the power of an endless life” (Heb 7:16).
Again, what Barker and the author of Hebrews are referring to is not just the resurrection of the body, but of the heavenly ascent, the return to the presence of God. Bodily resurrection is only a part, and not necessarily the most important part.
The legends of Enoch, which the Christians held dear, describe this aspect of the resurrection. Enoch, a high priest of the ancient patriarchal order, was taken up into Heaven, where he was transformed into a celestial/angelic figure. According to 2 Enoch 22:
- Enoch ascended to the Highest Heaven and stood before the Throne of God in the Heavenly Temple
- The archangel Michael removed Enoch’s earthly clothing, anointed him with oil (or “dew”), and clothed him in garments of divine glory
- As a result of this anointing and investiture, Enoch saw himself transformed into “one of the glorious ones” (2 Enoch 22:4-10)
The stories of Enoch express the belief that a mortal human being can be raised up to heaven, transformed/transfigured into a celestial being, and still return to Earth without tasting death. Enoch returned to Earth and lived among his people for a time before being taken back up to Heaven. As we learn from the Prophet Joseph Smith, he was able to prepare his whole city to be translated and taken up (Moses 7:21).
Being raised up to the presence of God and becoming transfigured into an angel was an important issue for the inhabitants of the Qumran community. Barker notes that although the date of 2 Enoch is uncertain, it is significant that many of the Dead Sea Scrolls express this same belief:
“May you be as an angel of the Presence…May you attend upon the service in the temple of the Kingdom” (The Blessings, 1QSb IV); “Thous hast cleansed a spirit of great sin. that it may stand with the host of the holy ones, and that it may enter into community with the congregation of the sons of heaven” (1 QH XI); “Thou hast purified a man of sin that he may be holy for thee. that he may partake of the lot of the holy ones” (1 QH XI); “I am reckoned with the ‘elohim and my glory is with the sons of the King” (4Q 491.11).
Another document, The Odes of Solomon, an early Christian document that James Charlesworth dates to the first or early second century A.D. (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 6, p. 114), contains very similar expressions:
The Lord renewed me with his garment/ And possessed me by his light/ … My eyes were enlightened,/ And my face received the dew/ and my sould was refreshed/ By the pleasant fragrance of the Lord (Ode 11:11, 14, 15)
I rested on the Spirit of the Lord/ And she lifted me up to heaven/ … [She] brought me before the face of the Lord …/ And he anointed me with his perfection/ And I became one of those who are near him (Ode 36.1, 3, 6).
Barker notes that this transformation, which she calls theosis, can be detected in Luke’s account of Jesus’ transfiguration:
As [Jesus] was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white…Now Peter and those who were with him were heavey with sleep, and when they wakened they saw his glory… (Luke 9: 29, 32).
Barker sees this as Jesus appearing to the apostles in his “resurrected” state before his death. For Latter-day Saints, I believe we would simply refer to this as a transfigured state, the state that one needs to be in to withstand the presence of God, and that when our bodies are resurrected we will have a different state, but I think Barker is not incorrect to make a connection between these states.
Back to Baptism: In the Name vs. Into the Name
We now return to the subject of baptism. Again, I don’t fully agree with Barker’s efforts to connect Christian baptism to the initiatory washing and anointings of the ancient priesthood, but I wish to post here some other important insights that she provides about baptism.
Barker analyzes an interesting dichotomy that exists in the New Testament when it speaks of baptism. She notes that the first Christians were baptized “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” according to the final words of Matthew’s gospel (Matt 28:19). The words “in the name of”, however, can be used when translating both the Greek phrases “in (en) the name of,” and “into (eis) the name of.” She suggests that baptizing “in the name of” likely has reference to the status of the person baptizing, while baptizing “into the name” is referring to the changing status of the individual being baptized.
Baptizing “in the Name”
The fact that an individual could baptize another “in the Name” can be explained by the concept found in Psalm 118:26, which Christians often used:
Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD!
Triumphal Entry
The Hebrew word used here is b’ , which can mean both “in” and also “as.” Thus, we are speaking of “baptizing in the Name” or “baptizing as the Name.” “In the name of” can also mean “as a representative of.” So, when one is baptizing “in the Name of,” they are most likely speaking of baptizing someone as a representative of/with the authority of the Name, or baptizing as the Name (as if they were the Name). The Name can be a title for Christ, and is similar to terms like the Word/Logos. Baptizing “in the name of the Lord” could mean “with the authority of the Lord” (p. 119).
Regarding this last interpretation, Barker notes:
When someone came b’shem, “in/with the name of” Yahweh, it meant more than simply coming as a representative, because the Davidic king, as we shall see, “was” the LORD (footnote: See below, p. 160). One of his titles was Immanuel, “God with us” (Isa 8:8). Sometimes the Name meant the LORD himself: “Behold, the Name of the LORD comes from far, burning with his anger and in thick rising smoke” (Isa 30:27). Sometimes the Name was “in” an angel, as when an angel guided Israel from Sinai: “my Name is in/within him” (Exod 33:14). The LORD was known to be a pluriform presence: those who had his Name had his presence and were his presence.”
I think Latter-day Saints can relate to this idea when we read passages like Doctrine and Covenants 1:38:
38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
Barker cites Josephus as he explains the story of the three men who appeared to Abraham at Mamre (Gen 18):
…[H]e did not mention Yahweh even though he had the same version of Genesis as we do. Josephus described three angels appearing to Abraham “and they declared they were angels of God” (Antiquities 1:196). This shows that an educated Palestinian Jew in the first century CE, coming from a high priestly family, thought of Yahweh as present in his angels. Josephus would also have declared as the fundamental of his faith: “The LORD our God (‘elohim, a plural noun) is One LORD” (Deut 6:4). The plurality of Yahweh was a Unity, but the plurality could be perceived and described as his angels. Coming “with the Name of the LORD” meant coming as his presence, one of his presences (p. 121).
As we have discussed, the high priest wore the Name of the LORD over his forehead, and so the LORD was present in him. The high priest was, with the Name, enabled to act as if he were Yahweh himself. The high priest wore the Name so that he could take upon himself any guilt in the sacrifices offered and thus cleanse them from their sins (Exod 28:38). According to Barker, this was a dangerous task, and the high priest warned that if he wore the Name “lightly” he would not be protected from the guilt that he bore. Barker argues that this is the original meaning of the commandment: “Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy God in vain/lightly” (Exod 20:7). This is something that modern priesthood holders should keep in mind.
For Christians, the baptizer had to have the proper authority. Tertullian, writing around 200 AD, commented: “The supreme right of giving baptism belongs to the high priest, that is, to the bishop, and then to presbyters and deacons with the bishop’s permission” (On Baptism 17).
Baptized “into the Name”
“Into (’eis) the Name” occurs in Matt 28:19, Acts 8:16, and in the Didache. Paul described baptism into Christ Jesus (Rom 6:3). Baptism transfers the convert into the body of Christ, the Church.
When the royal high priest was vested and anointed, he bcame an angel, a son of God (p. 123). Just as the high priest became a son of Yahweh, the person being baptized “into Christ” also became a son of Christ. They “put on Christ” and became integrated into his Body. They became a part of Him. Barker explains:
“Putting on Christ” was drawn from the imagery of vesting, and so being baptized “into the Name” implied that the new Christian became part of the Name, one of the ‘elohim that were the unity of the Lord (p. 124).
In this new unity, the convert now “cleaves” to the Lord, and the Lord is “bound” to the convert (p. 124-125). Just like the high priest who bore the Name was protected by it, so the baptized Christian is protected by virtue of the Name which he now bears.
3 Comments
Very insightful. Thank you for this. There is much more going on when we taken upon ourselves the name of Christ, as in the baptismal/sacrament covenant, than at first we might realize. These things are symbolic but also very literal at the same time. Particularly insightful is the commandment “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.” Excellent.
the ‘name’ can also mean THE VERY NATURE OF, or, THE CHARACTER OF.
Great insight, Lucy. I had never heard it expressed that way. Thanks!