"We seldom get into trouble when we speak softly. It is only when we raise our voices that the sparks fly and tiny molehills become great mountains of contention."
Another Classic Example of Misleading LDS Apologetics: The Gospel of Philip and a Possible Reference to Temple Marriage
by Jeff Lindsay
In
the comments to a post about LDS garments at Mormanity,
I've just been called out for a glaring blunder on my part. I am
genuinely grateful to someone named Alvin for this barbed and
instructive comment:
Because
of my day job, I can’t really check all the references used by
apologists, and apparently neither can anyone else, including
Mormanity. Brother Ostler’s paper “Clothed Upon”
was written in 1982, before it became easy to find some of his
sources on the internet.
I
spot checked this claim from the third paragraph: “In some
accounts, one must be married in the Holy of Holies of the temple in
order to obtain the highest of three degrees of glory.”
The
reference he gives for this claim is the Gnostic Gospel of Philip.
There’s a translation on the web by Wesley Isenberg. There’s
no mention in the document of “three degrees of glory.”
It most definitely does not say that people must be married in the
Holy of Holies in order to obtain the highest.
It
does compare the Holy of Holies in the temple at Jerusalem (no longer
extant at the time the gospel was written) to the “bridal
chamber.” The bridal chamber is a place where marriages are
consummated, not where the ceremony takes place, in case there’s
any confusion.
The
meaning of the “bridal chamber” in gnostic Christianity
is a subject of debate among scholars, but there is absolutely
nothing in the Gospel of Philip to back up Ostler’s claim. If
you’re looking for an example of how misleading apologetics can
be, this is a great one, and Mormanity uncritically propagates it to
defend the faith.
Sadly,
I have to admit my guilt and sloppiness: I cited a paper from a
journal without carefully checking the references.
Because
I trusted the author and the publisher, my guard was down and I felt
comfortable pointing people to Blake Ostler's 1982 paper, "Clothed
Upon: A Unique Aspect of Christian Antiquity" in BYU Studies
without taking the time required (maybe a day or two in the States,
or maybe a week or more here in China with the slow and often blocked
Internet) for basic checking of Ostler's 79 footnotes.
Mea
culpa. I assure you, it won't fail to happen again. (Yes, that's a
double negative.)
The controversy arises over a sentence from
Ostler's paper that refers to marriage. It's the sentence in bold
below (my emphasis):
The
ritual action of putting on a sacred garment is properly
termed an “endowment.” The word garment is, in fact,
representative of ordinances found in ancient texts.
The
Greek word enduma [Ostler uses Greek terms instead of
transliterations] that means “garment” or endumai
“to clothe upon” was used to represent sacramental,
baptismal, and sealing ordinances in the Clementine Recognitions,
an extremely important and ancient Christian (Ebionite) work.
[1]
The Latin induere, meaning “to clothe," and
inducere, “to lead or initiate,” are the roots for
our English word endowment. All connote temple ordinances.
[2]
The endowment, the complex of ordinances associated with the donning
of sacred vestments, contained in ancient Judeo-Christian texts,
provides a framework for symbolic interpretation. The doctrine of the
preexistence, for example, appears frequently in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, the pseudepigrapha, and the Nag Hammadi texts.
[3]
The soul must journey to the earth in order to prove itself as part
of God’s plan set down before the foundation of the world.
[4]
In order for the soul to return to the presence of God, certain
ordinances are necessary. Among these ordinances are baptism,
washings, anointings, special garments, and signs as seals and
passwords to pass by the angels who guard the gate to God’s
kingdom.
[5]
In some accounts, one must be married in the Holy of Holies of the
temple in order to obtain the highest of the three degrees of glory.
[6]
Thus, the plurality of the heavens is among the most universal of
ancient doctrines, with special glories represented by the moon,
stars, and sun.
[7]
Those who could not receive all the necessary ordinances regarding
the gnosis, or required knowledge in this life, could receive
them beyond the grave.
[8]
The account of Christ's descensus ad infernos, or his journey
to the spirit world after his death to preach the gospel, is another
doctrine common to many manuscripts.
[9]
Christ does not go to the wicked, however; he goes to his former
prophets to organize an ecclesia....
When
I read this, I was comfortable with the basis for most of these
statements based on previous reading I have done, but the statement
that raised my eyebrows the most was the sentence in question. I
scanned the footnotes and noticed that the intriguing #6 did not seem
easy to look at right away.
Curious
but lacking time, I finished my blog post, and now finally am
checking up on this statement, though only after being urged by
Alvin's pointed comment.
After some review, I would say that
Ostler's phrasing is too strongly slanted toward the LDS position,
yet has a plausible basis. Here is the footnote:
6.
Eric Segelberg, "The Coptic Gospel according to Philip and Its
Sacramental System," Numen 7 (1960): 198-199; "The
Holy of Holy Ones Is the Bridal Chamber" (Gospel of Philip
117.24-5). "The Woman is united to her husband in the Bridal
Chamber" (Gospel of Philip 119.17-29). Cf. Gospel of Philip.
4-8 and 124.6ff.
Does
the Gospel of Philip, a document dating perhaps to the 3rd century
with obvious gnostic influences, really say that you have to be
married in the temple to obtain the highest of three degrees of
glory?
First let me say that the Gospel of Philip strikes me
as a text somewhat like a typical modern statement from the Chairman
of the Federal Reserve Bank. When you first read it or hear it, it is
puzzling and doesn't seem to say much of anything meaningful. But
those with ears to hear can pick it apart, using the proper lens to
elucidate its rich meaning so that they can respond appropriately,
usually by panicking.
As I understand it, when the Gospel of
Philip was written, the temple was long gone. But sacred rituals and
teachings rooted in the temple continued among some parts of Judaism
and Christianity.
Temple
imagery in the Gospel of Philip should not be taken as a literal
description of what happened in the non-existent temple of that day.
It might be better to take it as a collection of doctrines in one
branch of Christianity rooted in temple lore and mysticism.
Perhaps
the sacraments were done in that day in imitation of or in memory of
the old ways of the temple, perhaps using churches or private rooms
in the absence of the temple they longed for.
Some of the
Gospel of Philip's discussion is clearly symbolic or allegorical. But
references to the rituals and to places like the Holy of Holies are
not necessarily merely allegorical, in spite of the destruction of
the temple in Jerusalem. Matthew Brown points out the potential for
real ordinances with temple themes persisting among the early
Christians. In his 2008 presentation, "The
Israelite Temple and the Early Christians,"
Brown states:
[W]e
can now turn to a large collection of early Christian initiation
texts that was updated in 2003 by Dr. Maxwell Johnson of Notre Dame
University. This collection is called Documents of the Baptismal
Liturgy.
Throughout
these texts are references to temple terms such as laver, altar,
sacrifice, incense, priest, Levite, and high priest. There are even
statements in these documents that initiates are going to enter into
the temple of God to receive certain ordinances and also enter into
the Holy of Holies (the Liturgy of Jerusalem — from about 350
A.D. — uses both of these terms — temple and Holy of
Holies — to describe the building where the liturgy takes
place).
But
however literal or symbolic its temple elements are, I suggest that
the Gospel of Philip is a valuable text showing what some ancient
Christians believed regarding marriage and other vital sacraments.
Great
is the mystery of marriage! For without it, the world would not
exist....
Truth did not come into the world naked, but it
came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any
other way. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is
certainly necessary to be born again through the image. Which one?
Resurrection.
The
image must rise again through the image. The bridal chamber and the
image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the
restoration. Not only must those who produce the name of the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit, do so, but have produced them for
you. If one does not acquire them, the name ("Christian")
will also be taken from him. But one receives the unction of the
[...] of the power of the cross. This power the apostles called "the
right and the left." For this person is no longer a Christian
but a Christ.
The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism
and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber.
[...] he said, "I came to make the things below like the things
above, and the things outside like those inside. I came to unite them
in the place." [...] here through types [...] and images. …
A bridal chamber is not for the animals, nor is it for the
slaves, nor for defiled women; but it is for free men and virgins.
Through the Holy Spirit we are indeed begotten again, but we
are begotten through Christ in the two. We are anointed through the
Spirit. When we were begotten, we were united. None can see himself
either in water or in a mirror without light. Nor again can you see
in light without mirror or water. For this reason, it is fitting to
baptize in the two, in the light and the water. Now the light is the
chrism.
There were three buildings specifically for sacrifice
in Jerusalem. The one facing the west was called "The Holy."
Another, facing south, was called "The Holy of the Holy."
The third, facing east, was called "The Holy of the Holies,"
the place where only the high priest enters. Baptism is "the
Holy" building. Redemption is the "Holy of the Holy."
"The Holy of the Holies" is the bridal chamber.
Baptism
includes the resurrection and the redemption; the redemption (takes
place) in the bridal chamber. But the bridal chamber is in that which
is superior to [...] you will not find [...] are those who pray [...]
Jerusalem who [...] Jerusalem, [...] those called the "Holy of
the Holies" [...] the veil was rent, [...] bridal chamber except
the image [...] above. Because of this, its veil was rent from top to
bottom. For it was fitting for some from below to go upward.
The
powers do not see those who are clothed in the perfect light, and
consequently are not able to detain them. One will clothe himself in
this light sacramentally in the union.
If the woman had not
separated from the man, she should not die with the man. His
separation became the beginning of death. Because of this, Christ
came to repair the separation, which was from the beginning, and
again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result
of the separation, and unite them. But the woman is united to her
husband in the bridal chamber. Indeed, those who have united in the
bridal chamber will no longer be separated. Thus Eve separated from
Adam because it was not in the bridal chamber that she united with
him....
In this world, the slaves serve the free. In the
Kingdom of Heaven, the free will minister to the slaves: the children
of the bridal chamber will minister to the children of the marriage.
The children of the bridal chamber have just one name: rest.
Altogether, they need take no other form, because they have
contemplation, [...]. They are numerous [...] in the things [...] the
glories [...].
I
was uneasy after reading this, especially the part about the slaves
serving the free, but before I panicked I remembered that this was
not a Federal Reserve statement. Just an ancient Christian
document. Whew.
First note that Ostler does cite two
sentences from the Gospel of Philip which are actually there in the
text: "The Holy of Holy Ones Is the Bridal Chamber" and
"The Woman is united to her husband in the Bridal Chamber."
In Isenberg's translation these become "'The Holy of the Holies'
is the bridal chamber" and "But the woman is united to her
husband in the bridal chamber." Close enough for me.
So
what these two sentences and the associated passages appear to be
saying is that one of the essential sacraments for salvation, perhaps
the highest one of all, is sacrament of marriage, and that this union
of man and woman takes place in the Holy of Holies (also called the
bridal chamber, which, earlier in the text, is said to be mirrored,
which is also intriguing).
This
sacrament appears to be essential for the full blessings of the
Gospel in the Kingdom of Heaven. However, the concept of the three
degrees of glory does not appear to be present in these passages, and
that is the primary basis of the complaint posted at Mormanity. Did
Ostler overreach or casually conflate the Gospel of Philip with other
early Christian references that do more clearly speak of three
degrees of glory?
Let's look at the first citation given in
footnote 6, the Segelberg reference from the journal Numen.
You can buy a copy of the article at JSTOR (I tried several times,
but the server for that volume was apparently down) or you can read a
free Scribd
version of the Numen volume
with the entire Segelberg article.
Segelberg
gives special emphasis to the sentence translated above as "The
Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a
eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber." He sees this
as a list of 5 sacraments, including nymphon (involving the
bridal chamber).
The
number of sacraments in the Gnostic system reflected in EP should
then be five. They appear to be mentioned in their order of
importance in the sacramental system. Baptism is of least
importance...; the bride-chamber, finally, is the fulfillment which
perhaps forms, as it were the conclusion of the rites of death. (p.
198)
Segelberg
then addresses the three chambers of the temple, which "should
be thought as representing baptism, chrism, and nymphon [pertaining
to the bride-chamber] in this order. 'Baptism contains the
resurrection and the redemption, in order to flee into the
bride-chamber'. The bride chamber is superior to the baptism and the
chrism." (p. 199)
So perhaps if the progress from the
first through the last of the three chambers of the temple is taken
to represent the three heavens or three degrees of glory, then one
could infer that the highest of the sacraments, associated with the
highest and holiest of the three chambers of the temple mentioned in
the Gospel of Philip, is essential for reaching the highest of the
three degrees of glory. But Segelberg does not make that point
expressly.
In other words, I assume that Ostler, in the
context of other Christian sources (not the least of which is 1 Cor.
15:40-42 and Paul's reference to a third heaven), saw the Gospel of
Philip's treatment of the three chambers of the temple, clearly
symbolic of entering the presence of God, as a symbolic reference to
three heavens.
The
most vital sacrament, marriage, is associated with the highest degree
of holiness in those three chambers. But neither Segelberg nor the
Gospel of Philip expressly refer to "three degrees of glory"
for humans in heaven. (Interestingly, another scholar, Avril
DeConick, uses the term "degree of holiness" to describe
what each of the three chambers represent in the Gospel of Philip. I
discuss her work in final section of this post.)
From an LDS
perspective, it's possible to connect the dots and paraphrase the
Gospel of Philip as Ostler did, but I think his one-sentence
statement could have been expressed without directly invoking LDS
terminology about the three degrees of glory. More explanation in
that sentence would have been helpful.
However,
Ostler's whole passage is a telegraphic delivery of rather
sensational but supported highlights from early Christianity that are
relevant to the LDS temple tradition, briefly mentioned as background
leading to the core of his discussion on the issue of sacred
vestments.
The
wording in the sentence mentioning the degrees of glory could have
been toned down or the footnote amplified with further references
(see below), but this is a minor gap. There is actually serious
content worth considering behind Ostler's brief statement and useful
footnote.
Alvin, the commenter at Mormanity who complained about
my endorsement of Ostler's work, may actually be right: "If
you’re looking for an example of how misleading apologetics can
be, this is a great one." Agreed, but I hope it's an example
that won't just make you fume, but might make you ponder as well.
There's often much more to LDS claims than just smoke and mirrored
bridal chambers.
Yes, LDS apologists do make mistakes. If you
feel Ostler made a mistake with inadequate documentation and
overreaching, let me help correct that by filling in some blanks.
Whoops! Never mind. I just noticed that there
are numerous footnotes on that web page and especially in Barry's
book, and unfortunately, I haven't checked them all yet. Sigh. That's
why I also can't mention, by way of further interesting background,
John A. Tvedtnes' 1999 presentation, "Early
Christian and Jewish Rituals Related to Temple Practices."
Another
50 footnotes? Forget it. Ditto for Matthew Brown's presentation, "The
Israelite Temple and the Early Christians"
with 47 mostly unchecked footnotes. Someday I'll be able to mention
it in good faith, but not today.
Do you have some favorite
temple-related sources whose footnotes you've carefully checked that
we can share here?
Further Information:
For
those interested in better understanding how the controversial
gnostic document, the Gospel of Philip, links LDS concepts with some
early Christian threads (mingled with questionable content, of
course), there's another scholarly article I found helpful. It comes
several decades after Segelberg's initial examination of the Gospel
of Philip and challenges part of Segelberg's interpretation.
DeConick challenges Segelberg's view that the five sacraments
listed in the Gospel of Philip are limited to five specific rituals,
and raises that possibility that some sacraments transcend rites but,
like marriage itself, involve life extensive experiences that bring
us closer to God. I see that as a valuable perspective on marriage
and sacraments that need not do away with the importance of the rites
that launch those life experiences.
DeConick opens with an
important review of Jewish traditions about the ascent into the
presence of God, wherein temple rituals were to be transformative,
providing secret knowledge of the ways of God and bringing one into
God's presence.
This
again puts the LDS temple concept on solid ancient ground. She then
speaks of the three temple shrines in the Gospel of Philip. She sees
the Gospel of Philip as having a "celestial Temple tradition"
that parallels the Jewish temple tradition.
It
is plausible that these sacraments are understood on the spiritual
level to represent the three rooms of the previously destroyed
Temple: the ulam or vestibule, the hekhal or central
room, and the devir or inner sanctum.
Just
as each of these rooms represents a greater degree of holiness within
the Temple, so does each sacrament in Philip. Each stage in
the ascent through the rooms of the heavenly Temple bring the
believer closer to the devir, the Holy of Holies where the
Presence of God dwells, seated upon the merkavah.
As
the believer moves through each Temple shrine, he is progressively
transformed. For the Christian Gnostic, this ascent culminates in an
eschatological experience at the much-anticipated End, where the
believer is finally able to enter the Holy of Holies and gaze upon
the Father, fully transformed. (pp. 230-231)
There
is much more in DeConick's article that readers may find intriguing,
such as "the association of baptism and chrism with the
priesthood and admittance to the heavenly Temple" (p. 235), the
important role of sacred garments mentioned in several places,
anointing with oil, the significance of the sacrament and its link to
the temple, and the powerful link between marriage and the Holy of
Holies.
On
the latter point, DeConick observes that Hebrew words for marriage,
consecration, temple and Holy of Holies are related (p. 246). Thus,
It
seems then that the expression "Bridal Chamber" is really
equivalent to the "Holy of Holies" when one understands how
these words functioned in Hebrew!
So it should not be
surprising to find that, in the Gospel of Philip, marriage is
associated with the third shrine of the heavenly Temple, the Holy of
Holies. On one level, Philip talks about marriage as a
sacrament in terms of its human institution. On another level, it is
understood to be the great eschatological event, the Bridal Chamber,
when the cleansed and transformed spirit finally enters the Holy of
Holies, marries his angel, and is granted to see the Father face to
face. (p. 246)
Some
of that certainly resonates with LDS concepts. Though parts of it
confuse me, I agree with the Gospel of Philip on several points,
including this one: "Great is the mystery of marriage!" I
am also grateful to have married my sweet angel, and look forward to
the future blessings the Gospel can bring.
Jeff Lindsay has been defending the Church on the Internet since 1994, when he launched his
LDSFAQ website under JeffLindsay.com. He has also long been blogging about LDS matters on
the blog Mormanity (mormanity.blogspot.com). Jeff is a longtime resident of Appleton,
Wisconsin, who recently moved to Shanghai, China, with his wife, Kendra.
He works for an Asian corporation as head of intellectual property. Jeff and Kendra are the parents of 4 boys, 3 married and the the youngest on a mission.
He is a former innovation and IP consultant, a former professor, and former Corporate Patent
Strategist and Senior Research Fellow for a multinational corporation.
Jeff Lindsay, Cheryl Perkins and Mukund Karanjikar are authors of the book Conquering
Innovation Fatigue (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
Jeff has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University and is a registered US
patent agent. He has more than 100 granted US patents and is author of numerous publications.
Jeff's hobbies include photography, amateur magic, writing, and Mandarin Chinese.