Mosiah 15: 14-18 — LeGrand Baker — ancient temple drama

Mosiah 15: 14-18 — LeGrand Baker — ancient temple drama

This week’s scripture, is an explanation of one of the most beautiful and most often quoted passages of Isaiah. It reads:

14    And these are they who have published peace, who have brought good tidings of good, who have published salvation; and said unto Zion: Thy God reigneth!
15   And O how beautiful upon the mountains were their feet!
16    And again, how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those that are still publishing peace!
17    And again, how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those who shall hereafter publish peace, yea, from this time henceforth and forever!
18    And behold, I say unto you, this is not all. For O how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that is the founder of peace, yea, even the Lord, who has redeemed his people; yea, him who has granted salvation unto his people (Mosiah 15:14-18).

This is repeated in all the scriptures except the Pearl of Great Price. The original is Isaiah 52:7-10. It is quoted or paraphrased in Nahum 1:15; Romans 10:15; 1 Nephi 13:37; Mosiah 12:21; Mosiah 15:15-18; 3 Nephi 20:40; and D&C 128:19

————

I believe that in order to understand the meaning and background of Abinadi’s statement, one would do well to know four things: 1) The significance of the role of the Ark of the Covenant in the ancient Israelite New Year festival temple rites. 2) The “democratical” nature of the ancient Israelite concept of kingship and queenship. 3) That this prophecy should have been fulfilled as a conclusion of the Saviour’s Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, but was probably fulfilled when He came to his temple at Bountiful instead. And 4) the way the Saviour used Isaiah 52 to explain the restoration of Israel in the last days. I shall try to help provide the back ground of the first two today, and will do the third next week, and the fourth when we get to Mosiah 15:29, where Abinadi quotes that Isaiah chapter again.

————

An overview of the temple rites of the ancient Israelite New Year festival:

This is the subject of our book, Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord.

The ancient Israelite New Year festival was a celebration that began with New Years Day, and continued for 22 days. Many scholars believe it was a harvest festival, because it happened in the fall (end of October – first of November) between the harvest and the rainy season. However, some scholars believe that before the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews used a different calendar system , it was celebrated in conjunction with the spring equinox, about the first of April.

The eighth day, however–and the feast of the tabernacles is the only one finished off by an eighth day–there is another ‘feast’. It is the feast that the seven days are past and the eighth day has come. On that eighth day one leaves the ‘tabernacle’ and goes within the house. Then the period of migrating from Egypt to Canaan is past, people have reached the coming world. {3}

During the ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles the king and queen were the chief actors, but theirs were not the only parts. In the drama, on stage and elsewhere, there were the mock battles, at least one procession around the entire city. There were many sacrifices, {4} and more than one covenant meal. There must have been many other actors as well. In addition to those main characters, there was the audience. It is likely that no one participated, even in the audience, who was not initiated or was not then being initiated into the temple rites, so the entire experience was one of making new covenants, or else of a reaffirmation of covenants already made. We do not know the extent of the audience participation, but we may surmise that parts or all of the audience sang many, if not most, of the Psalms as a part of the ceremonies. {5}

There can be no doubt that the psalms were meant to be sung. They contain a number of allusions to singing, and they are often described in the titles as ‘songs’…rendered to music, or as ‘hymns’….The word ‘song’ (singing) and ‘sing’ occur 38 times in all in the Psalms….
In many languages the word for ‘song’ originally betokened the powerful ritual word.
In the psalms we constantly hear the poet, and through him the worshiped or the congregation, declaring their intention to ‘sing’ or ‘praise’ or ‘sing and play’ for Y ahweh….
We know nothing about the tunes in Israel’s temple cult. But if we are to judge from analogies in more recent oriental music, we may assume that they were quite simple….The psalms mention the tambourine, the cymbals, the horn, the trumpet, different kinds of lyre (R.V. harp and cithern), flute and castanets. {6}

Abinadi’s arguments focus on the power of Christ’s atonement, and on the ordinances of the king’s coronation which occurred on the 7th day of the Feast of Tabernacles (the 21st day of the New Year festival.) However, in order to put his arguments in a meaningful context, one must know the entire festival well enough to know what led up to the coronation. In the following outline, I have presented the events of the New Year festival as understood by some of the scholars who have studied it most carefully. They know the sequence of the events of the overall New Year’s festival, but they readily admit they do not know the sequence of the scenes of the drama presented during the 7-day Feast of Tabernacles. For example, the scholars know that a war in heaven was represented as part of the drama, but they do now know whether that war happens at the beginning of the story, or at the end.{7} I believe that I know the correct sequence of the scenes in that drama, and I believe you know it also. So I have arranged the events that the scholars know were depicted in the Feast of Tabernacles drama in the sequence that you and I would expect to find them.

Day 1 of 22, New Year’s day. In celebration, horns were blown to announce the beginning of the festival. There were sacrifices, and with the sacrifices came feasting and merrymaking.

Days 2-9, a sober time of fasting and repentance which prepared one for day 10.

Day 10, the Day of Atonement. Two goats were selected. One was killed and its blood was sprinkled to ceremonially cleanse the priests, the temple, and the nation. The high priest placed his hands on the other and transferred to that goat all the sins of Israel, thus everyone in the nation was ceremonially clean, and could proceed in the ordinances and enter the temple. This goat – the scapegoat – was then driven away, never to return again. This cleansing of the nation was a necessary prerequisite for their receiving the ordinances of the temples – of many temples in fact, for in the course of the ceremonies that followed they were symbolically in the Holy of Holies where God holds audience with the Council in Heaven; then in the temple which was the Garden of Eden; then Sinai; and finally the Temple in Jerusalem. During the ceremonies of the next few days, the people would symbolically enter each one of those temples to receive blessings, and probably to make covenants as well.

Days 11-14, each individual family built “booths” or “tabernacles” – temporary housing – and made other preparations for Feast of Tabernacles. (In the King Benjamin story, they used tents instead of booths.)

Days 15 through 21 are the 7-day Feast of Tabernacles. These were the days of a complex temple drama as follows:

Day 15 of the festival and the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The Ark of the Covenant was removed from temple and city. The Ark represented the presence of God, so when it was removed from the temple it symbolized a return to chaos. Everything was turned upside down – symbolically everything had returned to its state of primeval chaos before the creation of the world. The king was no longer king, there was no personal or national covenant with Jehovah. Nothing was as it should be. Consequently, all things must be made right again. To make it right required a kind of recreation. To achieve that the nation reenacted the events which made everything right in the first place. Johnson summarizes that experience with these words:

Thus at the point in time represented by any one of these recurrent festal days the worshiper’s gaze is directed first, in retrospect, to the beginning of time or the creation of the natural order; in the second place, to Yahweh’s control of the natural world and His active concern with the behaviour of mankind on the plane of history; and, in the third place, to the prospect of the consummation of both creation and history in a universal moral order, i.e. the coming of the great ‘Day’ which will usher in a new era of world-wide righteousness and peace.  {8}

garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good, ) that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.” Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. {13}

Josephus does not say which festival Agrippa learned about and decided to attend, except that its object was “to make vows for the king’s safety.” It seems reasonable to suppose that some actor was scheduled to represent the king on the stage, and to receive those vows, but when Agrippa got there he was invited to play that role himself. It also seems likely to me that his magnificent silver coat was supplied to him as part of the festival regalia, and that the stage was arranged so that if one stood in just the right place on that specific day of the year the rising sun would shine directly on the robe and produce the desired dazzling effect. In any case, when I read that story it sounds a lot like the ancient festival where the king came from the dead, triumphant, radiant, and symbolically accompanied by the glory of Jehovah himself. So now, whether rightly or wrongly, when I envision what happened on the morning of the 7th day, I think of Agrippa, standing in a polished silver garment, a brilliant reflection of the rising sun.

But there would have been, or should have been, one major difference. Agrippa was arrogant and self indulgent of the pretended glory, but that was not the attitude the king should have shown. In the New Year festival drama of the First Temple period the king was represented as having been restored to life by Jehovah, and he would have expressed both subservience and gratitude for what God had done for him. During the pre-exilic festival, it is likely that as the king stood on the stage with the Ark of the Covenant beside him, he may have recited or sang the 116th psalm which expresses the king’s gratitude for his aliveness to Jehovah who has brought him back to the world of the living.

I love the Lord,
because he hath heard my voice and my supplications.
Because he hath inclined his ear unto me,
therefore will I call upon him as long as I live….
Return unto thy rest, O my soul;
for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee.
For thou hast delivered my soul from death,
mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling.
I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living. (Psalms 116:1-2, 7-9.)

The anointing of the king is often acknowledged in the psalms by referring to him by the title of the “messiah.” The Hebrew word translated “messiah” means “the anointed one.” In Greek, the word “Christ” also means the one who has been anointed. The significance of the anointing is described in a work of the second century A.D. called the Recognitions of Clement.

Then Peter began to instruct me in this manner:

When God had made the world, as Lord of the universe, He appointed chiefs over the several creatures….a man over man who is Christ Jesus. But He is called Christ by a certain excellent rite of religion….among the Jews a king is called Christ. And the reason of this appellation is this: Although indeed He was the Son of God, and the beginning of all things, He became a man; Him first God anointed with oil which was taken from the wood of the tree of life: from that anointing therefore He is called Christ. Thence, moreover, He Himself also, according to the appointment of His Father, anoints with similar oil every one of the pious when they come into His kingdom, for their refreshment after their labours, as having got over the difficulties of the way; so that their light may shine, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, they may be endowed with immortality….In the present life, Aaron, the first high priest, was anointed with a composition of chrism, which was made after the pattern of that spiritual ointment of which we have spoken before. He was prince of the people, and as a king received first-fruits and tribute from the people, man by man; and having undertaken the office of judging the people, he judged of things clean and things unclean. But if any one else was anointed with the same ointment, as deriving virtue from it, he became either king, or prophet, or priest. If, then, this temporal grace, compounded by men, had such efficacy, consider now how potent was that ointment extracted by God from a branch of the tree of life, when that which was made by men could confer so excellent dignities among men. For what in the present age is more glorious than a prophet, more illustrious than a priest, more exalted than a king? {14}

Widengren quotes Pseudo Clement to further elaborate on the idea of an anointing with the oil from the Tree of Life. He writes,

This idea of an anointing with oil from the Tree of Life is found in a pregnant form in the Ps. Clementine writings, from which some quotations may be given. In the passage concerned, the author (or rather his original source) discusses the problem of the Primordial Man as Messiah. He is represented as stressing the fact that the Primordial Man is the Anointed One:

But the reason of his being called the Messiah (the Anointed One) is that, being the Son of God, he was a man, and that, because he was the first beginning, his father in the beginning anointed him with oil which was from the Tree of Life.

Ps. Clem. Recognitions syriace, ed. Frankenberg, I, 45, 4

Primordial Man, who had received the anointing, thanks to which he had been installed in the threefold office of king, high priest, and prophet, is then paralleled with every man who has received such anointing:

The same, however, is every man who has been anointed with the oil that has been prepared, so that he has been made a participant of that which is possessed of power, even being worth the royal office or the prophet’s office or the high priest’s office. Ps. Clem. Recognitions syriace, ed. Frankenberg, I, 47, 1-3 . {15}

Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell the towers thereof.

Psalms 51:18 represents a rebuilding of the New city:

Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.

Psalms 102:16 says the Lord will appear in Zion after the city is built again:

When the LORD shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory.

Psalms 50:2 equates Zion’s beauty with the presence of God:

Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined.

Psalm 24 was among the first to be identified by Gunkel as a “Royal Psalm” – the one that was sung during the procession as the people approached the gates of the city. The psalm contains exactly the ideas one would expect to be expressed on such an occasion. The first verses are a celebration of the Lord as the God of Creation. This is especially meaningful in light of the purpose of the procession – to recreate final order out of worldly chaos and to establish a New Jerusalem.

1 The earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
2 For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.

The next verses read like a temple recommend: the people rejoice in their own worthiness as they approach the temple.

3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.
6 This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O [God of] Jacob.

Now the gates are opened, that the people, the king, and their God might come in:

7 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up,ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.
8 Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.
9 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. 10 Who is this King of glory?
10 The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. (Psalm 24:1-10)

The importance of the anointing and its association with the king’s remarkable spiritual powers are described by Johnson:

The fact that the king held office as Yahweh’s agent or vice-gerent is shown quite clearly in the rite of anointing which marked him out as a sacral person endowed with such special responsibility for the well-being of his people as we have already described. Accordingly the king was not merely the Messiah or the ‘anointed’; he was the Messiah of Yahweh, i.e. the man who in thus being anointed was shown to be specially commissioned by Yahweh for this high office: and, in view of the language which is used elsewhere in the Old Testament with regard to the pouring out of Yahweh’s ‘Spirit’ and the symbolic action which figures so prominently in the work of the prophets, it seems likely that the rite in question was also held to be eloquent of the superhuman power with which this sacral individual was henceforth to be activated and by which his behavior might be governed. The thought of such a special endowment of the ‘Spirit’ is certainly implied by the statement that, when David was selected for this office, Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brethren; and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. {33}

There is no description of the sequences of ordinances of the coronation ceremony in the Old Testament except the abbreviated one in Isaiah 61. {34} That one presents a problem to non- Mormon scholars because they recognize it as a coronation ceremony, but they can not figure out what it is doing there. Fortunately for us, President Joseph F. Smith gave us the key in Section 138, where he quotes the first verse of Isaiah 61 as a prophecy that the Saviour would visit the spirit world between the time of his own death and resurrection. So that provides us with a context and with the answer to the “What is it doing there?” question. Even though this coronation scene is about salvation for the dead, Isaiah 61 is important in helping us define sacral kingship. It also illuminates Abinadi’s arguments by extending in time the very nature of one’s individual sacral kingship from the Council in Heaven, through earth-time, and on to include one’s life after death.{35}

As I observed last week, Isaiah 61 with its coronation and marriage ceremonies, are the best examples in the old testament of what the coronation rites actually looked like:

3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes [removing ashes presuppose a ceremonial washing], the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified…..
10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

The king as “heir”

If the Psalms were the texts of the drama of the endowment/enthronement ceremonies of the ancient Israelite New Year festival and Feast of Tabernacles; and if that same text and those same ceremonies were known and used by the Nephites; and if the people of Zeniff had a copy of the scriptures so they could use that same text in their enthronement; then the ceremonies played out in psalms 2, 45, 82 and others were the very foundation of king Noah’s claims to both his kingly and his priesthood authority; and if the latter half of Isaiah was understood by them as a commentary on those coronation rites; and if, as I believe, the ancient audiences who participated in those ceremonies were included as symbolic participants in the endowment/enthronement rites, then those texts, rites, and ceremonies were the foundation of Abinadi’s claims that all of prophets and their followers were children and legal heirs to Jehovah – those who follow the prophets and accept the Saviour are the sacral kings and queens of the Kingdom. If all those things were true, and I believe they were, then it was also true that the ideas expressed in the Psalms were the basis of Abinadi’s trial, and the ecclesiastical and political backdrop of the debate between Abinadi and Noah’s priests.

King Noah’s primary claim to legitimacy – assuming, as I do, that he had used the rites of the New Year festival and the Psalms in his coronation ceremonies – was that he was the adopted son and earthly heir of Jehovah. The ancient Israelites did not consider their kings to be Gods as did the people in Mesopotamia and Egypt, but they did consider them to be adopted children of God. Hoffimeier explained,

More directly relevant are two passages in which a Hebrew king appears to have been regarded as a son of God. In 2 Samuel 7:14, Yahweh, the God of Israel, speaks to David regarding his heir: ‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son.’ And in Psalm 2:6-7 the psalmist quotes Yahweh: ‘I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill … You are my son, today I have begotten you.” Both passages have been used to support the adoptionist view of kingship, whereby the king becomes the son of the deity upon his assumption of the throne. {36}

There were two royal thrones in Jerusalem. One – technically the inferior of the two – was the king’s personal throne in his palace. The other was God’s throne in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. Usually the king sat upon his own throne in the palace, but on the day of his coronation the king sat upon the throne of God in the Temple. There is a brief, but very important account of that in the story of Solomon’s coronation.

21 And they sacrificed sacrifices unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings unto the Lord, on the morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel:
22 And did eat and drink before the Lord on that day with great gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto the Lord to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest.
23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. (1 Chronicles 29:21-23.)

That passage is important because it gives, in truncated sequence, the events of the coronation ceremony. After the king was anointed and adopted as a son, he had the right to sit on the throne of Jehovah as the heir and legal representative of God on the earth. In the sentence, “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and prospered,” “prospered” is the same word as is used in Elohim’s blessing to the prince in Psalm 45. It is also the word by which the Lord describes Nephi’s destiny as king and priest:

19 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.
20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.
21 And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.
22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren. (1 Nephi 2:19-2.)

Later on, in the Book of Mormon, to “prosper” is used as a code word meaning to walk in the presence of the Lord.

As I observed already, there were at least three coronations of the same king represented during the New Festival: the first was at the Council as is partly described in Psalm 45. The second was on earth, when he was a young man and anointed to become king, is represented by Psalm 72. The third was on the 7th day of the Feast of Tabernacles, when he was adopted as the son of God (Psalm 2), coronated king, and sat upon the throne of God in the Holy of Holies. There is also a fourth which is mentioned in the scriptures, but I think it was not portrayed in the ancient endowment nor described in the psalms. Of those who will inherit the Celestial Kingdom, the Lord said,

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things –
56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God –
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

If the word “prosper” was used in the description of Solomon’s coronation, to mean the same thing that it means elsewhere in the scriptures, that description of Solomon’s coronation in Chronicles appears to be a deliberate attempt to make that final earthly coronation of the king be a literal fulfillment of promise he received at the Council (psalm 45:4).

That coronation scene in the ancient Temple must have been terribly impressive to watch. Let me try to describe it to as best as I can recreate it from what I have read.

Against the back wall of the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s Temple, stood the great throne of Jehovah, it was overshadowed by the wings of two golden cherubim, just as God’s celestial throne was reported to be flanked by real cherubim. {37}

In that most sacred of all rooms, symbolically in the presence of God, and literally in the presence of the people, the king was ordained a priest “after the Order of Melchizedek,” as is represented by the words of Psalm 110:

The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent,
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Actually, that psalm asks more questions than it answers: Who ordained the king and when? Did the ordination occur in conjunction with his coronation, or did he have the priesthood before he became king? If he was ordained in conjunction with his coronation, was he symbolically re- ordained each year along with the annual renewal or re-affirmation of his royal coronation? Is it possible that this psalm was sung during the depiction of the Council in Heaven rather than in conjunction with his earthly coronation? It does not seem likely that the psalm would have been sung on both occasions, but is it likely that his ordination was depicted as a part of both? Who else held the Melchizedek priesthood besides the king? I don’t know the answers to any of those questions, but that’s alright, because sometimes having questions opens one’s mind more than just being supplied with all the answers. What is apparent to me is that just as the Lord himself is reported to have adopted the king as his “son” (Psalm 2), so the Lord is also represented as having been involved in ordaining the king to the Melchizedek priesthood. How and when that was done, one does not know, but it is likely that while it was done either a narrator or else the entire congregation sang the 110th Psalm.

The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. {38}

The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

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.

The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent,
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Psalm 110: 1-4)

Mowinckel believed the king’s ordination to the priesthood was very important.

We ought probably to bear in mind these very real spiritual and material consequences when the oracle of installation in Ps.cx promises to the king that he is to be ‘a priest for ever after the order of (or, more correctly, ‘on behalf of’, or ‘for the sake of’) Melchizedek’. The king made a point of securing his divine right to the priesthood, based on his being the legitimate successor and heir of the ancient king of Jerusalem, Melchizedek. {39}

The words in the psalm, “sit thou at my right hand,” is literally an invitation to the king to sit next to God, implicitly to sit upon the throne of God, and is offered in conjunction with his ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood. (See also Ephesians 1: 17-23)

After his ordination and anointing, the king had become a living messiah {40} – an anointed one, a king of righteousness, and the legitimate “son” and heir of God. He was crowned with a “crown of pure gold” (Psalm 21:3.), and accepted God’s invitation to sit upon the Temple throne.

… we know that Solomon had furnished the Temple with an (empty) cherub’s throne, which was certainly understood to be the throne of Yahweh. In the very old Ps. 110 Yahweh is the king, sitting on his throne and offering to his ‘son’, the earthly king, the seat of honour at his right side. In the likewise very old Ps. 68 the worshiper calls Yahweh ‘his king and his god’. {41}

Probably after the earthly king’s coronation, Jehovah is represented as returning to his own heavenly Temple and his own Celestial throne. Widengren cited of Psalm 7:7. “May the congregation of the peoples surround Thee, and Thou, above it, return to the height,” and took that to mean: “that Yahweh, enthroned in this congregation, returns to the height (where as we have seen He has His throne).” {42}

After Jehovah left the earthly temple, the Ark of the Covenant remained behind, and represented the authority of Jehovah. The Ark was placed in front of the throne and became the footstool of the throne in the Holy of Holies – the part of the throne by which one ascends to its heights, and the place where the king’s feet are “established” when he sits upon the throne. Thus his feet rests upon the sacred box which contains the symbols of both priesthood and kingship.

This conception of the sacred Ark of the Covenant as a footstool beneath the throne of God in the Holy of Holies seems strange to the Western mind. It becomes intelligible, however, if it is viewed within the context of the thought world of the ancient Near East. There, the throne and the footstool go together so that often they may form a single article of furniture. In many instances the footstool would be richly and symbolically decorated. So important were the two appurtenances of royalty that in Egypt, throne and footstool were frequently entombed together with the mummy of the pharaoh. The reason for their extraordinary status is that they evoked notions of majesty, exaltation, preeminence, sovereignty, and power. In the Israelite Tabernacle there was no actual throne, only the boxlike Ark with its tablets of stone inside it and its cherubim on top of it–an abiding reminder both of the invisible presence of the sovereign God and of His inescapable demands upon His people.

All this explains why the Ark was thought to assume a numinous aspect and to possess a dangerous potency. It constituted the understructure of the sacred space above it, space that was imbued with the extra-holiness radiated by the Divine Presence. {43}

The stone outcropping upon which the Dome of the Rock is now built was regarded (still is) as the connecting link (umbilical cord) between heaven and earth. The Ark apparently sat in (not on) that Rock, thus the Ark was an extension of the Rock. In its new role as the footstool of the throne, and the king’s feet were “established” upon that Ark. Thus, the placement of the king’s feet established symolic evidence that his person was an extension of that connection between earth and heaven – and therefore that the king was the embodiment of God’s word and the ultimate political and ecclesiastical authority in Israel. Johnson observed,

…just as the Ark is the symbol of Yahweh’s Person, so Mount Zion corresponds to the divine Mount of Assembly, and the Temple itself is the earthly counterpart of the divine King’s heavenly Palace. {44}

Not long ago, a renowned Jewish scholar recognized that the Ark was not simply placed on the floor of the Holy of Holies, but that an indentation had been carved into the Rock so that the Ark sat in it. He wrote,

The Priests brought the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH to its place, in the holy of Holies of the Temple’ (1Kings 8:6). That ‘place’ can now be identified as the rectangular depression in es-Sakhra [the sacred Rock that is covered by the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem] that measures 2 feet, 7 inches by 4 feet, 4 inches – 1.5 by 2.5 cubits – the same dimensions as the Ark of the Covenant that God commanded Moses to build in the wilderness (Exodus 25:10) and that was later housed in the Temple. {45}

Wensinck has observed that the king’s sitting upon the throne of God in the Holy of Holies would have been seen as a necessary part of the coronation because, symbolically, the king was still playing the part of Adam. He had been restored to his garment of light (the king had just been clothed in a garment covered with oil so that it sparkled in the sunlight), now, as Adam (the first and the last king) he can reclaim his role of king of the Garden by sitting on the earthly throne of God.

In the Old Testament the Holy Rock [above which the Holy of Holies of Solomon’s temple was built] is not mentioned; but Jerusalem as the place of the Divine Throne occurs I Chron. 29, 23: “And Solomon set himself upon the throne of Yahwe as a king, instead of David, his father.” Here the royal throne is called the throne of Yahwe. Of course this expression springs from the idea that the king is the Khalifa of God; how closely God and the king are connected, appears in the idea, that the royal throne is also the divine throne or an image of it. As God in his heavenly sanctuary sits upon his throne, so the king sits in the earthly sanctuary upon his throne. The centre of the earth and the pole of heaven, both are intimately connected with the throne. We find this already in the legends about Adam.

In the centre of the earth Adam is inaugurated by God as a king and a priest and set upon a throne. All this is meant typically of course; here the analogy is proclaimed between heaven and earth, godhead and kingship, navel and throne….

In Muslim legends about Adam some of these features are retained. Adam, the Khalifa, brought the later “black stone,” then a white hyacinth, from paradise to the spot of the Ka’ba “and it served Adam as a throne to sit upon”…. {46}

The Temple at Jerusalem represented the same concepts as the Garden of Eden. The Temple was not just sacred space, it was the navel of the earth – the counterpart of the Heavenly Temple. It was the symbolism of creation; the place of enthronement; the gathering place of men and gods; the cite of the sacred meal – and all these come together in the drama of the New Year festival. In ancient Israel, it was the Temple, the geographic and cosmic focal point, “where the corporate life of the race was thought to be renewed in the great New Year rites presided over by the king as god on earth.” {47}

If the ancient Israelite New Year festival was not only a series of ceremonies that led up to the coronation of the king, but was also a re-affirmation of the initiation rites of all those who participated as part of the audience – either by singing, or just by watching, but more probably by also making the covenants which were part of the ceremonies, as in 2 Kings 23:1-3, then the invitation to sit upon God’s throne was not just issued to the king but was symbolically issued to all the initiated as well.

In acceptance of that invitation, using the sacred Ark of the Covenant which has been placed as a footstool before the throne of God, the king, as God’s legitimate son and heir (and as token representative of everyone else who would ascend to his Father’s throne as sacral kings), stepped upon the Ark and ascended to the throne. His anointing was also a coronation ordinance where he received “a special endowment of the Spirit [which] is clearly associated with the rite” of anointing. {48} Thus the living king became as Adam, the first king and the son of God – thus the king the king became a patriarchal “father” to the then present generation. {49}

His divinity depends on the endowment he has received at his election and anointing and on the power flowing to him through the holy rites of the cult, by Yahweh’s free will, and depending on the king’s loyalty and obedience towards Yahweh’s commandments. {50}

It cannot be over-emphasized that the king’s sitting on God’s throne was a major symbolic act, an acknowledgment that he was God’s legitimate son and heir. {51} Borsch explains,

In a similar context we should probably set texts relevant to the king’s being raised up or lifted up on high, a notion which is to be compared rather than contrasted with that of the God or king ascending the holy mountain to be hailed as king. Mythically they represent much the same idea, and this is apparently why, as noted earlier, the king may be said to sit on God’s throne, and why we find several other references which seem to indicate that the king could be thought to have a throne in heaven. {42}

Now, in his full capacity as king, in the full regalia of royalty, probably including his wearing an embroidered copy of the Ten Commandments on his person, {53} and having his feet firmly

That point needs to be underscored: Throughout the ceremonies of the New Year Festival, the king had walked in the way of righteousness until he had come to the place were God was. Now his feet were firmly established upon the Ark of the Covenant, and upon the sacred the emblems of kingship and priesthood which it contained. {56}

I had long since assumed that the scripture, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings,” had to do with the king’s feet being “established” upon the Ark – and I assumed that idea had come from my reading either Isaiah or the Psalms or both, but as I wrote this I felt that I needed to find the source of my original thinking. What I found asked more questions than it answered. There is something like what I was looking for in Psalm 40. {57} The first phrases in those verses seems to be about the time the king was saved from the underworld, the second are about his enthronement. It reads:

I waited patiently for the Lord;
and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.
He brought me up also out of an horrible pit,
out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock,
and established my goings. (Psalm 40:1-2)

But I also found explicit references in two other most unexpected places. One was in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life. (D&C.78:16.)

That scripture seems to make my point. It is a clear and very powerful reference to sacral kingship or priesthood, or both. The other was once in Isaiah 49.

Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; for the feet of those who are in the east shall be established; and break forth into singing, O mountains; for they shall be smitten no more; for the Lord hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted. (Isaiah 49:13.)

That one delighted me. As I have observed, “comfort” in Elizabethan English meant to empower, as the word is used in Isaiah 61:3 to introduce the ancient coronation rites. The nice thing is that this scripture makes Abinadi’s point that sacral kingship is available to everyone who proves himself to be a legitimate heir – a “child”of God. The intriguing thing is that some ancient editor took that entire statement out of Isaiah, so it can only be found in the Brass Plates’ First Nephi 21 version. One wonders why it was taken out. As I have noted, there is no account of the king’s coronation rites, or of the drama of the New Year festival, in the Old Testament. One would guess that when these materials were removed from the record, the statement in Isaiah 49:13 was one of the casualties. (Bless Nephi for giving us so much of Isaiah – how I wish he had given us more!)

So my conclusion is what I expected it to be: that “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings” has to do with the temple enthronement rites, and the establishment of the king’s feet upon both the physical reality and the kingship and priesthood symbolism of the Ark of the Covenant. I assume that the Nephites in king Noah’s realm had a sacred box in which they kept the things that were somewhat equivalent to what was kept in the Ark of the Covenant, and that king Noah, his priests, Alma, Abinadi, and all the people, understood its significance – and that Abinadi spoke to that understanding. I will try to show why it is reasonable to make that assumption.

Before we go on, let me point out the interesting, and not altogether irrelevant fact that in Freedman’s article defining faith he writes this:

The Hebrew Bible [Old Testament], in fact, does not really have a word for faith….The Hebrew Bible uses the root mn to express what we are calling “faith.” … In the Qal form it never means “belief,” but expresses the basic sense of the root “to sustain, support, carry.” … The general sense of the word in the Hip-il form is “to be firmly set in/on something.” {58}

Freedman’s defining faith as “to be firmly set in/on something” throws an intriguing light on the meaning of the king’s feet being on the Ark. Using the New Testament word for faith, pistis, {59} one could say that having the king’s feet firmly established on the Ark was a token of the covenants of his kingship and of his priesthood. {60}

There is another important part of the symbolism as well. In Jerusalem, the Ark of the Covenant contained the original stone tablets of the Ten Commandments which had been written by the finger of God. That was the “Law” – the king’s securing his feet upon it was the ultimate symbol of his kingship. It also contained the rod of Aaron which blossomed when placed before the Tabernacle when Aaron’s priesthood authority was challenged. {61} So the king’s securing his feet upon those was the ultimate symbol of his kingship and priesthood. {62}

The other item in the Ark was a jar of the manna. Moses had instructed Aaron to “Take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the Lord, to be kept for your generations.” (Exodus 16:33) The wandering Israelites had subsisted on the manna for 40 years in the wilderness. It not only represented God’s ability to sustain his people, but it also symbolized the fruit of the Tree of Life {63} – which Nephi understood to represented the love of God.

If one’s feet are ‘established’ on the box which contain the symbolism of the fruit of the tree of life, then symbolically, one’s person become an extension of that fruit (fruit contain seeds, as in Alma 32), and thus one’s feet become as the roots, that the person may be a tree of life. That idea is related to heirship for Christ is thee Tree, and we are his branches, and in his words, it is the branches that are expected to produce the fruit. Thus, the manna in the Ark was a symbol of the kings own salvation and of his ability to be a means of salvation to others.

Sacral Kings and Queens among the People

I have alluded several times to the Ancient Israelite concept that the kingship endowment/coronation rites were “democratical.” That is, that the members of the audience were initiated participants who did not just watch the proceedings but actually – or at least symbolically – performed all the ordinances and made the same covenants as the king, queen, and others who were on the stage, during the procession, and even in the Holy of Holies. There actually seems to be more concrete evidence of that in the Book of Mormon than there is in the Old Testament. But even so, several biblical scholars have affirmed that this was the practice during the period when Solomon’s Temple was in use.

Several scholars who have written most extensively about the nature of Israelite kingship, have suggested that the coronation of the earthly king was both real and symbolic. It was real in that the king really was enthroned. It was symbolic because all the people who watched the drama were also initiated into the mysteries of kingship and priesthood, and, as they watched, where also made sons and daughters of God. The implications that ordinary men and women who watched the ceremonies were also participating in the ordinances and covenants, goes far beyond the notion of a vague universal royalty, for the king of Israel was the son and heir of Jehovah, so if the people participated in those same rites, they were also the sons and daughters of God.

Even though there is little evidence remaining in our version of the Old Testament of this democratization of the kingship, priesthood, and salvation rites, one may have a good glimpse at what appears to be the concluding ceremonies of the Israelite New Year’s festival in pre-Exilic times in the 23rd chapter of Second Kings. King Josiah had brought the people to the temple where he gave them an extensive lecture on the Law, apparently reading the entire book of Deuteronomy. {64} At the conclusion of his reading, the king stood by a pillar of the temple and made a covenant with Jehovah. Thereafter all the congregation rose to their feet and made the same covenant the king himself had just made. {65} This is not evidence that the people also made all of the other covenants which the king may have made during the ceremonies of the New Year’s festival, but it is evidence that on that occasion they made the last one. And that “one” precludes the argument that they made none, and opens the likelihood that they made others as well.

The idea that the people shared in the covenants and ordinances persisted into New Testament times. Philo of Alexandria, who lived in Egypt at the same time Jesus lived in Jerusalem, understood why sacral kingship and the high priesthood were not limited to the monarch, or the official high priest, but were available to all the people.

For there are two temples of God, I believe: the one is this universe in which indeed the high priest is the first-born, the divine Logos; and the other is the rational soul, whose priest is the Man-in-Reality, whose sensible copy is that one who committed to put on the aforementioned tunic which closely imitates the whole heaven, so that the cosmos too may jointly offer sacrifices with mankind, and that mankind might do the same with the cosmos. {66}

The Book of Mormon adds to that body of evidence. It is occasionally true that seemingly casual remarks by Mormon and others are not only very important in understanding what is happening – providing the contextual ideas in which one can place the teachings of the prophets – but also, some seemingly insignificant side comments are very important in establishing the antiquity – and therefore the authenticity – of the Book of Mormon. Mormon’s telling us about the Saviour’s lecture in the Temple at Bountiful is one of those.

He introduces that portion of the ceremony with these words.

And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto Nephi, and to those who had been called, (now the number of them who had been called, and received power and authority to baptize, was twelve), and he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude, and cried unto them, saying: (3 Nephi 12:1)

That is extremely significant. Jesus had been speaking to the Twelve about things relative to the operations of the Kingdom, but when he explained the meanings of kingship and priesthood, he spoke to the entire “multitude.” In only those few words, Mormon gives us sufficient evidence that the Saviour was doing what newly coronated ancient Israelite kings were supposed to do, and in doing so, he has also emphasized the same message that was so important to Abinadi: That the blessings of sacral kingship and priesthood are not reserved to the leaders, but are available to all the Saints.

The qualities of sacral kingship.

As is frequently true with modern biblical scholarship, the more closely scholars examine the times and ceremonies of the First Temple Period in the Old Testament, the more the Book of Mormon substantiates their findings by shedding additional light on the insights that biblical scholars have. That is the case with Abinadi’s exchange with the priests of Noah.

Some of the greatest biblical scholars of the last century have affirmed that during the period when Solomon’s Temple was in use, the underlying principle of the entire Old Testament theology and history is that not just the king, but the entire nation of Israel were “chosen,” and endowed with covenantel powers and responsibilities.

The distinguished biblical scholar Sigmund Mowinckel was the first to point out that the king’s anointing was an endowment of the Spirit. I have already alluded to his use of the word “endowment” as being appropriate, now let me explain why that is so. An endowment is a gift which grows in value with time. For example, when BYU receives an endowment of money, it invests the principle and spends only the accrued interest. Thus the original gift remains permanently intact, providing a perpetual source of income to support university programs or scholarships.

[The king’s] anointing was related to his endowment with the spirit. The later tradition says explicitly that when David was anointed, ‘the spirit of Yahweh leaped upon him’.

In virtue of his endowment with the divine spirit, the king is filled with superhuman power. He receives ‘a new heart’; he is changed into a new man (1 Sam. x, 6, 9)….He receives a new disposition expressed, according to oriental custom, in giving to him a new name which indicates his new, intimate relationship with the god who has chosen him, and whom he represents.

Through his anointing and endowment with the divine spirit, the king also receives superhuman wisdom.{67}

Other scholars have gone further, and have recognized that if, during the kingship endowment/coronation rites, the men and women in the audience made the same covenants and symbolically performed all the ordinances as the king and queen, then the “covenant people” left those sacred ceremonies with the same kinds of responsibilities and blessings as the king.

The king must be the embodiment of righteousness. To be that, he must know and live the Law of Moses – and do whatever he could to make sure his people also knew and lived the Law. His own hands must be clean from sin, and those of his nation must also be clean, otherwise the conditions of his and his nation’s covenant with Jehovah would be broken and the blessings promised would not come.

Thus the king is the supreme ‘ruler’ or ‘judge’, to whom one may go in any matter of dispute for a final ‘ruling’ or ‘judgement’ which, ideally at least, will also be an act of ‘justice’. What is more, it is in Yahweh, the God of Israel, that these laws find their substantiation, for in the ultimate it is from Yahweh, as the ‘Giver of Life’, that the nation derives its vitality; and, this being the case, it is to Yahweh that the king is finally responsible and, indeed, upon Yahweh that he is ultimately dependent for the exercise of justice and the consequent right ordering of society, i.e. its righteousness. {68}

The Israelite king ruled over his nation as a father figure{69} – and in that capacity also, he was the chief representative of God to his people {70} – for God was also both King and Father.

This confident and warm, emotionally tuned relation of the worshiper(s) to Yahweh often finds its expression in the phrase ‘our God’, or ‘my God’ when a single person is speaking on behalf of the congregation or of himself. {71}

The king, as father, head of state, chief judge, and commanding general of the military, presided over all of the affairs of his people, defending them when they needed defending, sitting in judgement over their problems as a father would settle the troubles between squabbling children, teaching {72} and enforcing both sacred and profane law.

About 475 years later, one can still see clear evidence of those same ancient Israelite ceremonies in the story of King Benjamin. There were some changes, but we cannot know how many. The only one we can be sure of is that they were using their tents for “tabernacles” rather than building temporary huts as their forefathers had done when they lived in the desert.{77} About 50 years after that, king Mosiah had a new constitution written which divided ecclesiastical from political authority. Unfortunately there is no record that shows how the New Year festival was altered to accommodate that division. The nearest evidence we have about that is in Alma’s address to his son Helaman (Alma 37). There he instructs Helaman to preserve the sacred objects like the Brass Plates and the Liahona. That shows us that these items were in the keeping of the ecclesiastical rather than the political authority, but tells nothing about how the festival itself was altered to accommodate the new constitution.

It is apparent to some scholars that the New Year Festival coronation was enacted because it was important that the people be able to participate. They were an indispensable part of the ceremonies. And their covenants were as important as the king’s.

When Abinadi answers the question, “who, then, are his seed?” he addresses this matter very eloquently. And his answer is the same as has been given by eminently qualified Old Testament scholars.

Frederick H. Borsch, after reviewing the symbolism of Adam’s role in the ancient New Year’s enthronement drama, asks,

Who, then, is the Perfect Man imaged from the one above, who yet must himself be saved by passing through the gate and being born again? Of course, in one sense it is this Adam below, but the implications are also vairly strong that this is not really the Primal Man on earth (for there is a way in which the true Man, or at least his counterpart, always seems to remain above). Rather is it the believer, the individual w ho himself would be saved by following in the way of the First Perfect Man. {78}

Mowinckel asserted that the congregation participated in the events of the drama through the actions of the king.

But both in Ps. cxxxii and in other cultic contexts, Israel’s king generally appears as the representative of the congregation before Yahweh, not as the representative of Yahweh before the congregation. He dances and sings and plays ‘before Yahweh’, and leads the festal procession (2 Sam. vi, 5, 14ff.; cf. Ps. xlii, 5). In the cultic drama he represents David: Yahweh is represented by His holy ark, by the ‘footstool’ before the throne on which He [God] is invisibly seated….

Was there discrimination against women within the covenant community? It seems not. Although in general the male head of the household represented the family in the offering of sacrifice, where an individual offering was stipulated a woman was expected personally to fulfill the requirement (Lev. 12.6; 1 Sam. 1.24)….The exceptional consecration entailed under the Nazirite vow was open to women (Num. 6.2-21). Indeed, this passage with its single feminine reference (v.2) is a timely reminder that grammatically masculine forms may be intended in any inclusive sense, and the linguistic convention must not be misunderstood. We may compare also Deut. 29.18ff. Where women are specified inv. 18, but masculine forms are used thereafter in vv. 19f.

The one role in worship from which women were certainly excluded was the priesthood, as also were the majority of men….Female members of priestly families were permitted, however, to eat of the ‘holy things’ set aside for the priests (Lev. 22.13). It is open to debate whether there were women who had an official place in worship. Exod. 38.8 speaks of ‘women who ministered at the door of the tent of meeting’. Although the nature of their service is not clear….Whether officially or not, women shared in cultic worship, dancing, singing and playing musical instruments (Exod. 15.20; Jud. 21.21; Ps. 68.26).

The regular involvement of women in the cult is implied by the strict regulations concerning their ritual purity….

Though the examples are few, there are several instances in the Old Testament of women in encounter with God. {83}

Robert Davidson does not mention women apart from men, but implies the same thing.

In Isa. 55.3 there seems to be an attempt to democratize this everlasting Davidic covenant and to transfer its privileges and responsibilities to the community as a whole and thus to ensure that its continuing validity was not permanently tied to the continuance of the Davidic dynasty….Unless we are prepared to see nationalism and particularism as the key to second Isaiah’s thinking, the description of the purpose of this covenant in Isa. 55.4-5 may be interpreted in a universalistic sense. This is also the case with the occurrence of covenant in Isa. 42.6 where Servant-Israel is summoned to be ‘a covenant of the people, and a light to the nations’. Yet this promise of a Davidic covenant for ever could also find a new and rich future within the hope of a Davidic king still to come, who would renew the old royal covenant temporarily annulled by events. {84}

Just as the Beatitudes are our best evidence that the Book of Mormon people understood the psalms as a part of their coronation rites, so is the Saviour’s introduction to the Beatitudes our best evidence that those rites were applicable to all the congregation. {85}When he reaches the coronation segment of the Beatitudes (he is still speaking to “the multitude”) he does not quote Psalm 2’s “son,” but rather takes the gender specificity out of the psalm and says,

Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called [given the new king-name] the children [not “sons”] of God.

That ancient idea is expressed anew in modern revelation. The Prophet Joseph Smith wrote,

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father–That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (D&C 76:22-24.) {86}

ENDNOTES

{ 1 } Eaton, John H., Kingship and the Psalms, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, p. 113 discusses Psalm 2 as evidence that the enthronement of the king was an “annual renewal.” For a discussion of the post-Biblical celebration of the festival see: Philip Goodman, The Sukkot and Simhat Torah Anthology (Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1974).

{ 2 } Deuteronomy 16:15 and Leviticus 23:34-36.
See, Sigmund Mowinckel, translated by A.P. Thomas, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2 Vols., Abingdon, Nashville, 1962, vol. 1: 120-125 for the former approach, and page 131 for acknowledgment of the latter.

{ 3 } Freidrich Weinreb, Roots of the Bible (Tiverton, Devon, Merlin Books, 1986), 350.

{ 4 } For a discussion of the sacrifices offered during the Feast see, Alfred Edersheim, The Temple, Its Ministry and Services (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 218- 219.

{ 5 } For a discussion of how and when some of the Psalms were used, see
Sigmund Mowinckel, translated by A.P. Thomas, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2 Vols., Abingdon, Nashville, 1962, vol. 1, p. 2-3. Also, Johnson, A. R., “Hebrew Conceptions of Kingship,” in S. H. Hooke, ed., Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, Oxford, 1958, p. 215-235.

{ 6 } Sigmund Mowinckel, D. R. Ap-Thomas, trans., The Psalms in Israel’ s Worship (Nashville: Abingdon, 2 vols., 1979), 1: 8-9 and n. 26.

{ 7 } The following is by no means a complete bibliography, but if you are interested in pursuing