Saturday afternoon I participated in a session regarding Teaching Philosophies, directed by BYU’s Taylor Halverson. This was a very helpful, practical presentation of ideas regarding how one should prepare him/herself to teach in a way that optimizes the students’ opportunities for learning. Patrick Egan of the University of St Andrews and Coleman Baker gave presentations explaining their thoughts on teaching philosophy and why one is needed, and then Dr Halverson gave a training on how to develop one of your own and evaluate those of others. It became apparent to me that many university hiring committees will not be interested in your application if you have not worked out an impressive teaching philosophy for yourself. After you have one, the real challenge is to be able to implement it.

Also on Saturday, I attended part of the session on “The KJV at 400: Assessing Its Genius as Bible Translation and Its Literary Influence.” I was interested in attending this session as the KJV is the translation of choice of the LDS Church, and because I am on the planning committee of a local celebration of the KJV’s anniversary.  Scot McKnight of North Park University presented on the theology and exegesis that was apparent in the work of the translation ordered by King James.  He pointed out how the KJV was based primarily on the earlier English “Bishop’s Bible”, a translation used by the Anglican church, preferred over other English translations such as the Calvinistic/Puritan “Geneva Bible.”  The KJV was a theologically conservative revision, but did not have a strong theological agenda.  David Trobisch then gave a paper on the KJV and the development of textual criticism.  Among other things, he emphasized the need for textual criticism due to factors such as the existence of nearly 6000 known manuscripts of the New Testament.  Between these manuscripts are found over 100,000 text variations. No two manuscripts are exactly the same! Modern translations of the NT are based on the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, which is by no means a critical text. And there have been more than 27 revisions of Nestle-Aland already!

Sunday afternoon, I went to the session on Christianity in Egypt to hear John Gee of BYU speak on “Egyptian Interpretations of Abraham.” Gee zoomed through his material at a rate that left outsiders to the field (me) at a loss for being able to take down the wonderful information he had to present. Gee noted that pre-Christian Egyptians latched on to the story of Abraham as early as the time of Ptolemy I, likely due to influence from Jews living in Egypt (Thebes). Early on, Abraham was identified with the figure of Osiris and the teaching of astronomy. Alexander Polyhistor quoted ancient Hellenistic Jewish historian Eupolemus as saying that Abraham invented astronomy and taught it to the Egyptians. The celebration of the death of Osiris and birth of his divine son, Horus, in the Egyptian month of Khoiak was later paralleled by the Christians in December with the celebration of the death of Abraham and the birth of Christ. Firmicus Maternus mentions a Book of Abraham that deals with astronomy. Epiphanius tells of the story of Abraham vs. the idols, where the Pharoah throws Abraham into a fire for his opposition to the Egyptian gods. Abraham is saved by God/an angel, and the rulers of foreign nations come to learn from him of the true God; he is exalted by Pharoah to a high position. The Egyptians preserved stories of Abraham and often equated him with Osiris.

On Monday evening I heard Matt Grey, an LDS PhD student at UNC-Chapel Hill, give a paper entitled “‘Epigraphical Rabbis’ and Epigraphical Priests: Using Inscriptions to Evaluate the Relationship between Priests and Rabbis in Late Antiquity.” The basic thrust of his paper was to show that there were still groups of Jewish priests that continued to exert influence on Jewish communities after the fall of the Temple (70 AD) and up into the Byzantine era. Apparently, the rabbinic movement did not fully extinguish the priestly circles. There is much evidence for the co-existence of rabbis and priests in Jewish communities for many centuries. In the catacombs of Beit Sahrim, there are rooms specifically set apart for the burial of priests and their families. There are just as present there as rabbis and have their own special space marked off in the tombs, whereas the rabbis are buried together with others. Byzantine synagogues have mosaics that show a priestly influence — inscriptions show that priests were actually present. The priestly class must have remained active even after the fall of the Temple.

I have not yet reported on the “Latter-day Saints and the Bible” sessions on Monday and Tuesday that I attended. I will save those for next time!

To be continued…(again!)

The Aqedah (“binding”) of Isaac was an important part of both early Jewish and early Christian understanding of God’s plan for mankind’s salvation. Although the biblical version of the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is told in a way in which the similarities to Christ’s atoning sacrifice are only subtle, many ancient traditions, including Jewish ones, present the story in a way that many very clear parallels are easily noticed. The biblical narrative makes this a trial of Abraham’s faith (Gen. 22:1), whereas a number of other ancient traditions make it clear that this was also a trial of Isaac’s faithfulness, and that he went knowingly and willingly to the altar to be offered as a vicarious sacrifice.

In the minds of the Book of Mormon prophets, the story of the Aqedah was clearly related to the atoning sacrifice of the only-begotten Son of God. See Jacob 4:5 (place your mouse pointer over the scripture reference to see text). Where did these people, who left Jerusalem in 600 BC, get this idea that Isaac was supposed to represent the Son of God? There is no such idea expressed in the biblical text as we have it.  All we have is a God who, for some reason, thinks it appropriate to test Abraham by asking him to kill his only son, through whom God had promised Abraham innumerable descendants.  In the biblical story, there is no parallel to be drawn between God and Abraham, and certainly no comparison between Isaac and any “Son” of God.  Any comparison between Isaac and Jesus has traditionally been considered a creation of the post-New Testament Christian imagination.

Even for early Christian exegetes, however, the connection between Isaac and Jesus, if one is reading the Masoretic version of the story, is a bit strained.  First of all, according to our text, Isaac was not sacrificed, but only nearly so. This doesn’t pose much of a problem for us, in hind-site, because we recognize in this God’s compassion by not requiring Abraham to actually kill his son, while God, on the other hand, had to suffer through his Son’s actual death.  However, the absence of the son’s sacrifice and the fact that it was not presented as serving to vicariously atone for the sins of the people to avert destruction disconnects it from the theology of the Day of Atonement, the Suffering Servant, and the events of the death of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, there was an ancient Israelite/Jewish tradition that the sacrificial animal was to be a “willing” sacrifice — if the animal did not go willingly up to the altar to be bound, it was a negative sign. In the Genesis version of the story, Abraham doesn’t even inform Isaac that he is going to be the sacrifice. When Isaac asks about the apparently absent sacrificial animal, Abraham declares that “God will provide himself a lamb” (Gen. 22:8) but does not indicate that the lamb would be Isaac. While Isaac does go up to the altar (on Mt. Moriah) carrying the wood for the burnt offering (which is a parallel to Christ carrying his cross), there is no indication that Isaac knows that he will be the sacrifice, and thus the image of him being a “willing sacrifice” is lost. In the New Testament, there is an emphasis on the fact that Jesus willingly offered himself as a sacrifice (see, e.g., Heb. 7:27).

Despite the lack of parallels between the Masoretic biblical text concerning the Aqedah and the early beliefs about Jesus as an atoning sacrifice, there were many Jewish traditions around the time of Christ that did see Isaac as having been an atoning sacrifice — one that worked vicariously to cleanse the sins of Israel and redeem them from destruction. Elements of the story that provide comparability to Christ’s sacrifice were not simply a Christian invention. In 22:16 of Genesis in the LXX we read: οὐκ ἐφείσω τοῦ υἱοῦ σου τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ — “you did not spare your beloved son.” “Beloved” was seen by the Jews who made that translation as the preferred understanding of “only son,” and carries stronger Davidic/Messianic force. We see that the NT writers were drawing on this meaning when God declares Jesus to be his “beloved Son.” According to M. Bredin:

The following distinctive elements [from Jewish tradition] are of particular importance for understanding Isaac as a faithful witness. (1) Isaac was informed of his role as a victim. (2) Isaac gave his consent and asked to be bound. (3) God would remember the binding of Isaac in favour of his descendants. (4) The Aqedah was associated with the site of the temple in Jewish tradition. (5) It was a source of inspiration and instruction. (6) It was associated with vicarious expiation. (7) Sacrifice was completed.¹

Many Rabbinic sources describe the sacrifice of Isaac as having atoning power and as being a willing sacrifice. I quote the following from Ginzberg’s Legends of the Jews, which, although not a primary source, is a fine amalgamation of Rabbinic tradition of interpretation combined into a nice narrative. Based on these traditions, Ginzberg rewrites Gen. 22 in the following manner:

And while they were walking along, Isaac spake unto his father, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where then is the lamb for a burnt offering before the Lord?” And Abraham answered Isaac, saying, “The Lord hath chosen thee, my son, for a perfect burnt offering, instead of the lamb.” And Isaac said unto his father, “I will do all that the Lord hath spoken to thee with joy and cheerfulness of heart.” And Abraham again said unto Isaac his son, “Is there in thy heart any thought or counsel concerning this which is not proper? Tell me, my son, I pray thee! O my son, conceal it not from me.” And Isaac answered, “As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is nothing in my heart to cause me to deviate either to the right or the left from the word that He hath spoken unto thee. Neither limb nor muscle hath moved or stirred on account of this, nor is there in my heart any thought or evil counsel concerning this. But I am joyful and cheerful of heart in this matter, and I say, Blessed is the Lord who has this day chosen me to be a burnt offering before Him.”

Abraham greatly rejoiced at the words of Isaac, and they went on and came together to that place that the Lord had spoken of. And Abraham approached to build the altar in that place, and Abraham did build, while Isaac handed him stones and mortar, until they finished erecting the altar. And Abraham took the wood and arranged it upon the altar, and he bound Isaac, to place him upon the wood which was upon the altar, to slay him for a burnt offering before the Lord. Isaac spake hereupon: “Father, make haste, bare thine arm, and bind my hands and feet securely, for I am a young man, but thirty-seven years of age, and thou art an old man. When I behold the slaughtering knife in thy hand, I may perchance begin to tremble at the sight and push against thee, for the desire unto life is bold. Also I may do myself an injury and make myself unfit to be sacrificed. I adjure thee, therefore, my father, make haste, execute the will of thy Creator, delay not. Turn up thy garment, gird thy loins, and after that thou hast slaughtered me, burn me unto fine ashes. Then gather the ashes, and bring them to Sarah, my mother, and place them in a casket in her chamber. At all hours, whenever she enters her chamber, she will remember her son Isaac and weep for him.”

And again Isaac spoke: “As soon as thou hast slaughtered me, and hast separated thyself from me, and returnest to Sarah my mother, and she asketh thee, Where is my son Isaac? what wilt thou answer her, and what will you two do in your old age?” Abraham answered, and said, “We know we can survive thee by a few days only. He who was our Comfort before thou wast born, will comfort us now and henceforth.”

After he had laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac on the altar, upon the wood, Abraham braced his arms, rolled up his garments, and leaned his knees upon Isaac with all his strength. And God, sitting upon His throne, high and exalted, saw how the hearts of the two were the same, and tears were rolling down from the eyes of Abraham upon Isaac, and from Isaac down upon the wood, so that it was submerged in tears. When Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son, God spoke to the angels: “Do you see how Abraham my friend proclaims the unity of My Name in the world? Had I hearkened unto you at the time of the creation of the world, when ye spake, What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that Thou visitest him? who would there have been to make known the unity of My Name in this world?” The angels then broke into loud weeping, and they exclaimed: “The highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceaseth, he hath broken the covenant. Where is the reward of Abraham, he who took the wayfarers into his house, gave them food and drink, and went with them to bring them on the way? The covenant is broken, whereof Thou didst speak to him, saying, ‘For in Isaac shall thy seed be called,’ and saying, ‘My covenant will I establish with Isaac,’ for the slaughtering knife is set upon his throat.”

The tears of the angels fell upon the knife, so that it could not cut Isaac’s throat, but from terror his soul escaped from him. Then God spoke to the archangel Michael, and said: “Why standest thou here? Let him not be slaughtered.” Without delay, Michael, anguish in his voice, cried out: “Abraham! Abraham! Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him!” Abraham made answer, and he said: “God did command me to slaughter Isaac, and thou dost command me not to slaughter him! The words of the Teacher and the words of the disciple—unto whose words doth one hearken?” Then Abraham heard it said: “By Myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed My voice.”

At once Abraham left off from Isaac, who returned to life, revived by the heavenly voice admonishing Abraham not to slaughter his son. Abraham loosed his bonds, and Isaac stood upon his feet, and spoke the benediction, “Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who quickenest the dead.”

Then spake Abraham to God, “Shall I go hence without having offered up a sacrifice?” Whereunto God replied, and said, “Lift up thine eyes, and behold the sacrifice behind thee.” And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and, behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket, which God had created in the twilight of Sabbath eve in the week of creation, and prepared since then as a burnt offering instead of Isaac. And the ram had been running toward Abraham, when Satan caught hold of him and entangled his horns in the thicket, that he might not advance to Abraham. And Abraham, seeing this, fetched him from the thicket, and brought him upon the altar as an offering in the place of his son Isaac. And Abraham sprinkled the blood of the ram upon the altar, and he exclaimed, and said, “This is instead of my son, and may this be considered as the blood of my son before the Lord.” And whatsoever Abraham did by the altar, he exclaimed, and said, “This is instead of my son, and may it be considered before the Lord in place of my son.” And God accepted the sacrifice of the ram, and it was accounted as though it had been Isaac.

As the creation of this ram had been extraordinary, so also was the use to which all parts of his carcass were put. Not one thing went to waste. The ashes of the parts burnt upon the altar formed the foundation of the inner altar, whereon the expiatory sacrifice was brought once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the day on which the offering of Isaac took place. Of the sinews of the ram, David made ten strings for his harp upon which he played. The skin served Elijah for his girdle, and of his two horns, the one was blown at the end of the revelation on Mount Sinai, and the other will be used to proclaim the end of the Exile, when the “great horn shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and they that were outcasts in the land of Egypt, and they shall worship the Lord in the holy mountain at Jerusalem.”²

These traditions convey the idea that Abraham informed Isaac that he was to be the sacrifice and that Isaac accepted this willingly and was even joyful that he had been chosen to be the offering. He encourages his father to be quick to obey the Lord. The idea that Isaac actually died and was resurrected is also presented, although there is an attempt to reconcile this with the biblical story that an angel impeded Abraham from actually performing the sacrifice. The ram that is ultimately sacrificed is meant to represent Isaac — the Lord had prepared the ram from the foundation of the world to be offered as a substitute for Isaac, and the sacrifice of the ram was understood to be a vicarious sacrifice of Isaac. We see in this the idea that when a ram was sacrificed on the altar of the temple in Jewish tradition, it was meant to represent someone else — Isaac, the beloved son. We are informed that the sacrifice of Isaac took place on the Day of Atonement, and was celebrated every year thereafter on that day.

While it is hard to know whether these traditions influenced Christianity or vice versa,³ we do see in the pre-Christian Book of Jubilees the association of the sacrifice of Isaac not with the Day of Atonement (as would be expected), but to the Passover (which is when Jesus died).⁴ Although, as Barker notes, the Passover had ties to covenant, the relation to Isaac’s sacrifice is not clear (especially if the Day of Atonement sacrifice was done in his memorial). In the Palestinian Targums, however, there is a clear link between the Creation, the covenant with Abraham, the Aqedah, and the end of the world when King Messiah would come.⁵ Why was the coming of the Messiah linked to Passover? It was most likely connected to the coming of the Lord to smite the children of Egypt at midnight in the Exodus story (Exod. 12:29). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. 22:14 has Abraham asking God to redeem his descendants based on the merits of Isaac’s sacrifice — “I beseech … when the children of Isaac my son enter into a time of distress, remember them and answer them and redeem them.” Exod. 12:13 could be seen as an answer to this prayer, when God promises, after the Israelites had marked their houses with blood, “When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you.” A Jewish tradition states that the blood that the Lord saw reminded him of the “blood of the binding of Isaac.”⁶.

Furthermore, as suggested above, there was the tradition that Isaac had actually died and been resurrected. As Barker notes, “Genesis does not say that Isaac returned with his father, only that Abraham returned to his waiting servants (Gen. 22:19), and one of the Palestinian Targums at this point says the angels on high took Isaac for three years.” She sees evidence for this view in the paintings of the Jewish Synagogue at Dura Europos (c. 244 AD), that depict the Aqedah, with an angel extending his hand from the “temple curtain” of heaven — which she interprets as signifying Isaac’s acceptance into heaven.⁷ A number of early Christian texts seem to suggest, as well, the view that Isaac was resurrected (Heb. 11:17, 19; Jas. 2:21; Barn. 7; 1 Clem. 31).  While, as stated previously, it is difficult to distinguish who influenced whom, and the evidence is heavily disputed, there seems to be some evidence for the view that Isaac was seen in pre-Christian times as a vicarious atoning sacrifice that was meant to redeem Israel, that his death was associated with the Day of Atonement, but also with the Passover and the coming of the Messiah.

It is natural that this should have been the view of Isaac’s sacrifice, as it is a very ancient idea. We see this pattern repeated over and over.  As we see in ancient tradition and in the Book of Abraham, Abraham himself was once in the position of Isaac, ready to be sacrificed on an altar. I don’t have time to go into here, but the ancient Israelite temple sacrifices do follow this same pattern. The animal laid upon the altar was supposed to represent the high priest himself being slain. The high priest then carried, symbolically, his own blood into the temple and then emerged with new life for himself and for his people.  The animal was killed in place of the high priest, just as the ram was killed instead of Isaac — the substitution was acceptable to God, but the real theological principle was that the beloved son was supposed to die. For the temple sacrifices it was the same — the high priest (the original actor here may have been the king) was supposed to be the son of God who was slain for the sins of his people.  The high priest, however, was really playing the role of another — in later Jewish tradition the original character was remembered to be Isaac–but the name that the high priest wore on his forehead was that of Yahweh. The high priest represented Yahweh, who was believed to sacrifice himself to redeem his people and subsequently be resurrected, bringing new life to all the Creation.  And, naturally, Yahweh was not the Father, but was the beloved Son who offered himself willingly at his Father’s request.

1. Bredin, M. (2003). Jesus, Revolutionary of Peace: A Nonviolent Christology in the Book of Revelation (84–89). Milton Keynes: Paternoster.
2. Ginzberg, L., Szold, H., & Radin, P. (2003). Legends of the Jews (2nd ed.) (228–230). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
3. See Margaret Barker, Temple Themes in Christian Worship, 27.
4. Jub. 17:15-18:3
5. See Barker, p. 26
6. Mekhilta on Exod. 12:13. See Barker, 27
7. Ibid., 27-28

In my last post, on (LDS) Old Testament Lesson 8, I speculated that perhaps, as a way of mediating the problem of Abraham’s angelic visitors performing physical acts (eating, getting their feet washed), we should consider the possibility that they were translated beings, who, as Joseph Smith taught, could be called as “ministering angels.” I wanted to expound further on this idea.

Before I continue, I would like to add to the discussion the fact, as was recalled to my attention by my friend Pierre Arnaudin, that the author of Hebrews seems to refer to Abraham’s visitors when he says that “some have entertained angels unawares” (Heb. 13:2).  If this is indeed one of the episodes he is thinking of, this is quite an authoritative statement that Abraham’s visitors were angels.  We should take into account, however, that the author was likely reading from the Greek, which would have read aggelos in Gen. 19, a word which, as we discussed, does not distinguish between human and divine “messengers.” It is interesting to note that in the LDS edition of the Bible, footnote c (on the word “angels”) to Heb. 13:2 refers readers to the subject “Translated Beings” in the topical guide!

Anyways, as we were studying chapter 18 in Sunday School this last Sunday, it struck me that there were a number of other passages in Gen. 18 that could be seen as supporting this idea that the three visitors, including even the one addressed as the Lord, were translated beings.  First of all, there are the “physical activities” they engage in, that I discussed in my last post: such as letting their feet be washed, eating, etc. These actions are performed only by mortals, translated beings, and resurrected beings — and not by spirits, as the resurrected Jesus informed his apostles (Luke 24:39).

We also have the idea that Abraham seemed to recognize that they were important people, but not (acc. to Heb. 13:2) that they were angels (as in spiritual beings). D&C 129:6–7 indicates that an angel who is a spirit and not a resurrected being can only appear in glory (which would have been clearly recognizable to Abraham) and will not perform physical acts. Therefore, Abraham’s visitors could not be spirits, nor could they be resurrected beings (for reasons discussed in my last post–they were pre-Christ).

This next factor is only speculation, as there could be a number of other explanations for the issue I will discuss. However, the sequence where the “Lord” begins to discuss with Abraham the state of Sodom and Gomorrah does seem to suggest that he is possibly not God.

In Gen. 18:20–21, the Lord says to Abraham:

Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

I realize that this could very well be due to the literary style in which this narrative was written, but it does seem here that the Lord has only heard of the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah, and does not know of himself (as one might imagine God would) of the veracity of such claims. He says that he must “go down” to those cities to see if what he has heard is correct. If the speaker is a translated being, such as Melchizedek, this dialogue makes sense — whereas it doesn’t seem fitting for God to say these things.

Directly after this sequence is that of Abraham’s pleading with the Lord to not destroy the cities if fifty, forty-five, thirty, etc., righteous people are found there. Why do Abraham and the Lord go through this process — wouldn’t God be able to tell Abraham exactly how many righteous people there were in the city? We does he have to go see if there are ten good people there, and if there are, he’ll change his mind? Again, this issue may be due to the literary style of the author, but as it stands it is quite peculiar.

One last point on this note — I want to look at Gen. 19:24, where it says:

Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

Doesn’t this verse seem to indicate that there was someone on the earth that was called “the Lord” that was not the same as the Lord that was in heaven? Again, I must add that this could be a literary tool used to emphasize the idea that the fire and brimstone were coming from heaven, but otherwise it does seem to speak of two Lords.¹ There seems to be one Lord who calls upon another heavenly Lord to rain fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah. This supports the idea that there is an authoritative figure on the earth that the scripture is calling Lord, but his authority and power are only borrowed from the heavenly Lord.

I connect this idea now to our hypothesis that it is possibly Melchizedek (perhaps now a translated being) that is visiting Abraham and being called Lord. Gerald Smith of Joel’s Monastery made the following comment on my last post:

Melchizedek is equated to both El Elyon and Yahweh in ancient tradition (e.g., 11QMelchizedek). Since the mortal Melchizedek represented God, imagine how a translated Melchizedek would equal God!
In his journal, George Laub said that Joseph Smith explained that Enoch’s City was still visible during the time of the Tower, and that Nimrod built the tower to overthrow Heaven/Enoch’s City, and to toss out God – we should realize that the god of Zion was Enoch/Metatron! And when Melchizedek was translated with his people, he also became god incarnate (note the little ‘g’). They both represented El and Yahweh through Divine Investiture, and so when Abraham saw the Lord, he could easily have seen Melchizedek as Lord.

Is it possible that whenever the Lord is mentioned in Gen. 18, we should imagine that it is Melchizedek that is present? Could later bible editors have replaced references to Melchizedek with the name YHWH in these passages (unless YHWH was originally understood here to refer to Melchizedek). As Gerald mentions and as scholars such as Jim Davila and Margaret Barker have argued, Melchizedek was considered an angelic figure and even a god, not only in later Judaism, but likely in the First Temple period as well (perhaps especially in this period). The more I learn about the development of the biblical text, the more convinced I am of the likelihood that later editors could have altered the original text they had to cover up such notions that they didn’t agree with theologically. Thus, an idea such as this–that Melchizedek could have been seen as representing the Lord– is quite unprecedented in the Hebrew Bible, although it does come through in occasional passages such as Ps. 45:6 (where the king seems to referred to as “God”), and Ps. 110 (where the king is addressed as “my Lord”).  The view that the king (including Melchizedek) was the representative of Yahweh, the “presence” of God on earth, is a recognized part of the ancient Israelite kingship ideology.

While some scholars (like Barker), following Christian tradition, see Melchizedek as a pre-mortal theophany of Christ, I think it makes just as much sense to place him in the context of this kingship ideology of the First Temple.  While Barker argues extensively for the “deification” of the Israelite kings and for the idea that they were the “incarnation” of Yahweh, why argue that Melchizedek was pre-Incarnation manifestation of Jesus? He could have just as easily been a mortal king who was believed to have been “deified” like the others. Personally, I have always liked the later Jewish idea² that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah.  ”Melchizedek” should be seen as a title, meaning “King of Righteousness” or something similar. According to Jewish tradition (according to Wikipedia!), Shem was the founder of Jerusalem, and so was likely seen as the first priest-king of that city.  Scholars generally consider Melchizedek to have been a Jebusite king, as the Jebusites were the inhabitants of Jerusalem before the time of David, but to me, that conclusion is founded on the fact that we don’t know exactly who was there before the Jebusites and that the existence of the biblical character Shem (along with the other patriarchs) is not taken to be historical fact.  To me, if we take the biblical narrative seriously, it doesn’t make sense to conclude that the Davidic monarchy would follow the example of Melchizedek so closely if they saw him as merely a great Jebusite (pagan) king.

Anyways, these are fun topics to muse about, but please don’t hold me to any of these conclusions! This is a very complex and muddy topic and one upon which we can only speculate — even Joseph Smith generally avoided pinning Melchizedek down to a specific historical individual.

——————————————–

As I mentioned in the beginning, I wanted to also post here some further online resources for your study of the Old Testament that I hope you’ll find useful.

I’m sure I’ve pointed this out before, but I’ve been following the adventures of BYU Professor William Hamblin as he has been living and teaching in Jerusalem for the past several months. Dr. Hamblin has done a wonderful job of taking pictures and making videos of a number of the sites he has visited with his students, and has been so gracious as to share these with us.  They are produced with and provided through the most recent technologies, making them a real treat for the eyes. These images can help you get a better feel for the places and culture of the Old Testament.

You can see his videos at his YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/HamblinOfJerusalem

(please notice especially his new series of commentaries on the text of the Bible)

Check out his most recent photos at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hamblinofjerusalem/

See also these incredible, state-of-the-art gigapans, including amazing photos of the Temple Mount that you can zoom in on: http://gigapan.org/profiles/21252/

For all his latest news and updates, check out his Hamblin of Jerusalem blog at: http://hamblinofjerusalem.blogspot.com/

1. Margaret Barker, in her book The Great Angel, uses this verse (among others) as evidence that there were two Yahwehs–the Father and the Son.
2. see e.g., B. Talmud Nedarim 32b; Genesis Rabbah 46:7; Genesis Rabbah 56:10; Leviticus Rabbah 25:6; Numbers Rabbah 4:8

But before I get into that, I want to point out that the blog Joel’s Monastery (which I’ve mentioned  here recently) has a great in-depth commentary on the scriptural passages covered in this Old Testament Lesson #8.  He does a good job of covering the material for the entire lesson, including a treatment of the Melchizedek tradition that is quite comprehensive.  My post is necessarily more limited, but, if you would like, please see some of my previous posts on Melchizedek as well:

Melchizedek: Priest, King, and God

Joseph Smith and the Genealogy of Melchizedek

Back to the question of who visited Abraham — we are specifically told in Gen. 18:1 that the Lord (YHWH) appeared to him (Abraham) near the trees/oaks of Mamre.  The Hebrew makes it perfectly clear that Yahweh himself appeared, at least at some point in the story. The Greek translators confirm, albeit somewhat more generically, that it was God (ho theos) that appeared.

This seemingly random appearance of Yahweh to Abraham was not an isolated occurrence. God had appeared to him a number of times previously (see Gen. 12:7; Gen. 17:1–3, 22).  These theophanies are not described with any detail, but relate in a rather nonchalant, non-spectacular fashion the idea that Yahweh descended from heaven to speak with Abraham (and then “went up” from him, Gen. 17:22).

So, in chapter 18, we are informed of another appearance of Yahweh to Abraham.  Many commentators make a point distinguish this appearance from that of chapter 17.  The open (blank) space in the Hebrew text between the two chapters is an indicator that we are starting a new, unrelated narrative.  Some commentators identify this first clause of verse 1 as an introduction to the following chapters, which are characterized by their narrative of divine contact with mortals.  Although this may indicate that we should understand this line apart from the following verses — that perhaps this is just the “heading” and not the actual beginning of the story–we will have to answer more questions before coming to any conclusion.

After these words of introduction, we are told that Abraham, while sitting in his tent, looks up and beheld three “men” approaching. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek call them “angels” here, but use common words for mortal men.  However, in the next chapter, Gen. 19:1, two of the “men” are called angels (or “messengers”, in both Hebrew and Greek). If two of them leave for Sodom, then apparently the third is left behind. The way the narrative comes to us, the third visitor would seem to be the Lord, who is left by the other two and remains speaking to Abraham in the last part of chapter 18.

Many early Christians believed that this was an appearance of the Son of God with two angels.  Many argued in their apologetics (see, e.g. Justin’s dialogue with Trypho) that this must have been a pre-mortal appearance of Jesus Christ, since they believed that the Father did not visit people in this way.

Augustine expressed the popular belief that the three men were the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

But under the oak at Mamre he saw three men, whom he invited, and hospitably received, and ministered to them as they feasted. Yet Scripture at the beginning of that narrative does not say, three men appeared to him, but, “The Lord appeared to him.” And then, setting forth in due order after what manner the Lord appeared to him, it has added the account of the three men, whom Abraham invites to his hospitality in the plural number, and afterwards speaks to them in the singular number as one; and as one He promises him a son by Sara, viz. the one whom the Scripture calls Lord, as in the beginning of the same narrative, “The Lord,” it says, “appeared to Abraham.” He invites them then, and washes their feet, and leads them forth at their departure, as though they were men; but he speaks as with the Lord God, whether when a son is promised to him, or when the destruction is shown to him that was impending over Sodom.¹⁸

Interestingly, despite Joseph Smith’s apparent belief to the contrary, we also find this assumption expressed by some LDS Church leaders.  For example, Brigham Young stated, using the Lord’s visit to Abraham as an example of thes corporeality of God:

He conversed with His children, as in the case of Moses at the fiery bush, and with Abraham on the plains of Mamre. He also ate and drank with Abraham and others. That is the God the “Mormons” believe in, but their very religious Christian brethren do not believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which is the God the Bible sets forth, as an organized corporeal being.¹

More recently, Elder Mark E. Peterson, in his commentary on the three visitors at Mamre in Abraham: Friend of God, has no qualms about identifying the three men as the Lord and two angels.

The difficulty, then, is in determining how these three, if they were the Lord (Jesus/Jehovah) and his angels, could sit with Abraham and participate in physical activities, such as eating. The principal theory that I have seen among Christians is the idea that when a spirit personage (who is normally invisible) becomes visible, he necessarily takes on material qualities in order to do so.  Although only temporarily, the heavenly being would then have a “physical” body and would be able to perform “physical” actions. This temporary transformation from spiritual to physical, according to this theory, is also displayed at Jesus’ baptism when the Holy Spirit becomes a dove (literally). This is the most common explanation that I have seen for these difficult passages in the Bible that portray heavenly beings as being able to manipulate material objects and the like.

Despite the above quotations from Brigham Young and Mark E. Peterson, this explanation doesn’t generally sit well with the LDS understanding of the nature of spiritual beings. The best known treatment of the corporeality of angelic beings is D&C 129:

1 THERE are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—

2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.

4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.

5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.

6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—

7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.

8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.

9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.

Now there are a number of complex issues presented here which are difficult to interpret — for example, why exactly would it be a deception for a righteous spirit to try to give you his hand to shake? Likewise, if the devil knows he is only a spirit, why would he be silly enough to give his hand to you to shake? Why wouldn’t he just refuse to move like the righteous angel? It seems to me that that would be a better deception!  Anyways, the point is that Joseph Smith taught that angels can have physical bodies, but only when they are resurrected (in this case their physical nature would be permanent, not temporary). The key example is that of the resurrected Christ when he differentiates between himself and spirits by explaining that a spirit would not have a physical body as he does (Luke 24:39). The resurrected Jesus, a divine being, could touch and be touched, eat and drink, etc.

So from this we can understand that, in the LDS perspective as well, angels can often be depicted as performing physical acts.  The only catch here is that Joseph Smith was describing the nature of angels as resurrected beings — a quality that they could have only after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who was the “firstfruits of the resurrection” (1 Cor. 15:20). The angels depicted in Genesis 18 and 19, then, according to this perspective, could not have been resurrected beings and could not, therefore, have resurrected, physical bodies.

A popular opinion among LDS is that the three men were angels, but in the sense of messengers of God, and that they were mortal messengers, not divine.  This idea is expressed well here:

Who then were Abraham’s three visitors at his encampment? They are not designated by name, but it is apparent that they were messengers sent by the Lord. I venture to express an opinion—an inference only for which I am personally and alone responsible—that the probabilities point to the great high priest, Melchizedek, and two associates who may have stood with him in the capacity of counselors.

The three beings in question were in all probability not “angels” but righteous men. The Hebrew says that three men, instead of three angels, visited Abraham. As for the title, Lords, it comes from adhon meaning Lord, a title of honor for men. The word Yhwh or Jehovah, which is often translated Lord (God) is not used to designate the three messengers.

The “Inspired Scriptures” states that “three men” visited Abraham and that he addressed them as “my brethren.” The Prophet Joseph undoubtedly wrote angel in the text with the meaning of messenger in mind; since angel in the English, Greek, or Hebrew means messenger. Especially is this true in this instance. The idea of mortal messengers is further substantiated in Genesis 18:23. (Inspired Revision.)

And the angels which were holy men, and were sent forth after the order of God, [meaning the "Holy Priesthood, after the order of God"] turned their faces from thence and went toward Sodom.

If one substitutes the word messenger for angel in the Inspired Scriptures, he will find the principal difficulty in use of the names cleared up.

It is, therefore, highly probable that the three men who came to Abraham and partook of his hospitality were three servants of God to whom he revealed his will concerning the people. Furthermore, it is possible that this was Melchizedek who was called the great “high priest” because he presided over the Holy Priesthood as President of the Church in that day.²

Here we have the idea that the angels (at least two of the three men) were mortals, priesthood bearers who wielded the power and authority of God.  The suggestion that the messengers were Melchizedek and his two councilors is an attractive proposition.  That Melchizedek and fellow priests could have been recognized as representatives of Yahweh and also as angels is supported by recent research of scholars such as Margaret Barker, Crispin Fletcher-Louis, James Davila, C.T.R. Hayward, and others.  It is well established that the high priest (king) in ancient Israelite religion was seen as representing Yahweh in the rituals of the temple and that the other priests were understood to be angels performing the heavenly liturgy.

The other important point brought out by the inspired revisions of Joseph Smith, as discussed above, is the idea that angels (as the men are called in Gen. 19:1) were messengers, and that “holy men” could be “angels” just as divine beings could be.  The Hebrew for messenger, malakh (which is rendered in Greek aggelos and is the basis for our word “angel”) could be used for both mortal and heavenly messengers.³ The argument that the men who visited Abraham were important humans of a priestly status sent by God is not a weak one. It would explain how they could be seen as participating in physical acts in chapter 18 and in the very “human” sequences of chapter 19.  It would also explain why they are referred to as “men” (although divine angels are also sometimes referred to as “men”).

But wasn’t one of them the Lord Yahweh? From Gen. 18:1 and later on in that chapter, it clearly states that Yahweh is talking to Abraham.  While this very well could have been Melchizedek or another representative of Yahweh authorized to speak in his name, we would have to be reading something into the text that isn’t there in order to interpret it in that way.  One possible interpretation is to say that Yahweh did visit Abraham at this time, but that he was not one of the three men — he was either speaking from heaven, or his visit to Abraham is not to be associated with the visit of the three men at all (perhaps it took place after the men left). Although the English translation of Gen. 18:3 seems to indicate that Abraham is addressing the three men (or at least one of them) as “my Lord,” the Hebrew does not use the name of God (YHWH), which is standardly rendered as “LORD” in our scriptures, but uses adonai, which, although it is often used to refer to God, can almost as often be found in the Bible used as a term of respect for a human being.  The Joseph Smith Translation amends “my Lord” to “my brethren.” Furthermore, the JST seems to consider all three visitors to be mortal messengers, as we see in the revision of Gen. 19:1 (“three angels” instead of “two angels”). Therefore, Abraham’s conversation with the Lord about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah at the end of chapter 18 would seem to indicate that the Lord is appearing to Abraham here separately, apart from the three messengers.

Before concluding, I would offer one more possible explanation (without necessarily endorsing it as the correct one).  There may be a middle argument that we can fit in between the uncomfortable discrepancy between the popular LDS idea that these were mortal messengers and the traditional Christian position that they were heavenly angels.  Again, I’m not suggesting that this is the correct interpretation, but but I would just offer it as a fun bit of speculation.  We are taught that a number of mortal men had been “translated”, as were Elijah and Moses, long before the time of Abraham. “Translation” consists of an intermediate stage between mortal life and full resurrection — in effect, a change is made to the individual so that the physical body is preserved and his life prolonged, so that he may continue serving the Lord long after he naturally should have died. Translated beings, although they are not resurrected yet, still possess a physical body.  From the teachings of Joseph Smith we are informed that not only Enoch, but his whole city were translated.  It may even be possible to derive, from the JST of Genesis 14 the idea that Melchizedek and his followers, by virtue of the Priesthood, had also (at some point) been translated:

Joseph Smith taught that these translated beings were often called to be “ministering angels”

Many have supposed that the doctrine of translation was a doctrine whereby men were taken immediately into the presence of God, and into an eternal fullness, but this is a mistaken idea. Their place of habitation is that of the terrestrial order, and a place prepared for such characters He held in reserve to be ministering angels unto many planets, and who as yet have not entered into so great a fullness as those who are resurrected from the dead.⁴

If we take these ideas into account, then it is possible that Abraham’s visitors could have been translated beings serving as angels of God.  If I understand the nature of translated beings correctly, they would have had the normal appearance of men and have been able to perform physical activities such as those described in these chapters, but also would have been recognized as angels sent by God.  If Melchizedek and some of his fellows had already been translated by this time, then it is certainly plausible that they could have been the highly honored visitors that Abraham so graciously welcomed to his tent.

While, again, this is just speculation, I believe that this makes more logical and theological sense than trying to explain how spiritual beings simply “materialize” when the come into the mortal realm.  I guess when you believe in creation ex-nihilo, such a feat (coming up with a physical body out of nowhere, only to have it subsequently disappear into oblivion) is not so odd to believe, but that is not the LDS understanding of the nature of matter and of the way spiritual beings interact with the material world.

1. A DISCOURSE DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT B. YOUNG, IN THE TABERNACLE, GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, JULY 24, 1853. Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, 238. Accessed online at  http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/1/35
2. Oscar W. McConkie, Angels
3. Under “Angels” in the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, we read: The most common of these functional terms is maLāk, “messenger, envoy.” It is from the translation of maLāk in the LXX (Gk aggelos) that the English word “angel” derives. As terms denoting functions, both aggelos and maLāk can refer equally to human or angelic beings. Consequently, there are occasionally passages in which it remains disputed whether the reference is to a heavenly being or a human one (see Judg 2:1; Mal 3:1). It was only with the Vulgate that a systematic distinction was made between angelic emissaries (Lat angelus) and human ones (Lat nuntius). Freedman, D. N. (1996). The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
4. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 170

I return now to my overview/commentary on Instructions for the Netherworld: The Orphic Gold Tablets by Alberto Bernabé and Ana Isabel Jiménez San Cristóbal (Brill: 2008). If you missed my first few posts on this topic, you can see them here: First, Second, Third, and Fourth.

One of the key features of the inscriptions found on these gold plates is the expression of the desire of the deceased to obtain a crown at the end of their long journey in the Netherworld.  On one tablet we find this phrase, a form of which is common to many of the inscriptions:

I launched myself with agile feet after the longed-for crown.¹

The Greek term used here is στεφανος (stéphanos), which is commonly translated as “crown”.  Interestingly, although I would have thought the answer would be quite straightforward, scholars have debated what kind of crown we are dealing with here, and what its meaning is in the religious context of these texts (p. 122). A number of theories have been offered:

• That the “crown” was a given place in the Netherworld that the deceased was trying to reach. Because stéphanos can mean “a crown of fortifications”, the theory was that the term was used to refer to some sort of fence that encircled the kingdom of Persephone, or the dwelling of the blessed. This theory is improbable due to the lack of any description of such a fence in any Orphic or Greek myths.
• Another similar theory is that crown refers to a cycle or “orbit” that the deceased enters into after death — an astral cycle as opposed to the earthly cycle of life that one must endure until freed from it by following the correct path in the afterlife.  This theory, however, is also unacceptable because there is no mention anywhere in the tablets of an astral or heavenly part of the afterlife experience–it all takes place in the Underworld of the Earth itself.
• The third theory mentioned is perhaps the simplest, but most logical: that the term crown should be taken literally to mean a physical crown that is placed on the head.  There is much precedence in Greek culture and religion for the use of crowns, both for the living and for the dead.

It is this third theory that the authors argue for and which we will discuss here.  In Greek culture, literal/physical crowns were used in banquets, funerary rites, triumph in athletic competitions, certain rituals, and in many mystical symbols (p. 123).

It is a significant insight into the Greek understanding of the afterlife that it was their tradition to place crowns on the heads of deserving deceased at their burial (pp. 123-4).  It was believed that doing so represented the soul of the blessed being crowned and adorned with garlands in the Beyond. It was a symbol of the believer’s victory after a lifetime of struggle.

The wearing of crowns at banquets symbolized the glorious banquet at which the just will be seated for Eternity.

Crowns were also used in the rites of the mystery cults, used to identify those who had been initiated.  According to Harpocration:

Those who carry out the Bacchic rites crown themselves with white poplar because the tree is chthonic (of the Underworld), and Dionysus, son of Persephone, is chthonic.

If I understand this correctly, initiates would wear a crown of white poplar (or either myrtle or ivy) because this tree represented the Tree of Life–they would wear a crown of the branches  of the Tree of Life, symbolizing their victory over death.  Similar to the athlete who is crowned after winning the race, the initiates are rewarded, having ensured for themselves immortal glory in the Beyond.

A certain philosopher, Theo of Smyrna, described the stages of an initiatory ritual that consisted of:

• Purification
• The performance of a ritual
• Contemplation
• The initiate’s coronation

It was claimed that this ritual was supposed to produce a state of great happiness in the initiate (p. 128).

Another important part of these coronation rituals (and this relates to my earlier post on the nurturing Mother Goddess) included what seems to be a symbolic return into the womb of the Mother Goddess.  If understood in this context, such phrases found in the tablets as the following become meaningful:

I plunged beneath the lap of my lady, the subterranean queen.

The initiate re-enters the goddess’ womb in order to be reborn as a god (p. 131).  Then the phrase, which I have previously cited — “A ram, you fell into the milk”–can be interpreted as the the “newly-born” initiate becoming a nursling of the goddess’ milk.  This process is common to many ancient rituals and myths (p. 131).  After having been born of a mortal mother’s womb, the individual is eventually received at his death by the womb of Mother Earth (here Persephone), from which he is reborn, but to a new, higher, and divine life.  He is resurrected and becomes a god. All this is done in imitation of a god who once went through the same process of death and rebirth.

Of course this is all familiar territory for Christians. Just as Christ died and was reborn, and then crowned with glory, the same is promised to each faithful Christian “initiate” (Heb. 2:9; 1 Cor. 9:25; 1 Thes. 2:19; 2 Tim. 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 2:10).

Moving further back in time, we see that the granting of crowns in the afterlife was a common feature in many Jewish apocalyptic and ascension texts.  Ezekiel the Tragedian, apparently a Jew who wrote a Hellenistic-style play called Exagoge (Exodus), depicted Moses as ascending to heaven, and there being crowned and seated on a throne.  Similar traditions exist for Abraham, Enoch, and many other visionary figures.

In the Old Testament, while the kings obviously underwent a very similar coronation, the chief priest was also to wear a “holy crown” (Exo. 29:6).  When the priest (or king) wore the crown that bore the sacred name of YHWH, he was seen as representing the Lord who would die as a sacrifice, whose blood would be taken into the Temple, and who would emerge with new life.

Image source: http://www.templeinstitute.org/vessels_gallery_15.htm

For Latter-day Saints, the crown is an oft-repeated motif, especially in the Doctrine and Covenants. The crown is explicitly linked to the rituals of the Temple. For example, in D&C 124:55, the Lord makes the saints the following promise:

And again, verily I say unto you, I command you again to build a house to my name, even in this place, that you may prove yourselves unto me that ye are faithful in all things whatsoever I command you, that I may bless you, and crown you with honor, immortality, and eternal life.

What is figurative in ritual will one day be a reality, as indicated in D&C 29:12–13:

12 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, and it hath gone forth in a firm decree, by the will of the Father, that mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire, being clothed with robes of righteousness, with crowns upon their heads, in glory even as I am, to judge the whole house of Israel, even as many as have loved me and kept my commandments, and none else.

13 For a trump shall sound both long and loud, even as upon Mount Sinai, and all the earth shall quake, and they shall come forth—yea, even the dead which died in me, to receive a crown of righteousness, and to be clothed upon, even as I am, to be with me, that we may be one.

The “longed-for crown” is the crown of the dying and resurrecting God who invites his mortal followers to follow him and likewise be rewarded with great honor, immortal glory, eternal life, and heavenly kingdoms (D&C 75:5; 78:15).

1. From L 9, 6 as cited in Bernabé and San Cristóbal, p. 121