Isaiah Chapter 25

This chapter begins like many of the psalms, praising the Lord for the great salvific deeds he has performed for the redemption of the house of Israel.

Isaiah 25:1 O LORD, thou art my God; I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things; thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth.

Just as, according to some theories, some of the psalms were used in a great New Year Festival that celebrated the kingship of Yahweh and his redemption of the people, Isaiah seems to foresee the elements of the festival as a future reality.  The events that were represented — perhaps acted out dramatically — in the festival, such as the coming of Yahweh to Mount Zion to save his people who were under attack, defeating enemies combined from all nations, were envisioned by Isaiah to one day be a reality.

The foreigners who were proud enough to imagine that they could destroy the Lord’s people will be destroyed.  While the people of God once rejoiced when they should have sorrowed for their sins, and were conquered by foreign armies, the time will come (after their repentance) when the Lord will give them true reason to rejoice (Isa. 25:6).

The Lord will come and appear on the scene. To do so, he will have to remove the “vail” that is covering the Earth, preventing them from seeing God clearly.  This, of course, can be taken both figuratively and literally.

Isaiah 25:7 7 And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations.

The people will finally see and recognize their Savior and their God and what he has done and will imminently do for them.

Isaiah 25:9 9 And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.

Besides (but perhaps thematically related to) his victory over the earthly enemies of Israel, the great and wonderful accomplishment of Yahweh that Isaiah declares will cause this recognition is his victory over Death — another motif found in the psalms of the New Year Festival.

Isaiah 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.

This is, in my opinion, one of the most comforting verses in all of Scripture (see also Rev. 21:4). What a beautiful and hope-filled declaration!  Death will be swallowed up and God will wipe the tears from off all faces!! This truly is a God of love and mercy, who has tender feelings for the needs of his children.

As I mentioned, this was one of the principal features of the New Year Festival. Compare chapter 25 of Isaiah and what we’ve discussed with Psalm 68:

Psalm 68:1–20 (RSV)  Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered; let those who hate him flee before him! 2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away; as wax melts before fire, let the wicked perish before God! 3 But let the righteous be joyful; let them exult before God; let them be jubilant with joy! 4 Sing to God, sing praises to his name; lift up a song to him who rides upon the clouds; his name is the LORD, exult before him! 5 Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation. 6 God gives the desolate a home to dwell in; he leads out the prisoners to prosperity; but the rebellious dwell in a parched land. 7 O God, when thou didst go forth before thy people, when thou didst march through the wilderness, Selah 8 the earth quaked, the heavens poured down rain, at the presence of God; yon Sinai quaked at the presence of God, the God of Israel.

17 With mighty chariotry, twice ten thousand, thousands upon thousands, the Lord came from Sinai into the holy place. 18 Thou didst ascend the high mount, leading captives in thy train, and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the LORD God may dwell there. 19 Blessed be the Lord, who daily bears us up; God is our salvation. Selah 20 Our God is a God of salvation; and to GOD, the Lord, belongs escape from death.

It almost seems as if Isaiah used this psalm as a template for his vision in chapter 25!  But these themes were part of an ancient tradition that was repeated over and over again in Israel/Judah (also in the New Testament, see especially Revelation).  There is evidence that all of this was based on a visionary pattern that was given to Israel’s prophets from the most ancient times — they were shown in vision the mighty works that Yahweh would perform for the salvation of mankind, in the past, present, and future.

Another example (among many) of this imagery from the psalms is Psalm 48:

Psalm 48:1 (RSV) Great is the LORD and greatly to be praised in the city of our God! His holy mountain, 2 beautiful in elevation, is the joy of all the earth, Mount Zion, in the far north, the city of the great King. 3 Within her citadels God has shown himself a sure defense. 4 For lo, the kings assembled, they came on together. 5 As soon as they saw it, they were astounded, they were in panic, they took to flight; 6 trembling took hold of them there, anguish as of a woman in travail. 7 By the east wind thou didst shatter the ships of Tarshish. 8 As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the LORD of hosts, in the city of our God, which God establishes for ever. Selah 9 We have thought on thy steadfast love, O God, in the midst of thy temple. 10 As thy name, O God, so thy praise reaches to the ends of the earth. Thy right hand is filled with victory; 11 let Mount Zion be glad! Let the daughters of Judah rejoice because of thy judgments! 12 Walk about Zion, go round about her, number her towers, 13 consider well her ramparts, go through her citadels; that you may tell the next generation 14 that this is God, our God for ever and ever. He will be our guide for ever.

Following an alternative interpretation of the Hebrew, A.R. Johnson argued that the last verse should read: “Our God, who abideth for ever, Is our leader against Death.”¹

There are many other examples of this motif elsewhere in the Psalms and also in the writings of other biblical prophets — one of Yawheh’s most “wonderful things” that he has done is to save us from the grasp of Death.

Chapter 26

This chapter basically repeats, in psalmic fashion, the themes of the last chapter.  Verse 1 says that it is a song that will be sung at that day in the land of Judah.  It seems to me that this song is to be sung liturgically by a congregation in response to the previous chapter’s song by the lone singer (the prophet). This is also very reminiscent of many of the biblical psalms.  Again, this is very much the picture that was presented in the above cited psalms (68 and 48). Compare the end of Psalm 48 (Ps. 48:12) to the first verse of Isaiah 26:

Isaiah 26:1 In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks.

Some scholars suggest that the psalm depicts a procession of worshipers marching around the walls of the city and surveying its new (or restored) strength and impregnability.²  The idea is that part of the aid that the Lord gives at his coming is the rebuilding and repair of Jerusalem/Zion and its temple after the defeat of the foreign attackers.  The Holy City becomes the stronghold of God, protected by his salvific power.

The procession around the walls then reaches the gates of the city (or temple — they may be virtually the same here). Verse 2 says:

Isaiah 26:2 Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in.

Again, this is imagery that we can find in the Psalms.  For example, Psalm 24 has a similar plea for the gates to be opened so that Yahweh and his procession of followers can enter in:

Psalm 24:7–8 Lift up your heads, O gates! and be lifted up, O ancient doors! that the King of glory may come in. 8 Who is the King of glory? The LORD, strong and mighty, the LORD, mighty in battle!

Who would be worthy to enter in through the gate with the Lord?

Psalm 24:3–4 Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD? And who shall stand in his holy place? 4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully.

The similarity to Isaiah 26 is clear. The vision is the same. Only those who speak and keep the truth will be allowed to ascend the hill and enter the gates (representing entering heaven) with the Lord.

Chapter 26 also gives us some additional insight into the victory of Yahweh over death.  In what would seem to be a rather odd transition (but not if you think liturgically), the voice of the people gives way to the voice of an individual, who states:

Isaiah 26:19 (KJV) Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

This is a great verse that we often use to show that Yahweh himself would be resurrected and that he would raise other dead souls with him.  There are a few problems, however, with this reading of the verse.  First of all, it is difficult to tell who is speaking here.  If we follow the liturgical pattern of lone singer and choral response, it would seem that Isaiah would be the one to sing these words. However, because the people are singing to the Lord, and they are called “my people” by the singer in the next verse, one could argue that it is the Lord himself that is responding (very likely through the prophet).  Another problem is the KJV translation of the verse. I couldn’t find any other translation that reads “together with my dead body” in this verse.  The usual translation is “their/your corpses shall rise.”

The problem is in the Hebrew text itself.  I would really have to do a more in-depth study to figure this out and see what others have said about it, but the Hebrew seems to say “my dead body (1st person sing.) they will arise (3rd person pl.).” There is nothing that could give the sense of “together with my dead body…”  It would seem that there is some error here in the Hebrew text.  It seems clear that most translations would prefer to avoid the idea that the Lord Yahweh is being resurrected here, as the KJV infers.  I see no problem, however, theologically, with interpreting this to be Yahweh speaking, saying that the dead of his people would arise, just as he would also be resurrected.  This may not be the mainstream interpretation of the text, but I think that it is one that fits well with the ancient concepts of the New Year Festival, where there was likely a representation of the king (playing the role of Yahweh) dying and being brought back to life. The death and resurrection of the king brought new life to the people as well.

Another interesting element of verse 19 is this talk of dew and resurrection:

Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

This section is also tough to translate.  The KJV chose to translate the Hebrew ‘orot as “herbs”. While this is a possible translation, the far more common rendering is “light(s)”.  For example, the translation the RSV gives is:

For thy dew is a dew of light, and on the land of the shades thou wilt let it fall.

Or the NAS:

For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits.

Anciently, the anointing oil that was used in the temple was associated with the dew of the dawn/early morning.  As the dew gave life to the plants, so the “dew” of the anointing oil (which was supposed to have come from the Tree of Life) gave new life to the dead.  We can see this imagery in play in Psalm 110:

KJV Psalm 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

NIV Psalm 110:3 Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty, from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth.

NRS Psalm 110:3 Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day you lead your forces on the holy mountains. From the womb of the morning, like dew, your youth will come to you.

Again I give multiple translations here because this verse is notoriously difficult to translate. The context of this verse is the coronation of the Davidic king and his anointing as “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4).  I could write several posts on this one subject, but what verse 3 is apparently inferring is that the king was anointed with dew/oil and that this gave him new life.  In the context of the aforementioned New Year Festival, some scholars argue that the king had just gone through a ritual that represented his death and the anointing would then be a part of his “resurrection.”  That the oil represents light is an ancient concept — but the idea of it being a “dew of herbs” is not strange either, as the ancient anointing oil of the temple was mixed with myrrh and diverse herbs.³

Chapter 27

The lesson skips this chapter, so I won’t make much comment on it here.  I would note that this chapter, too, contains many elements from the New Year Festival, such as the defeat of the waters/Chaos monsters:

Isaiah 27:1 that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

For references to this imagery in the Psalms, see, for example Ps. 74:13–14 and Ps. 89:9–10.

The last verse of this chapter also contains images from the festival (If you think I’m talking too much about this New Year Festival, I apologize, but you’ll have to bear with me as part of my PhD dissertation involves an analysis of the theories for it).

Isaiah 27:13 13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem.

The blowing of a trumpet (see the relevant part of my Rosh Hashanah post) and the gathering of Israel from foreign lands (pilgrimage) to Jerusalem to worship at the temple were significant features of the festival.

To be continued…

1. A.R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, 89
2. See John Eaton, Festal-Drama in Deutero-Isaiah, 21
3. For more on the topic of the anointing oil, see Margaret Barker’s paper here.

.

To see the previous videos in this series, along with other great videos that I have collected, please see my YouTube channel at: http://www.youtube.com/user/davidjlarsen01

To see the original Heavenly Ascents post on which this video is based, see here.

If you have not yet visited my new YouTube channel, check it out here.

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

After a rather long tangent looking at the suppression of ancient doctrines and ordinances, I now return to my commentary on Margaret Barker’s work on the themes of the First Temple that show up in later Christian beliefs. This post will focus on Chapter 6 of Temple Themes, entitled Transformation and Transfiguration. Interestingly, the chapter focuses not so much on these two ideas, but on the First Temple belief that God could be seen, especially in the temple. Transformation and transfiguration were the effect caused on the persons who had the privilege of seeing God. This First Temple expectation (that worshippers could see God therein) was also one of the principle hopes of the early Christians, as expressed in Revelation 22:4: “And they shall see his face.”

Barker gives us some great insights into the nature of this expectation in ancient times. For the early Christians:

“Seeing the face of the Lord” must have been the most important part of Christian worship, but what did it mean? (p. 135)

The setting for the Book of Revelation is in the (heavenly) temple, and Barker reasons that this type of vision was likely central to the worship in the Temple of Solomon.  While it is difficult to ascertain due to lack of sufficient evidence, the belief that Yahweh would appear in his temple is expressed in many Old Testament texts. Barker also points out that many of the Hebrew texts appear to have undergone minor changes that alter the meaning of certain passages related to the temple that obscure the idea that God could be seen there. She says:

The changes as the texts were transmitted show that they were controversial, and so ”seeing the face of the Lord” may have been one of the differences between the first and second temples, one of the elements of the older cult that were restore in Christianity (p. 135).

As discussed in previous posts, there is evidence that the Deuteronomist reform was emphatic about declaring that God could not be seen, and that all contact with Deity involved hearing God’s voice alone (see Deut 4:12, a very clear example of this).  While the Deuteronomistic theology would not have Moses see God’s form, other passages declare that he did:

With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude (Heb. t’munah, “form”) of the Lord shall he behold. 

In what is possibly a more ancient version of the Sinai account, Moses, Aaron, Aaron’s sons, and the elders of Israel

saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink (Exod 24:10).

Barker reasons that because they saw His feet, God must have had a human form (p. 136). In similar manner, Ezekiel sees God on his chariot-throne in the likeness of the appearance of a human (Ezek 1:26).

From the Old Testament, Barker explains, we receive a mixed message. Can God be seen or not? Exodus 33 is a good example. In verse 12, God speaks with Moses face to face, but then in verse 20, we are presented with God saying to Moses: “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” There seem to be two contradicting traditions at play here. Barker comments on the existence of these opposing traditions:

In the Old Testament the issue is confused.  There are two positions: the Lord could be seen — the temple tradition — or could not be seen, the later Deuteronomists’ position. The New Testament is emphatic that the Lord was seen…John opens his Gospel with the words: “We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14), thus rooting Christian tradition firmly in one particular strand of the Old Testament. “Man shall not see me and live” (Exod 33:20) is exactly opposite to John’s teaching that seeing the Lord brings eternal life…(pp. 136-137).

Barker tells of the pilgrimage that the men of Israel were required to make three times a year–at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks and at the Feast of Booths–”to appear before the Lord” (Exod 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16). “To appear before the Lord” is the usual translation, but, according to Barker, the Hebrew actually says: three times a year shall all your men see the face of the LORD (p. 146). She explains:

Under the influence of the Duteronomists and their spiritual heirs, it became the custom to read the letter differently, even though the Psalms show clearly what the original meaning must have been.

She then goes through and points out a large number of scriptures which she believes the Deuteronomists modified, not by changing the original Hebrew consonants, but just in the way the words were pronounced. Because the consonants were not pointed (the words had only consonants and no vowels), the meaning could easily be changed by altering the tradition of how the words were prounounced (just changing the vowel sounds). For those who are familiar with the Hebrew verb system, Barker is suggesting that the Deuteronomists began reading these select words in Niph’al, when the were originally Qal. What this means is that instead of reading a phrase actively (Qal)–”see the face”–they were reading passively (Niph’al)–”be seen/appear before the face.” By switching them back to Qal, we get different meanings for the following passages:

• In Exodus 23:15 and 34:20, the text should read “none shall see my face” instead of “none shall appear before me.”
• The same reading applies for Exod 23:17; 34:23, 24; and Deut 16:16 – all should be “see the face of the LORD” instead of “appear before the LORD.”
• Deut 31:11 should be “When all Israel comes to see the face of the LORD your God” instead of “When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God.”
• In 1 Sam 1:22, Hannah planned to take her son “to see the face of the LORD.” 
• In Isaiah 1:12, the meaning of what the Lord says should be “When you come to see my face.”
• Psalm 42:2 should say: “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and see the face of God?”

For each of these examples, Barker says, the Hebrew Lexicon indicates that the Qal (active) form should be read. Citing Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: “The verbs in all these passage were originally Qal, afterwards pointed Niph’al, to avoid the expression ‘see the face of Yahweh’ (1962 Edition, pp. 816, 908).  Barker goes on to muse about what this could possibly mean or how this appearance occurred.

How the Lord was seen or how the glory shone forth we do not know. The king or high priest in golden vestments perhaps? What was literal? What was poetic? How did they organize and choreograph temple ceremonial? What heavenly reality were they expressing in their liturgy? Were the four living creatures around the throne — the lion, the ox, the eagle and the man –in fact masked priests, like those of Egypt and Assyria? We can only read what is there or, given the sensitive nature of this subject, try to recover what was once there.

Egyptian High Priest

  These are interesting questions for Latter-day Saints, in light of our own temple ceremonies. It would not be hard for us to picture, for example, a mortal priesthood officiator representing the Lord in the temple. We know that this happened in many ancient temples, including in Egypt–that a high priest would dress in costume, representing the god. Although these scriptures may be referring to the literal appearance of Yahweh in his temple, which could certainly be possible, they are more likely referring to temple rituals involving humans. Either way, the real point here is that the belief that those who went to the temple expected to see Yahweh was deliberately obscured by later editors who did not want to pass on this ancient belief.  Notwithstanding these changes, many passages still portray the older view.  Many of the clearest examples are found in the Psalms.

“The Psalms were the hymn book of the temple, and in them we glimpse something of the ancient liturgy” (p. 137). Although we can’t get a complete picture from them, and they don’t include dates and authors, we see many recurring themes. One of these, as Barker points out, is: “the Lord was seen, his glory shone forth from the temple” (p. 138).

In my next post, I will comment further on this chapter of Temple Themes, beginning with the vision of Yahweh as expressed in the Psalms.