John 20:12 is a rather curious verse:
[Mary] seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
What’s odd here is the image created in the mind of the reader–an angel at the foot of Jesus’ body and another at the head–when in fact that isn’t exactly what Mary sees. Jesus’ body, of course, is gone. The angels are sitting (a present tense verb) in the place where the body had lain (imperfect verb). The image is something of a fiction but, as we shall see, an interesting one.
The angel at the head and at the foot is reminiscent of the ark of the covenant (see Exodus 25), which is covered in the golden mercy seat (Exodus 25:21) and has one cherubim on each end (Exodus 25:19). What’s the point of the mercy seat?
And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.” (Exodus 25:21-22)
When the tabernacle is built, the Ark of the Covenant will be the only item in the Holy of Holies. Only the high priest, only on one day per year, would enter that most sacred of spaces and pre-enact the atonement via animal sacrifice (see Leviticus 16).
The incorporation of this idea into John 20:12 is striking: the very place where the Lord should appear . . . is the very place where he isn’t . . . because he has been resurrected. If I were one of those lit types (paging Rosalynde Welch . . . paging Rosalynde Welch), I’d say something really clever here about use of negative space.
What’s even more interesting in the NT use of this OT motif is that the role of the high priest (i.e., the one person permitted to enter the Holy of Holies and see the place where the Lord appears) is performed by Mary. She’s the one seeing the angels/cherubim/mercy seat in the sacred space.
Very interesting. I always enjoy seeing reasons why we should pay more attention to the OT.
Quite an insight, Julie. I had never thought of this. Very nice.
Reminds me of “I Stand All Amazed” –the verse where it reads:
“No, no I will prasie and adore at the mercy seat, until at the glorified throne I kneel at His feet.”
Thanks for this scripture –this hymn will now have new meaning to me…
It also conjures up images of the pillars at the doors of Solomon’s temple (Boaz and Jachin). Figures 22 and 23 in Facsimile 2 in the Pearl of Great Price also come to mind.
Great observation Julie.
Julie, thanks for a genuinely original insight.
Forgive me if I say … this is so darned cool.
I think it is deeply deeply significant that it is Mary who is there –
I can barely think of it without being moved near tears.
~
Isn’t Luke normally the gospel that tries and tell things from a point of view of reconciling the old testament with the new?
A Nonny Mouse: I think you are thinking of Matthew’s Gospel.
I think all four gospels have a richer OT background than we usually realize, but here is the shorthand version of what I teach as the main, distinct theme of each gospel:
Matthew: fulfillment of OT prophecies in the life of Christ
Mark: true and false discipleship
Luke: concern for marginalized peopl
John: cosmic, philosophical portrayal of Christ
And thanks for the nice comments, all.
Julie, I wanted some reassurance this morning that God loves women.
Thank you.
Interesting observation. I’ve never looked at it that way.
Julie,
This is great. Flesh it out a bit and publish it as a note somewhere.
Yeah, like in BCC Papers. (grin)
I found an article that expounds on the significance of Jesus’ body not being present, then illustrates another use of the “Ark of the Covenant” motif. Here is an excerpt:
“Ordinarily we think of the high priest as going into the Holy of Holies to make a sacrifice where the Ark of the Covenant was and the mercy seat. At the original temple we’ve been taught to think that the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies to make a sacrifice before God — to atone God for the sins of the people. James Alison showed us how the opposite was true. The high Priest went into the temple in order to come back out. The High Priest represented Yahweh, the Lord, and he emerged out of the Holy of Holies and…came out toward the people. When Mary looked into the empty tomb she saw the two angels in white signifying the Ark of the Covenant — and the idea was that Jesus too came out of the Ark toward the people.
“[In] Acts 1, we meet…the same two cherubim who symbolized the Ark of the Covenant. Here we again have the Lord coming toward the people — only this time, Jesus has to ascend to heaven, so the Spirit can come out of heaven toward earth. It’s lovely and wonderful symbolism. ‘People of Galilee’ the Cherubim said, ‘why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.’
“[The] same movement that happened at the original temple and at the tomb of Jesus is happening here. God is coming toward God’s people to atone them, to expiate their sins, to save their lives. “
Julie, some questions about your post here:
The two angels thing is reminiscent of the ark of the covenant because there are two of them (but not according to Mark\’s and Matthew\’s account, which only has one). The ark of the covenant had the cherubim sitting on either side of the mercy seat and both were facing the mercy seat with wings arched over the mercy seat, not standing at head and foot. This here in John has two angels at a burial site, and they seem to share more in common with Joseph and Nicodemus of John 19:38-39 than they do with the cherubim of the ark, as the angels themselves say in Matt. 28:5-6 and Luke 24:5-7. If this ark of the covenant theme is supposed to be what we take away from the story, how come the other authors do not have two angels and they are not really hinting at it?
And as far as Mary goes, she doesn\’t even enter the tomb in John, she looks in. In Mark and Luke all three women enter the tomb, not just Mary. Wouldn\’t Peter represents the temple high priest in John since John deferred to ham and let him enter the tomb first?
The other gospel versions are different and those versions do not agree with what you are trying to say. How do you respond to some of these things? If this is what the symbolism is supposed to be, why did the other authors miss it, and why didn\’t John clear the deck for it more clearly?
Nevada asks: “If this ark of the covenant theme is supposed to be what we take away from the story, how come the other authors do not have two angels and they are not really hinting at it?”
Your question would be very appropriate to a historical approach to the scriptures. (It also reveals the limitations of such an approach in that the gospels–particularly during the Passion narratives–contain many conflicting details.)
What I’ve done here is a literary approach, where it is as inappropriate to consider details from other gospels as it would be to analyze the character of Hamlet with reference to another play in which he appears–Shakespeare’s character of Hamlet cannot be analyzed based MacKaye’s plays about Hamlet written in the 1950s. (This literary approach has its limitations too, of course.)
As far as the position of the angels or Mary’s entry into the tomb: again, these are very good questions for the historian but not particularly germane for the literary analyst.
“Wouldn’t Peter represents the temple high priest in John since John deferred to ham and let him enter the tomb first?”
Had this been John’s intention, then v12 would have had Peter–not Mary–seeing the two angels. But it doesn’t.
I realize that my approach may seem unorthodox given the unquestioned, unstated, unrealized historicist assumptions that stand behind most of the scripture interpretation that LDS do. However, each of the four gospel writers had slightly different goals in their presentation of Jesus’ life story and there is no reason to expect that any two of them were looking for, realizing, or pointing out the same symbolism to the audience. For example, you can barely make it through a verse in Matthew’s Gospel without reading of how Jesus’ life fulfilled the prophecies of the OT. In Luke, there are maybe a total of two references to the fulfillment of OT prophecies; it is a very minor theme. Similarly, it appears that none of the other gospels writers picked up the theme that this post explores.
“I realize that my approach may seem unorthodox given the unquestioned, unstated, unrealized historicist assumptions that stand behind most of the scripture interpretation that LDS do.”
How are the un-any of those things when people are always questioning them all the time, and the writer is saying what is going on? This literary reading sounds like a way to play fast and loose with things, reading your own stuff into things, making it up as you go. What is to keep me or anyone else from saying whatever and trying to make it fit? Two angels here, two angels there, that is all you got here. Why can not I just say anywhere there is two angels in the Bible they are always talking about the ark, or whatever else there is two angels?
The assumption is there were real events that actually happened and when the different authors write things slightly different you try to reconcile them to make the best sense of things. You appear to be doing just the opposite. Ignoring everyone else to just push one thing through.
“Had this been John’s intention, then v12 would have had Peter–not Mary–seeing the two angels. But it doesn’t.”
But Mary does not “see…the two angels” either. She does not even see Jesus and recognize him, it is not until afterwards that Jesus says “Mary” that she gets plugged in and realizes what is going on. How can John be saying she is this pivotal character that is supposed to be the high priest when she does not even know what is going on or who she is talking to? And why is not the argument “Peter goes in, Mary does not” any worse that your “Mary sees angels, Peter does not” for saying which one is the supposedly high priest? If John really was trying to say this, why is he being so vague about it and not making the story more of a good fit? The other gospel authors have the women going in to the tomb, but John has Peter and himself going in. If Mary is supposed to he the high priest, she ought to go in, not Peter. Why would John disagree with the other authors if he was trying to make her look like the high priest? And why would not he say something about the Passover or something like that? That is what you say he is saying, but he is not.
Different authors having slightly different points of view doesn’t mean you can make up whatever you like when you read stuff. If you are going for a literary reading on John, then doesn’t it make sense to use what John writes himself to make sense of it? John has Mary looking like she is overwhelmed with grief, to the point she can not even see Jesus standing there in front of her. So how is she some big time symbolic stand in for a high priest?
I mean, if you are just saying that this is something that popped up and you think it is an interesting possibility, then OK. But if you are saying this is what John’s whole point was and what he expects us to get out of, I have a tough time with that there.
Nevada,
If you want me to open another post about the appropriateness of literary readings of the Bible in an LDS context, I’ll do that because there is certainly a legitimate critique to be made. However, I’ll give a quick reaction her to the ‘you are playing fast and loose charge’:
(1) If I have firmly grounded the allusion in an OT text, it isn’t fast and loose.
(2) If you don’t feel that I’ve firmly grounded it, you are free to reject my reading. Other commenters here have liked it, you don’t, that’s about par for the course for any interpretation and that is fine.
(3) It is undeniable that *some* NT texts are clearly playing off of OT texts. Again, whether this one fits the bill is in the eye of the beholder.
“The assumption is there were real events that actually happened and when the different authors write things slightly different you try to reconcile them to make the best sense of things.”
If that is the assumption you want to use in your scripture study, that’s your business. But most scholars don’t do this. They assume real events, yes, but this idea of reconciling is often much less effective than letting each individual voice speak for itself. For example, the details of the feeding miracles often don’t line up between the gospels that record them. You could homogenize them and end up with a feeding miracle that NO ONE recounted and is your own creation. Or you could begin with the presumption that the different writers included and/or shaped the details to tell slightly different stories. (I’ve posted before on what Mark did with the feeding miracles–which is very, very different from what John does. John is the only one to mention that they were barley loaves, and seems to be reaching for a link to the Elijah story that none of the other writers pick up on.)
The rest of your post continues to rely on the historicist assumptions that, as I have already explained, aren’t relevant here, so I won’t go any further with the Mary/Peter thing, except to say that I don’t think your questions argue against my interpretation as much as they point to what John might have been trying to accomplish with this story (i.e., even in Mary’s–and our–weaknesses, we are still worthy to be comforted and visited by the Lord).
“(1) If I have firmly grounded the allusion in an OT text, it isn’t fast and loose.”
Yeah, the ark of the covenant is in the OT, no doubt about that. But there isn’t hardly anything here in John 20 to connect it. Two angels is two angels, and not much else. That is the fast and loose part.
“(2) If you don’t feel that I’ve firmly grounded it, you are free to reject my reading. Other commenters here have liked it, you don’t, that’s about par for the course for any interpretation and that is fine.”
Popularity is not a good measure of anything. If it were, the LDS Church would be straight out. Let us just say that your take on John 20:12 does little more than make me scratch my head and wonder why you are so much in a rush to put Mary in the position of high priest since there really is nothing to suggest that aside from a couple of angels, whom she does not even realize are angels.
“(3) It is undeniable that *some* NT texts are clearly playing off of OT texts. Again, whether this one fits the bill is in the eye of the beholder.”
Yes, it is pretty obvious, especially when they quote a prophet or say something obvious. In this chapter, John does not do any of that. You have him say something about two angels, and then you take that ball and run out the stadium with it. But, that is OK by me. If you and your pals here want to make stuff up as you go, then have fun with that. If it keeps you out of trouble, then good on you. Just don’t go around tell people that is how it is, because you are setting on a one-legged stool.
Julie,
I’m also wondering about the idea of Mary playing the role of high priest. Hebrews 9 seems to suggest that the high priest symbolized Christ when he entered the holy of holies. If so, Mary is a witness of the mercy seat, but Jesus was still the one performing the role of high priest.
BrianJ,
Other texts are equally insistent that Christ is the sacrificed lamb (see, for example, John 1:29 and 36); again, a literary reading asks us not to import the christology of the author of Hebrews into our consideration.
JMS: right, but couldn’t John have been writing with the idea of Christ as high priest in mind? Couldn’t his thinking parallel the thinking in Hebrews? If so, his use of Mary here is as a witness that the high priest who entered the holy of holies and performed the ritual of atonement, has left the temple/tomb to return to the people. I don’t see a problem with seeing Christ as the priest and the sacrifice at the same time.
Also, I don’t think the title “Lamb of God” is relevant: only the blood of bullocks and goats were sprinkled on the mercy seat on the Day of Atonement. I see John’s use of “the Lamb of God” as referring to the lamb of the Passover and possibly also the lambs of sin offerings (though the latter is a stretch since those lambs were female).
BrianJ,
Are there any references in John to Christ as high priest? I can’t think of any offhand, but I may be missing something. If not, then I think we should take v12 as written–Mary is the one who sees what the high priest would have seen.
You are right about the lamb references. My bad.
No references that I know of, but that’s not my point. John doesn’t mention a high priest, a mercy seat, a sacrificial goat/bullock, a holy of holies—all of which are essential to your interpretation. (Okay, so elsewhere in John “high priest” is used, but that is in reference to Caiaphas, so definitely not related here). So we have to look outside the Gospel of John in order to understand what its author understood the symbols to mean. You suggest that John used the two angels to represent the two cherubim from Exodus; I like that interpretation. You suggest that the bed in the tomb is the mercy seat; I like that too.
Where we disagree is in what Mary stands for. You say Mary sees what the high priest would have seen. I say she sees what someone peeking in on the high priest would have seen—except, importantly, that the high priest (or The High Priest) is no longer there. The difference is in whether John used Mary as a symbol (as you see her) or as a medium to show us the symbols (as I see her). Certainly, both interpretations recognize Mary’s privileged position.
I don’t see a problem with appealing to other books in order to come up with possible concepts for a particular author, as long as those other books were available to the author (as was the Torah) or were written by contemporaries/colleagues (as was Hebrews). (As an aside, I don’t think Hebrews is necessary to make “my” case, because John could have gotten all of his symbolism from Exodus.)
I also don’t think that your interpretation is wrong, per se, just that I favor “mine.” (I put that in quotes because I didn’t come up with it.) If there are more instances where John uses women in priest roles, it would strengthen your case, in my view.
BrianJ,
I’m not sure that we have to look outside John’s Gospel to find the symbolism: the reference to the two angels calls the mind the ark of the covenant and I don’t know that the reader would have needed any more help connecting those dots.
I grant that it is possible to see Mary as “peeking”; however, that interpretation seems less likely to me because of the OT requirement that *no one* besides the HP be allowed into the Holy of Holies. I think it makes more sense to put Mary into a recognized role than to create an unrecognized (and, indeed, deeply blasphemous role*) role.
As far as women in priest roles, I think there are two good reasons why we wouldn’t except to find more of that in John: first, it isn’t a major theme in John, so I don’t really know where would sample from and, second, I think the extension of the role is part of the post-resurrection world, so we won’t expect to find it in Jesus’ mortal ministry in any case.
Finally: thank you for disagreeing so agreeably. It is a pleasure to have this conversation with you.
*I’m not saying you or your interpretation is deeply blasphemous–I’m saying the idea of someone besides the high priest entering the Holy of Holies was in OT terms.
JMS:
“I’m not sure that we have to look outside John’s Gospel to find the symbolism…” Oh no, we don’t have to look outside of John’s Gospel; but what I am wondering is if John looked outside of John’s Gospel for his understanding of the symbolism.
“deeply blasphemous” You mean like having a female priest? {smile}
I see your point about looking for other women in priest roles: I asked for the impossible experiment.
I’m left with this: When I present this idea to others (say, in a few weeks in Sunday School), I will have to offer both interpretations and let them decide (or not) for themselves. I hope, however, that you won’t find it offensive if someday you catch me restricting it to parentheses.
“thank you for disagreeing so agreeably.” And thanks to you.