BOOK REVIEW (BMCR):

Einar Thomassen (ed.), Canon and Canonicity. The Formation and Use of Scripture. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2010. Pp. 232. ISBN 9788763530279. $48.00. 

Reviewed by David J. DeVore, University of California, Berkeley

Table of Contents

As editor Thomassen’s preface states (p. 7), the volume under review is the fruit of “Highways and Byways,” a project based in Norway’s Bergen University; the stated aim of the project is to explore early Christian discourses distinguishing “orthodoxy” from “heresy.” The volume contains ten essays by seven scholars based in Scandinavia, two from Greece, and one in the United States. Seven essays focus at least partially on canons in the Roman world; the last three study biblical canons in northern Europe since the Renaissance and will not be considered here.

Interesting associations and questions surround the formation of the Christian (and Jewish) Biblical canons as they became fixed by the middle of the fifth century. During the twentieth century and into the current decade the field concentrated on gathering relevant evidence, and then reading that evidence closely to see which authors/communities accepted which texts as sacred and when, and how firm the boundaries were between sacred, acceptable, and condemned texts.1 While these works eradicated the previous teleological assumption that somehow the eventual New Testament texts were intrinsically more central to Christianity, their agenda also narrowed the scholarship to repeatedly addressing questions of dating and community. But scholars of canonization have begun to address two wider clusters of questions, approaches, and explanations for the canons.

First, discussion of the formation of the Christian canon had until very recently remained “internalist”: the diachronic formation and sanction of community’s collective norms were described and explained almost solely from evidence generated by that community, so that works on the biblical canons focused almost exclusively on testimonia from elite insiders. An “externalist” account, by contrast, will show how its subject relates to adjacent contemporary events, debates, and power structures, but is not likely to present the internal evidence for canonization exhaustively.2 Some scholars working on Jewish and Christian canonicity, notably Jan Assmann, Jed Wyrick, and collectively the 2004 collection edited by Enrico Norelli, have recently adduced evidence from outside the Jewish and Christian ambits for probing Jewish and Christian canonicity.3

The second domain into which canonization studies have recently ventured is theory: for exploring the establishment of a canon of authoritative texts, social and literary theory offer numerous concepts and questions, as well as comparable contexts from other times and places. For example, literary critics have been debating the significance of canonicity in reading and educational practices for decades, while students of historical memory have illuminated processes by which societies select particular memories and canonize mementos of them.4 The works of Assmann and Wyrick noted above, as well as the deconstructionist monograph of Giuseppe Veltri, have pushed canonization studies into this realm.5

To the credit of all contributors, the volume under review continues to theorize and externalize the methodologies for biblical canon studies. The results, though not of uniform quality, will nonetheless provoke plenty of new directions for research.

[...]

 As promised, here are the rest of the notes from Thomas Olmstead on A History of Heaven: The Singing Silence by Jeffrey Burton Russell. There is some really great information here regarding bodily resurrection, the state in which we return to heaven, and early Christian thought regarding intelligences.

Chapter three: The Heaven of the Early Christians.

            However monolithic Christianity may have looked to the Romans, the early Christians were in fact minimally organized, and only in the second century did the lines between orthodox and heterodox begin to be drawn.  The most important distinction was that between the majority of the Christian community and the Gnostics.  Christian Gnosticism, a powerful movement in the second century, departed sharply from majority belief on a number of central questions, especially on the nature of body and soul.  The Gnostics held the dualist belief that the material body is the evil prison of the soul, which must break free of matter in order to be saved.  (p.40)

The Christian notion of salvation derived directly and fully from the view expressed in the Hebrew Bible and the Mishnah.  Christianity continued to emphasize the salvation of the community and broadened it immensely by transforming the qehel, the saving remnant of Israel, into the ecclesia, the community of all believers in Christ, both Jew and gentile.  (p.41)

The salvation of the community does not mean that the individual is submerged;  witness the parable of the Dives (the rich man) and Lazarus and Christ’s promise to the good thief.  Rather, one joins with God and with the ecclesia in the communion of saints without losing one’s identity.  Individuality remains as an incandescence amidst the great glow of light.  (p.41)

The New Testament follows the Old Testament in viewing the human personality as a unit rather than separating it into soul, spirit, and body.  The entire human being is saved.  Yet the unavoidable fact that the body decays after death forced speculation along one of two paths:  if the whole person is saved, then salvation cannot occur until the whole person, body and soul, is reconstituted as the resurrection.  If, on the other hand, the person is saved at the time of death then the state of salvation must be a disembodied one.  There is little Jewish precedent and no New Testament support for this second option… (p.46)

The general resurrection is patterned on Christ’s, though he alone of humans is God.  Christ rose in a real body; he ate fish and let Thomas touch his wounds (Jn.20-21).  It was his own physical body, yet qualitatively changed from the body he was born with and even from his body at the Transfiguration.  It could appear quite different from his body in this life, for the disciples did not recognize him on the road to Emmaus.  In the overt sense, Christ’s body is the physical body of Jesus the carpenter…  The meaning of corporeality can be multiplied and expanded, but on no account can physical corporeality be subtracted.  Thus, our resurrected bodies, however different, are the physical bodies we are now.  It is these very bodies that become imperishable, incorruptible, and immune from illness, weakness, or blemish. (p.47)

…Justice Martyr (d.165) believed that soul at death cannot enjoy eternal life in heaven before the resurrection.  (p.54)

Irenaeus (second century) summed up the tradition as it was in his time.  All the blessed in heaven will see Christ, the glory of the communion of saints, and the renovation of the world.  They will dwell in their true home, where with Christ they enjoy eternal peace and comfort.  Paradise, the heavenly city, the celestial abode, and the reign of God come together at the endtime, when the Word of God restores the cosmos to himself.  We were originally created in Eden in God’s image and likeness, and the grace of the Holy Spirit will restore and further perfect that blessed state.  The image (imago) is the natural image of God intrinsic in every human soul; the likeness (similitude) is the potential, through grace of  becoming like him in eternal life.

Ireanaeus defended the psychosomatic integrity of the human being as unified body and soul against Gnostic belief that the soul is saved independent of the body.  The Holy Spirit grafts eternal and immutable life onto our earthly bodies, Changing them into spiritual bodies.  As Christ’s descended into the shadow of earth until the third day, so the souls of the just will pass an invisible place God has designated for them and there await the resurrection.  When at last we rise in our bodies, we will see God, and be taken unto him, for “those who see God are within God, sharing His glory” (Against Heresies, 4:40:5)… (p.55-56)

            Note:  Compare the above with the following from scriptures.

“For man is spirit.  The elements are eternal, and spirit and element inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy.  And when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy” (D&C 93:33–34).

“For the dead (who were in the spirit world) had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage” (D&C 93:50)

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be:  but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn.3:2).

“Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” (Phl. 3:21)

“And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many” (Matt.27:52-53).  

Chapter 4: Returning to God

            Tertullian (160-225) himself elsewhere insisted that bodies, however mutilated, will recover their perfect integrity in the resurrection.  If God does not raise the entire person, he cannot be said to raise the dead at all.  Wholeness and integrity entail lack of disease and deformity, and they ought also to entail the fulfillment of all our potentials, including parental, filial, and sexual love.   Without parental and filial love, and without love between the sexes, we could scarcely be whole.  Tertullian’s answer was to change the meaning of “body.”   We will lose nothing essential in our corporeal identity, and bodies will retain characteristics such as gender, but the function of these characteristics will change.  Every organ will have a function in heaven, though we cannot yet know what that will be” (p.67).

Note:  “The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame” (Alma 40:23)

            Tertullian fought the Gnostic belief that salvation was for souls who had shed the evil body.  He argued that the elect must wait for the resurrection to experience the beatific vision and fullness of joy.           

The great Greek fathers of Alexandria, Clement and Origen, firmly grounded in Scripture, were also influenced by Platonism and Stoicism.  Clement’s affirmation of the inconsistent doctrine of salvation of the soul and salvation of the body, typical of many fathers, also intensified the problem of the interim state.  Clement defined heaven as the place of state where the elect receive the vision of God, theoria, a kind of “seeing” or “understanding” that eventually surpasses knowledge.  It is neither Platonic nor Gnostic knowledge, but a divine gift of wisdom, nurtured and developed throughout a person’s life.  (p.69)

 Note.  “Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection-Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all me, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.  And then shall it come to pass, that the sprits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow” (Alma 40:11–12).

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-225) introduced the terms theosis and theopoiesis, “divinization,” which then passed through Athanasius (d.373)  and Gregory of Nyssa (340-95) to Eastern Christianity as a whole.  Both terms refer to the potential of every human being and of the Christian community in general to become divine, not in the impossible sense of participating in God’s essence, but in the sense of Jesus’ command to be perfected and Paul’s teaching that the saved are members of Christ’s body.  For Clement, the theosis is attained through wisdom.

 Note.  Irenaeus  maintained that our salvation would not have been secured unless it was God himself who accomplished it.

“And how shall man pass into God, if God had not been caused to pass into man?”

” The Logos of God, Jesus Christ our Lord… was made that which we are , in order that he might perfect us to be what he is.”  (See Keith E. Norman, Deification: the Content of Athansian Soteriology, p.13)

Clement is also noted for his stress on the pedagogical function of the Incarnation, and this shows up in his references to deification: 

“The Logos of God was made man in that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” (See Norman, p.15).

St Athanasius of Alexandria (295-373) also explained that

“God became man, so that we might be made gods.”  (See Jordan Vajda, OP, “Partakers of The Divine Nature, p.10)

 “Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my father; for which of those works do ye stone me?  The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said , Ye are gods” (John 10:32–34)

“God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods… I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High”  (Ps. 82:1–6).

“And it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection… and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, and all heights and depths…  then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall the be above all, because all things are subject unto them.  Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject to them”  (D&C 132:19–20).

 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue. Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises; that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Origen’s doctrine of creation in his work First Principles expresses his complex and sometimes inconsistent view of soul and body.  In the beginning, God created a number of intelligent beings, both equal and free.  After creating the intelligences, God created matter.  The intelligences all freely chose to depart from the divine unity, but in differing degrees, so that each sank as far away from God into matter as its choice dictated…

This universe that God has created departs from him, and it will return: once fallen, each intelligence embarks on a pilgrimage back to God.  Its progress back to God depends partly on its freedom and partly on providence.  Human souls. Like all the intelligences, are essentially immortal, since none can avoid returning to their divine source in God himself.  Still, the elect, those whom God chooses, are granted more than other creatures:  the fulfillment of their potential to know and love Christ is this world and the next.  Origen insisted that Christ’s redeeming sacrifice is necessary to salvation. (p.72)

Note.  “And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all” (Abram. 3:19)

“Now the Lord had shown un to me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;  And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good, and he said unto me:  Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born” (Abram. 3″22-23)

             When the intelligences are about to return to God, they regain their pristine purity.  But if that were all, there would seem no point in the whole process, nor would Christ’s Incarnation have any ultimate purpose.  Therefore Origen had to argue for a paradox: a return to an original state that when renewed is actually better than it was before.  The concept of reformation in melius, “a return to a better state,” appears in many cultures and institutions with historical consciousness, and it is a powerful motif in Christian thought.  The celestial paradise recapitulates the original paradise but in even greater goodness and glory. (p.76) 

Note.  “And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him; We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will made an earth whereon these may dwell;  And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;  And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their fist estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever” (Abram 3:24-26).

Intelligences

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992),, p.692

The word “intelligences” (plural) occurs frequently in LDS literature, having reference to the period of the premortal existence of mankind. The term has received two interpretations by writers within the Church: as the literal spirit children of Heavenly Parents and as individual entities existing prior to their spirit birth. Because latter-day revelation has not clarified the meaning of the term, a more precise interpretation is not possible at present.   

The scriptural source for the word “intelligences” is the book of Abraham 3:21–22. The Lord instructed the patriarch Abraham regarding the premortal experiences of all who have been or ever will be upon the earth. Among those events was the Council in Heaven, at which the Father’s Plan of Salvation for his children was discussed. Abraham wrote of this, “Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; …for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them” (Abr. 3:22–23). The Prophet Joseph Smith spoke of intelligences as follows: “God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them” (TPJS, p. 354).   

Concerning man’s premortal existence, the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith, “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29). “Intelligence,” as used here, is singular, and it is not clear from this passage if it refers to individual, conscious identity. As noted, Abraham referred to the spirit offspring of God as organized intelligences, apparently using the word “intelligences” to mean “spirits.” Church authorities have indicated that spirit birth was not the beginning. Spencer W. Kimball, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, wrote, “Our spirit matter was eternal and co-existent with God, but it was organized into spirit bodies by our Heavenly Father” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 5, Salt Lake City, 1969). Marion G. Romney, of the First Presidency, speaking of people’s divine origin as children of God, stated, “Through that birth process, self-existing intelligence was organized into individual spirit beings” (Ensign 8 [Nov. 1978]:14). Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, wrote:

Abraham used the name intelligences to apply to the spirit children of the Eternal Father. The intelligence or spirit element became intelligences after the spirits were born as individual entities (Abr. 3:22–24). Use of this name designates both the primal element from which the spirit offspring were created and also their inherited capacity to grow in grace, knowledge, power, and intelligence itself, until such intelligences, gaining the fulness of all things, become like their Father, the Supreme Intelligence [MD, p. 387].   

While the revelations leave no doubt as to the existence of intelligent matter prior to its being organized as spirits, speculation sometimes arises regarding the nature of premortal existence and whether there was individual identity and consciousness prior to birth as a spirit. Some hold that the terms “intelligence” and “intelligences” have reference to a form of prespirit conscious self-existence, which included individual identity, variety, and agency (so reasoned B. H. Roberts, pp. 401-423). Others maintain that while these characteristics, attributes, and conditions are eternal, they essentially came together for each individual at the spirit birth. The question of whether prespirit intelligence had individual identity and consciousness remains unanswered. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith gave this caution in 1936:

Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual [p. 10].   

No formal pronouncements have been made by the leading councils of the Church to clarify what additional meanings and attributes may be assigned to the word “intelligences,” beyond that which identifies intelligences as spirit children of God.

[See also First Estate; Intelligence; Premortal Life; Spirit Body.]   

Bibliography   

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992),, p.693

McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine, pp. 386-87. Salt Lake City, 1966.

Roberts, B. H. “Immortality of Man.” IE 10 (Apr. 1907):401-423.

Smith, Joseph Fielding. Progress of Man. Salt Lake City, 1936.

PAUL NOLAN HYDE   

Apparently baptism constituted a much larger role in ancient Israel than is readily apparent from the scriptures, although the form might have varied. 

The article from the Jewish Encyclopedia  [on baptism] is very interesting.

I pulled up Tvedtnes’ book on GospeLink, “The Church of the Old Testament,” and in it he said (pages 5-9):

Baptism, then, was nothing new in the time of Christ. In fact, this ancient ordinance was established in the days of Adam, as is evidenced in the Book of Moses, a revelation of great importance received by Joseph Smith in 1830:

“And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and 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.)

We find a vague reference to this event in 1 Adam & Eve, a pseudepigraphal work that exists in part in the Koran, the Talmud, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and old Greek and Ethiopic texts. In chapter 1, verses 2-5, of this work we read:

And to the north of the garden there is a sea of water, clear and pure to the taste, like unto nothing else; so that, through the clearness thereof, one may look into the depths of the earth. And when a man washes himself in it, becomes clean of the cleanness thereof, and white of its whiteness-even if he were dark. And God created that sea of His own pleasure, for He knew what would come of the man He should make; so that after he had left the garden, on account of his transgression, men should be born in the earth, from among whom righteous ones should die, whose souls God would raise at the last day; when they should return to their flesh; should bathe in the water of that sea, and all of them repent of their sins. But when God made Adam go out of the garden, He did not place him on the border of it northward, lest he should draw near to the sea of water, and he and Eve wash themselves in it, be cleansed from their sins, forget the transgression they had committed, and be no longer reminded of it in the thought of their punishment. (Rutherford H. Platt, The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, pp. 4-5.)

In chapters 32 and 33 of 1 Adam & Eve, we find a long account of how Adam and Eve went to the waters and stood in them and prayed God to forgive them of their sins. They were separated by quite some distance. Satan appeared to Adam, telling him to come out of the water, for his sins had been forgiven him. But Adam recognized Satan, though he appeared in the form of an angel of light. (See D&C 128:20.) Adam knew that forgiveness of his sins could not come until he had been immersed in the water, and he rebuked Satan, who went henceforth to tempt Eve. For her part, she was deceived by his masquerade as an angel, and she left the water to find Adam and tell him that their sins had been forgiven. When she came to where Adam was standing in the water, her husband realized that she had once again given in to temptation, and “he saw her, and smote upon his breast; and from the bitterness of his grief, he sank into the water. But God looked upon him and upon his misery, and upon his being about to breathe his last. And the Word of God came from heaven, raised him out of the water, and said unto him, ‘Go up the high bank to Eve.’” (Platt, p. 23.) It is possible that we have here a reference to the baptism of Adam, which the Lord explained to him in these words:

If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you.

And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden. (Moses 6:52–53.)

The descendants of Adam also received the ordinance of baptism and were permitted to become sons of God. This practice existed in the postdiluvian era as well, even among the Israelites:

Israel was admitted into covenant by three things; namely, circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt…. Baptism was in the wilderness before the giving of the Law, for it is said: ‘Thou shalt sanctify them…and let them wash their garments….’ So, whenever a Gentile desires to enter the Covenant of Israel and place himself under the wings of the Divine Majesty, and take the yoke of the Law upon him, he must be circumcised and baptized, and bring a sacrifice. (Origin of Jewish-Christian Baptism -Maimonides.)

This passage bears directly upon the baptism of Gentile Christians [author's note: in other words, Christian baptism was practiced in the same manner as Jewish baptism]; but it casts light also on the genesis of Jewish Christian baptism; for, apart from circumcision, the cases were largely parallel. Sinful Israelites, too, needed to re-enter the covenant in a deeper sense…so placing themselves ‘under the wings of the Shekinah’ for Baptism was practised in ancient Judaism, first as a means of penitence, as is learned from the story of Adam and Eve, who, in order to atone for their sin, stood up to the neck in the water, fasting and doing penance. (Jewish Encyclopedia 2:499.)

To receive the spirit of God, or to be permitted to stand in the presence of God (His Shekinah), man must undergo Baptism. (Ibid.)

This is precisely what Jesus said:

“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5.)

He was speaking to Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, who had come to him by night to ask concerning salvation. His response to Jesus’ statement was one of surprise: “Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” (John 3:9–10.) Jesus was evidently amazed at Nicodemus’s ignorance concerning the important subject of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. These ordinances existed long before Jesus, and it was to be expected that any learned Jew knew of them. Even present-day authorities admit the use of the ordinance of baptism in ancient days:

“Modern researches have shown positively that Judaism sent forth apostles….Sincerity of motive in the proselyte was insisted upon….from the law that proselyte and native Israelite should be treated alike (Numbers XV: 14 et seq.) the inference was drawn that circumcision, the bath of purification, and sacrifice were prerequisites for conversion.” (Jewish Encyclopedia 10:222.)

 

Ablutions in the temple of Jerusalem were also important to the Israelite community. This is especially significant to Latter-day Saints, for our modern temples are equipped with baptismal fonts resembling that of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:23–26; Jeremiah 52:20), i.e., normally on the backs of twelve oxen. The font in Solomon’s temple was called the “brazen sea.” We read that “the sea was for the priests to wash in.” (2 Chronicles 4:6.)

The word wash often served in the Old Testament text in the same manner as did baptize (from a Greek word, baptizo, to immerse) in the New Testament. We have already seen that Jewish scholars sometimes refer to baptism as the “bath of purification.” It was not merely skin-deep purification; it referred to the overt sign of an inward repentance on the part of the proselyte: “To sum up: as baptism had in Judaism come to mean purificatory consecration, with twofold reference-from an old state and to a new-so was it in Christianity. It denoted…the convert’s attitude towards his past sinful state with its ‘dead works,’ or towards God as sinned against-repentance…. The practical effect was remission of past sins.” (Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 2:377.)

“Christian baptism is of uncertain origin,” wrote Vergilius Ferm. “Possibly the baptism of Jewish proselytes furnished the model followed by the early Christian missionaries.” (Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 53.) Other scholars also see a Jewish origin in this New Testament ordinance:

The exhortations of this respectable messenger (John the Baptist) were not without effect; and those who, moved by his solemn admonitions, had formed the resolution of correcting their evil dispositions, and amending their lives, were initiated into the kingdom of the Redeemer by the ceremony of immersion, or baptism. Christ himself, before he began his ministry, desired to be solemnly baptized by John in the waters of Jordan, that he might not, in any point, neglect to answer the demands of the Jewish law. (Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, Cent. I, p. 27.)

According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism. (Jewish Encyclopedia 2:499.)

The only conception of Baptism at variance with Jewish ideas is displayed in the declaration of John, that the one who would come after him would not baptize with water, but with the Holy Ghost (Mark 1:8; John 1:27). Yet a faint resemblance to the notion is displayed in the belief expressed in the Talmud that the Holy Spirit could be drawn upon as water is drawn from a well (based on Isaiah 12:3; Yer. Suk. v. 1, 55a of Joshua b. Levi). And there is a somewhat Jewish tinge even to the prophecy of the evangelists Matthew (3:11) and Luke (3:16), who declare that Jesus will baptize with fire as well as with the Holy Ghost; for, according to Abbahu, true Baptism is performed with fire (Sanh. 39a). Both the statement of Abbahu and of the Evangelists must of course be taken metaphorically. (Ibid.)

Circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice, then, were necessary in order to enter the covenant of Israel. Circumcision, as we know, was declared by the apostles at Jerusalem to be unnecessary to salvation (Acts 15), for it had not existed from the beginning, but was a special covenant-token beginning with Abraham. Baptism, however, began with Adam, as we have seen, and is to exist for all men at all times; it is thus necessary for salvation. Sacrifice also began with Adam. Early portions of the Old Testament demonstrate the practice of sacrifice by Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:3–7), Noah (Genesis 8:20–21), and Abraham (Genesis 22:1–14). After the Exodus, Moses, his father-in-law Jethro, and Aaron and his sons sacrificed (Exodus 17:15; 18:12). Many altars were built in the wilderness by the Israelites for the purpose of offering sacrifices unto the Lord (Exodus 20:24–26; 24:4-8).

I thank Bryce for the great research he did on this topic and also to John Tvedtnes for his great insights on gospel ordinances in the Old Testament that he has passed on.  I do not believe that Margaret Barker would agree with some of these conclusions, as it was her purpose to show that Christian baptism was a restoration of the priestly initiation (washing and anointing).  However, as Latter-day Saints we believe that baptism has existed as an ordinance since the time of Adam and that it has been a requirement for entering the Kingdom of God in all dispensations.  So I will leave it to you, the reader, to sort out in your mind how it all works!

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.