The Book of Mary's Repose Identifying Jesus as the Angel of Death from Exodus 12

  

The Christ Angel Continues to Explain his True Nature: The Angel of Death

 

24) Now then, Mary, give the sign to the apostles that so they will tell the mystery to those who believe. The one to whom it is given will hear: thus will my name and my power be known. And I want to who them, Mary, what power was given to me from God the Father when he sent me into the world to destroy sinners and to bless the just.

25) I am the third that was created, and I am not the Son (alt. B: “I am the one who was created third in divinity, and I am the Son”); there is no one greater than me. I am the one who destroyed every firstborn of Egypt because of the great evil that was in them, and because of the great cry, and because of the blood that was shed by them. Ask the people of the earth, Mary, why I destroyed all the firstborn in Egypt. Ask those who say, ‘There is no one who saw us, and there is no one who knows us,’ as they should know. Ask then those who believe and trust in their treasures, and they will tell you why I destroyed all the firstborn of Egypt, so that they ate many lentils in the teeth of their children [?], and they will always sin, and affliction will remain on their children. And behold, these who say, ‘Nevertheless, we are.’ For this mystery is among us together, with the blood of those who were destroyed. This I tell you, Mary, so that you know about these things. (“The Book of Mary’s Repose,” in The Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin Mary [trans. Stephen J. Shoemaker; Apocryphes: Collection De Poche De L’Aelac 17; Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2023], 74)

 

Elsewhere in the text, we learn the name of the angel:

 

. . . I have spoken to you, who is before me. Her then my name: ‘Adonai’el. (Ibid., 82)

 

Note that the name is a combination of both Adonai and El.

Mary being Guilty of Personal Sin in "The Book of Mary's Repose"

 Ethiopic

 

Behold, I will tell you about my sin. When we were fleeing, Joseph, two of his children, and I, a terror was upon me, and I heard the voice of the infants behind me, saying, ‘You do not weep and you do not lament: you see and you do not see; you hear and you do not hear.’ And when it had said this, I turned around to see who was speaking with me. And then he had returned and I did not know where he went. And I said to Joseph, ‘Let us go from this place, because I saw an infant who is not from this world.’ And then when I looked, he appeared to me, and I found that he was my son. And he said to me, ‘Mary, my mother, every sin is imputed to you, because you have tasted the bitter as the sweet.’ I did not believe, my brothers, that I had found so much glory, until I gave him birth, since I did not at all know the menstruation of women, because of him. Now, however, I understand. And all of this took place and everything was said to me and made known to me then on the road, as was his power. And every soul hopes, both [those] of the righteous and the wicked.” When she had said this, she called her family and said to them, “Arise and pray.” And when they prayed, they sat and began to speak among themselves about the greatness of Christ [and] the sign that he made.

 

“The Book of Mary’s Repose,” in The Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin Mary (trans. Stephen J. Shoemaker; Apocryphes: Collection De Poche De L’Aelac 17; Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2023), 89-90

The Miraculous Image of Christ in The Homily on the Dormition Attributed to Basil of Caesarea" (late-sixth/early-seventh century)

  

Mary Prays Before an Image of her Son

 

12. And according to custom, since the Ascension this pure Virgin had the visage portrayed on linen, given to her from divine hands, so that she would always see and behold the beautiful face of her son. And when she would pray, she placed the image to the east and thus prayed before it with raised hands. And also at the time of her departure, she made all her prayers before this image of the being. She lit three candles and placed incense on the fire, and with tears, prayers, and vigilance thus she spent the rest of the night.

13. When the sun rose it was Wednesday. She returned to Zion with her disciples. And again she placed incense and lit candles and stretched forth her hands and said, “You who receive the offering of the sun, receive my prayer and have mercy on your creatures and those you made with your hands, you who are a lover of humankind and because you have great mercy.”

14. And she spoke this prayer, and the image of God said to her, “Do not fear, mother, I am with you.” And again Mary said to Christ. “With John coming and the other apostles, you have made my soul glad.” And again Christ said, “You are the guardian and faith of the apostles—how would you not see them? I myself will care for you, O caretaker of all who yearn for me. The time of your honor has drawn hear, and you will be received as the mother of your son.”

 

. . .

 

The Image of Christ Again Addresses Mary

 

56. And again a brilliant light shone before the image of the Savior. A fragrant smell went forth ineffably, and from it a command went forth and said to Mary, “Do not fear, mother, for I am with you, and do not be terrified. Blessed one: all my creatures venerate your holiness, for I am with all who glorify you.” Seething with tears, she fell to the ground.

57. Again the voice said, “Arise, pray, and receive what you want from me.” Then she raised her hands and said, “Have mercy on your exalted ones and the works of your hands, O terror of Hell, forgive sins in error, and do not believer them to Hell, but make them worthy of your light: behold, for their sake you came from heaven to earth.”

58. And again the voice said, “Mother, those who glorify you, I will glorify them unto eternity. And what you asked, it has been granted beyond what you asked. I will grant it to you on account of your glory, and now, you have boldness, and above all your wish will be granted as the beloved mother.”

59. Mary said, “Lord God, might I somehow see John the Baptist now, here in the flesh?” Christ said, “I am pleased to do anything. Nevertheless, you will not only see him in the flesh, but my entire Kingdom, for I will lead forth your would myself and peace to you.” Mary said, “As is fitting for your divinity, so may your will be done, and without you nothing at all is done. Glorious Lord, glory to you. (“The Homily on the Dormition Attributed to Basil of Caesarea,” in The Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin Mary [trans. Stephen J. Shoemaker; Apocryphes: Collection De Poche De L’Aelac 17 ; Turnhout, Belgium : Brepols, 2023], 297, 310)

 

Commenting on the date of the homily, Shoemaker noted that:

 

The homily’s author, in any case, is certainly not Basil: the text is much too late for this even to be a possibility. Most likely this Dormition narrative was composed sometime in the late sixth or early seventh century, as indicated by its inclusion of a four-day celebration of the Virgin’s Dormition around 15 August, a structure that also indicates its production in the Jerusalem area. Although the festal period began only on 14 August, rather than on 13 August as in the Georgian Lectionary and the Klarjeti homilary, it is clear that these texts derive from the same Jerusalemite milieu. Based on its content . . . I suspect that this Dormition narrative is a work of the seventh century. The liturgical program, however, suggests that it should not be dated much later than this. (Stephen J. Shoemaker, The Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin Mary [Apocryphes: Collection De Poche De L’Aelac 17; Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2023], 48-49)

 

Further Reading:

Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons

Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers on Zechariah 12:10

  

they have stabbed. The single Hebrew word dāqārû, from the root dqr (“to stab, wound, pierce”), is surely one of the major interpretive cruxes in Second Zechariah, if not in all of prophecy. The outpourings of scholarly discussion do not center on the actual meaning of the word but rather on the identity of the one stabbed, the identity of those who commit this act of violence, the meaning of such an act, the relationship—if any—of this deed to general historical reality, and the possible allusion to this text to a specific political event. . . . Let us first establish that the root dqr does not mean “to kill” but rather “to stab, pierce, wound” with a thrusting weapon, notably a sword (e.g., Lam 4:9; Isa 13:15; 1 Sam 31:4 = 2 Chron 10:4). In several instances it is clear that the victim of such an attack died (as in Num 25:8 and Jug 9:54, in addition to the references just cited). But the very addition of another term (as “and he died”) indicates that although death would be expected because sword thrusts generally inflicted mortal wounds, this would not be necessarily or always the case. Indeed, Jer 37:10 mentions “wounded” soldiers who remain in their “tents” . . . and Jer 51:4 may also indicate serious but nonfatal battle wounds.

 

The question of whether the “stabbed” one in this verse has in fact died thus must remain open. That the perpetrators of the stabbing are not held accountable in terms of being themselves subject to the death penalty may indicate that the stabbing in this instance was serious but nonfatal. This leads to the possibility that the image of confrontation, of violent opposition, is that is intended here in a somewhat more figurative sense. Still, the next image is that of mourning; here it is likely that death is involved but that divine favor toward the future Davidides and other leaders precludes the ultimate penalty.

 

. . .

 

. . . the same word—“stab”—is found once more in Second Zechariah, in the next chapter. Although not used for an attack on true prophets, it depicts a legitimate confrontation with false prophets, whereby those who prophesy falsely in God’s name will immediately be recognized for what they are by those falsely in God's name will immediately be recognized for what they are by those who know them most intimately, and then they will be stabbed ( . . “Then . . will stab him” in 13:3). Because the case of Uriah demonstrates that swords were used against accused prophets, which are the weapons most likely to cause the stab wounds indicated by dqr, the use of “stab” may have come to denote all violent acts against prophetic figures, whether mortal or not.

 

Third, the retrospective nature of much of Second Zechariah must be taken into account. This prophet is keenly aware of centuries of Israelite history and tradition. He cites or alludes to the division of the monarchy (11:7, 14; . . . ), the exile of the northerners (10:10; . . .), and the fall of Judah (11:10; . . .). Furthermore, as we have explained above, the perpetrators of the stabbing are those who held power before the Exile. This too may thus be a retrospective reflection of the historical struggle between prophecy and the ruling establishment, a struggle that will come to an end in the future age described here.

 

. . .

 

. . . the prophet is not simply indulging in historical sentimentality. The very fact that this stabbing holds such a powerful position in chapter 12, with the subsequent morning developed through a series of similes and a subsequent Catalog of Mourners, suggests that the prophet is motivated by what he is experiencing in his own day, both personally and as a member of Yehudite society. As we have suggested elsewhere, the recurrent theme of the tension between prophetic groups—true and false prophets—surely indicates the prophet’s direct and probably difficult involvement in the ongoing struggle. Here and in 13:2-6 he sees it resolved: those who attempted to thwart prophecy in the past are remorseful and mourn their wrongdoings, and any future false prophets that arise will be cut down at their roots, so to speak-by their own parents. (Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9-14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 337, 338, 339)

 

Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers on Zechariah 9:9

  

O Daughter Zion. In Hebrew poetry, “daughter” (bat) plus a toponym is commonly used. It is thought to designate the inhabitants of a particular place (Haag 1975: 334) or to indicate the place itself and thus, collectively, its population. However, close attention to the grammar of the expression indicates population. However, close attention to the grammar of the expression indicates a more specific usage. Although “daughter” (bat) plus a place name is frequently translated “daughter of [place].” Thereby implying that the place has a daughter, it is clear that such a translation is erroneous. The idiom refers to the place itself, personified as a daughter. . . . The specific daughter-Zion combination appears twenty-six times in the Hebrew Bible.

 

The frequent use of “daughter” or “daughters” in Scripture to personify a place and to enhance its role in a poetic text is imperfectly understood. Perhaps because place names are normally feminine, this female kinship term came to designate various locales and their inhabitants. The suitability of “daughter” here is probably related to the dependent status of daughters. Just as unmarried daughters cannot act independently of their parents, so Yahweh’s people must rely on God and on the king who is coming for their future to be arranged. . . . “Daughter Zion” in this verse is parallel to “Daughter Jerusalem,” the two expressions together signifying the holy city. Although these exhortations at the beginning of verse 9 apparently draw upon Zeph 3:14 . . .they do not include “Israel,” which accompanies “Zion” and “Jerusalem” in Zephaniah. Zechariah 9, in contrast, focuses especially on Jerusalem. This attention to Zion/Jerusalem in verse 8 that God will be in the Temple in Jerusalem . . . Just as this verse echoes the language of the oracular expansion of Zechariah 2 (especially 2:14 [NRSV 2:10]), so too the previous verse uses images associated with that chapter of First Zechariah, again 2:14 (NRSV 2:10) in particular. The fact that both verses 8 and 9 connect with First Zechariah, along with their common concern for Jerusalem, provides continuity between the first and second subunits of chapter 9. The theme of Jerusalem as a sacred city where the future king will rule (v 10) is thus a natural sequel to the theme of reestablishing God’s presence in the Temple. Thus, although the second subunit (9:9-10) of this chapter in many ways stands apart from verses 1-8 and 11-17, it nonetheless is thematically connected to its context . . . The call to Zion as witness and celebrant of a new world order, characterized by stability (worldwide peace), is part of Zion’s traditional role in the expectation for Yahweh to overcome Israel’s enemies and establish Israelite/Davidic/divine sovereignty in Jerusalem. This role for Zion is part of the “Zion tradition”, in which a number of motifs accrue to the depiction of Zion, especially in Psalms . . . These motifs are part of a general Near Eastern typology of royal accession . . . It should be noted that “Daughter” appears twice here, thus prefiguring the double use of “sons” in verse 13 . . . This is another of the ways in which the subunits of Zechariah 9 are interconnected. (Carol L. Meyers and Ric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9-14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 121, 122)

 

Although a lowly beast (Gen 49;14ff.), it also could signify royalty. The story of Saul retrieving asses may be an allusion to his future office, and the succession story of Solomon has him on a mule rather than a horse (although the word there is pered rather than ḥămōr [1 Kgs 1:33, 38]). The range of images attached to ḥămōr is striking, and they all may contribute to the message of this passage—that the king represents peace, that his humble beast is suitable for his role in submitting to divine power while exerting his own royal dominion, and that he is a legitimate monarch. The use of a lowly animal is one of the ways in which a royal figure partakes of the life-style of the people he dominates. In this way he bridges the structural gap between those in power and those subjugated and thereby helps to win the cooperation of people dominated by a royal elite . . . (Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9-14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 130)

 

Excerpts from The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863 Book D

 The following excerpts are from:

 

The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863 Book D, ed. Fred C. Collier (Hanna, Utah: Collier’s Publishing Co., 2006)

 

February 24, 1860

 

President Young in the course of his remarks alluded to the zeal of Hyrum Smith, Brother of the Prophet, in his views of The Word of Wisdom, who prophesied that Every Saint who Chewed tobacco would apostatize. President Young observed, he [i.e. Hyrum] prophesied by Hyrum Smith and not by the Spirit of the Lord, and that he (Hyrum would eat about 3 lb of fat pork in a day; and yet be so severe upon a tobacco chewer; upon other points, observed the President, Hyrum Smith was a man of knowledge. Once Joseph told his Brother Hyrum [that] if he would suffer him to dictate him, he should lead the Church to Hell, and he would frequently sit and sneer at the remarks of Bro Hyrum, which were frequently delivered to the congregation when they were weary with the remarks of the preachers that had preceded him. This variety of men composes those who love God, and one class have certain failings, and another failings of a different kind and we must learn to bear with each others failings while we are all trying to do right. (p. 42)

 

March 12, 1860

 

President Young said: “I will tell you how I reason—the Lord placed certain plants here for some purpose; the Lord has given us wheat & beef for nourishing our bodies and if the herbs were useless what did he put them there for. The President believed and practiced the taking of medicine, and it is better to gather up a little catnip and make tea of it than to ask the Lord to send an Angel to cure us when we can do so much ourself—nevertheless he believed in the ordinances to be used with mild herbs according to the revelation given upon that subject. (p. 53)

 

February 23, 1861

 

Telestial Glory

 

President Young attended a party at the Social all. Gov^r Cumming & Judge Crosby & Kinney were pre there also. While the President fell into conversation with the brethren about the three glories a which are described in the vision given to Joseph Smith J^r, which we find written in the book of Doctrine & Covenants. The President emphatically and distinctly said [that] those who enter the glory of the Telestial world will have to dwell singly and separately apart; they will not marry there, they will be happy. It will be nearly the same with the telest Terrestrial Glory—they will not marry although their glory will be infinitely greater. None but the Gods will be allowed to multiply and increase. In Celestial Glory there will be many who will be single also. (p. 212, emphasis in bold added)

 

March 3, 1861

 

President Young attended Tabernacle in the afternoon. He remarked [that] if our Saviour as here we should not like him so well as we did him—he, Brigham, was more like us than the Saviour. (p. 214)

 

September 17, 1861

 

Br Stoddard further remarked that he heard Joseph Morriss say to the brethren, “hold on a few days longer and we shall see the destruction of the Mormons and the power of God in their behalf”; the Morrissites would not join the Militia of the Territory—they would rather pay the fines. They should [showed] Br Stoddard a Map of the different worlds, showing the processions of them—for one of them was B. Young’s world, another was Joseph Morriss’s worlds &c. Joseph Smith had only 1/6 part of the Keys of the Kingdom,--also Mentioned an order of confirmation, ^^{of an Elect lady & heiress} pouring oil on their head, saying: We annoint your head with holy and consecrated oil in the name of Jesus Christ and by authority of the holy priesthood of this the seventh dispensation, we also annoint your womb that you may bear children to the Glory of God &c. ^{bring forth a holy seed unto the Lord and} that thou Mayest be an heiress to the Melchzedeck priesthood. (pp. 291-92)

 

January 8, 1862

 

Elder E. T. Benson who had called in with Peter Maughan & Bp. Harrington, mentioned that Joseph Morriss the Crazy prophet said that these light Snows was an evidence of Gods favor to them, in their unsheltered state. He mentioned that Br. Primrose asked Morriss to show him Aaron’s rod. The prophet told him he was mistaken—he had no such rod—the Morrissites had burnt up every thing near them for fuel, and their necessarily must soon break up. (p. 334)

Blake Ostler, "Acts 7:51-60: Christ as Lord and Son of Man"

  

Acts 7:51-60: Christ as Lord and Son of Man

 

The imagery of the king enthroned at the right hand of God in Psalm 110 also appeared very early in the Christian experience of visions of the resurrected Christ. Stephen angered the Jews to whom he preached by declaring the coming of the “Righteous One,” (the KJV has “Just one,” του δικαιου, tou dikaiou, = צדדיק, tsedek) probably alluding to Melchizedek, or malchi tzedek, the king of righteousness to whom Jesus is implicitly compared (Acts 7:52). Such a connection appears even more likely in the context of allusion not the royal Psalm 110 where Christ is enthroned as king or melek. Christ thus becomes the just king or melek tsedek. Stephen said that the Jews had unjustly murdered Jesus, the “Righteous Ones” whom the prophets had testified would come. The acclamation of the king as Lord by “my Lord” in Psalm 110 culminated in a declaration that the king is also a priest after the order of the king of peace, Melchizedek: “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4). Luke records words attributed to Stephen that so outraged the Jews that they took up stones:

 

55. But he, filled with the holy Spirit, looked up intently to heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,
56. and he said, “Behold I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55-56, NAB).

 

Those present would have heard an allusion comparing Christ to Melchizedek and also to the Son of Man figure—both as a second deity in heaven given power and authority by the Most High God. Whether the Jews generally were aware of the exalted view of Melchizedek as God’s chief agent and even “god” at Qumran is uncertain, but such a comparison would explain their reaction to Stephen’s message—they cried that he had committed blasphemy warranting stoning. The Jews were “merely” angered at Stephen’s claim that they had murdered Jesus; but his claim to see Jesus standing as the Son of Man at the right hand of God outraged them to that they “covered their ears” and picked up stones to kill him on the spot. They clearly regarded Stephen’s claim as blasphemy. However, Jesus does not sit on a throne but “stands” at the right of God, thus indicating that he is both distinct from and subordinate to God. He is God’s royal vizier. As Stephen approached death, Luke (who was not present) says that he exclaimed; “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59, alluding to Psalm 31:6). This statement is significant, not only because Stephen again uses the term “Lord Jesus,” but because he remits his soul to Jesus and not to the one God by quoting a Psalm that originally referred to Yahweh.

 

The fact that the epithet “Lord” used for God was also used for Christ indicates that Jesus Christ was seen as sharing in the divine qualities and name of God. In Larry Hurtado’s terms, the use of the kyrios-title, “Lord,” indicates that Jesus had been made to share in the divine glory and transcendence as the chief agent of God. The fact that Jesus is enthroned as the right hand of God shows that he is second in divine authority only to God. In the culture of honor and shame, to sit at the right hand of the patron meant that a great honor was bestowed. When his notion is joined with the grant of the title “Lord” and the inheritance, the message is clear: Jesus has been given the highest honor possible by being given the name and everting that the benefactor has to give by honoring him as his own son and heir. Adela Collins summarized well the significance of Psalm 110:

 

The regal connotations of the epithet are clear in the Synoptic passage that portrays Jesus asking, “How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand. . . .” The implied interpretation is that the speaker in Psalm 110:1, David, refers to the God as “Lord” and then to the Messiah also as “Lord.” The Messiah is thus the final and definitive king who is superior even to the ideal king of the past, David. The realm of messianic Lord is all creation, not just the land of Israel. (Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult,” 239)

 

This same view of Christ as God’s chief agent and vizier is succinctly stated in one of the earliest Christian documents (about 50 A.D.), 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, which states that one of Paul’s Gentile converts had turned from idols to worship “and to await his son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus, who delivers us from the coming wrath.” As Larry Hurtado noted, this “last statement presents Jesus in a role strikingly similar to the Melchizedek of 11QMelchizedek, who likewise functions as the divinely appointed deliverer of the elect, God’s chief agent and vizier of eschatological redemption.” (Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 95-96)

 

Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: Of Gods and Gods (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008), 130-32