From Isaiah to Ezekiel to Heavenly Ascent

My Comments on Martha Himmelfarb’s Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses

The next major work that I will be looking at here is Princeton professor of religion, Martha Himmelfarb’s book entitled Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). This work is significantly influential in the study of the heavenly ascent phenomenon. In her study, Himmelfarb attempts to trace the history, development and nature of this type of visionary ascent to heaven as found in both Jewish and Christian apocalyptic writings.

Martha Himmelfarb

Her study covers eight Jewish and Christian ascent apocalypses written (as far as scholars can tell) between 200 BC and 200 AD: the Book of the Watchers (found in 1 Enoch 1-36), the Testament of Levi, 2 Enoch, the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Ascension of Isaiah, and 3 Baruch.  Himmelfarb does not consider similar texts written after the second century nor the hekhalot texts as she sees them as separate and distinct genres with different concerns, focus, and modes of visionary experience.

Himmelfarb opens her book quoting from one of the most detailed and exciting ascent accounts, that of 2 Enoch. Enoch is taken up to the highest heaven and stands before the throne of God, where he undergoes an amazing transformation:

And the Lord said to Michael, Take Enoch and take off his earthly garments, and anoint him with good oil, and clothe him in glorious garments.  And Michael took off from me my garments and anointed me with good oil. And the appearance of the oil was more resplendent than a great light, and its ricness like sweet dew and its fragrance like myrrh, shining like a ray of the sun. And I looked at myself, and I was like one of the glorious ones, and there was no apparent difference (9:17-19).

The claim presented here, which Himmelfarb sees as the central point of these texts, is that human beings can become equal to the angels (Note: the text actually shows Enoch being set above the angels with his own throne). Before getting into the valuable substance of what she finds in these accounts, I must respectfully disagree with a number of her assumptions that she presents in her history of the heavenly ascent.

Himmelfarb starts Chapter 1 of her book by pointing out how 1 Enoch 14 (the earliest known account of a visionary ascending into heaven) departs from our traditional picture of ancient Jewish literature. She notes the stories’ similarity to biblical prophetic call visions, like that in Isaiah 6, where Isaiah sees God on his throne surrounded by angels. Even more similar is Ezekiel’s vision of the chariot throne, in which Himmelfarb sees many parallels with 1 Enoch. The major difference she sees, however, is that both Isaiah and Ezekiel remain on Earth, while Enoch actually ascends to Heaven, which, to her, is an innovation.

In Isaiah, the vision of God’s throne apparently takes place on Earth (see also Micaiah ben Imlah’s vision in 1 Kgs 22:19-21). From the description given in Isaiah 6 (or lack thereof)–with Isaiah’s reference to the “temple” and no mention of ascent, Himmelfarb assumes that this vision is taking place in the earthly Temple of Jerusalem.  In the First Temple period, the Israelites believed that God was, or could be, truly present on His cherubim throne in the temple. Himmelfarb notes that this coincides with the belief current among Israel’s neighbors that the god actually dwelt in the temple human beings built for him (p. 11). Another similar belief is that the gods dwelt at the top of a cosmic mountain that was the intersection of Earth and Heaven. Mount Sinai and, especially, Mount Zion were seen as cosmic/holy mountains where God dwelt and where man could meet God. The temple was built to represent the primordial holy mount.

For Himmelfarb, the story of Ezekiel’s vision of the chariot throne marks “the beginning of a trend to dissociate God’s heavenly abode from the temple in Jerusalem” (p. 11). This is most likely due to the defilement of the temple and destruction by the Babylonians. So the popular reasoning is that because there was no more temple, the Jews necessarily had to imagine God and His throne as being able to exist and travel on their own outside of the earthly temple, which is what Ezekiel sees in his “merkavah” (chariot throne) vision (Ezek 1). But Himmelfarb notes that what Ezekiel sees in vision corresponds to the contents of the temple (for more detail, see my post “Understanding Ezekiel’s Remarkable Merkabah Vision“). In addition, Ezekiel later identifies the “living creatures” of his first vision as cherubim (Ezek 10:20). Himmelfarb comments:

The text suggests that Ezekiel is able to recognize the creatures as cherubim because of his proximity to the sculpted cherubim of the temple. Clearly the heavenly originals are more awesome and wonderful than their earthly representations (p. 11).

painting by Rafael

Himmelfarb herself makes the observation that “[s]ometimes the earthly temple was understood to be modeled on the god’s house in heaven…” In light of this possibility, it is interesting to note that she persists in arguing that the belief in a God whose true home is in Heaven (and not in the earthly temple or holy mountain) is only a later development. She reasons that it was the Deuteronomic school who rejected the idea that God could dwell on Earth (or even come to Earth). I, personally, would suggest that the original belief was likely that God could be seen in His temple, but that there was an understanding that God truly lived in His heavenly temple. Like the Garden of Eden, the temple was a holy place where God could visit when he chose.  As Himmelfarb noted, the temple was only a model of God’s true house in heaven.

She goes on to argue that after the time of Ezekiel, the temple never regained its status as the house of God on Earth. She explains:

The Second Temple is never able to emerge from the shadow of the disengagement of the glory of God. The ark and the cherubim are gone. In the period of the Second Temple, under the influence of Ezekiel, those who are unhappy with the behavior of the people and especially its priests come to see the temple not as God’s proper dwelling, the place where heaven and earth meet, but rather as a mere copy of the true temple located in heaven. It is this desacralization of the earthly temple in favor of the heavenly that opens the way for Enoch’s ascent in the Book of the Watchers. The first ascent in Jewish literature is thus a journey to the true temple.

While I agree that the writers of the apocalypses did not see the Second Temple in the same light as the First (see, for example, my posts here and here), I believe that the worshippers in the First Temple would have known that it, too, was but a copy of the true heavenly temple. The reason why God was no longer seen in the Second Temple was because it was corrupt. The beliefs, rituals, and theology had been changed so that the Second Temple was a much different sanctuary of a markedly different religion. To me, this is why certain parties went off on their own (to Qumran, for example) and wrote stories about ancient seers ascending to the true Temple in Heaven–because they no longer could worship in a holy house that worthily and truthfully represented Heaven on Earth. The First Temple, in my opinion (and I think Margaret Barker and other scholars would agree with me), had ritualistically represented this ascent to Heaven, and prophets had visions there of God on His throne in Heaven. Alternatively, God could have appeared in the Holy of Holies, which was a sacred representation of His true throne in Heaven. Later visionaries (including Joseph Smith) would have similar experiences of seeing Heaven–but while they were in Heaven mentally or spiritually their feet were usually well-planted on the Earth (although maybe on a high mountain). Because of the wonder of the experience, sometimes they just couldn’t tell (“whether in the body or out”, 2 Cor 12:3; D&C 137:1).

In sum, although I really enjoy her subject matter in this book, I don’t really agree with Martha Himmelfarb’s initial history of the heavenly ascent genre of Jewish and Christian literature. Unlike her, I tend to believe that the heavenly ascent was not a postexilic innovation, but that it has ancient roots. While such is not well represented in the Old Testament, I believe that heavenly ascents were a very important part of the belief system of the First Temple. The basis for my opinion stems from my own LDS religious tradition, but also finds support in the writings of religious scholars such as Margaret Barker. I believe that this perspective will be become more and more popular–and it is one of my main goals to contribute to this trend.  Although I disagree with her on a number of points, I am excited to analyze more of Himmelfarb’s research, and will dedicate future posts to more of the positive insights she provides.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed