I found the following a while back and just recently looked at it again and thought it would be great to post here. British scholar Crispin Fletcher-Louis, in his book All the Glory of Adam, had the following to say about the early Jewish belief that all of humanity was meant to, and and eventually could, be divine:

Studies driven by New Testament concerns have tended to focus attention on the singular angelomorphic hero of old or the future messiah whose identity prefigures early Christian beliefs about Jesus. However, the fact that so often the angelomorphic identity is grounded in that of Adam before his exit from Eden, the existence of a continuity of angelomorphic identity through the generations of God’s elect and the focus on Israel as an angelomorphic people of God speaks for a theological perspective which should not be missed: there seems to be a claim which is usually implicit, but, as we shall see, is at other times explicit, that true humanity, as it is restored among the elect, is both angelomorphic and divine. In the rush to explain the origins of early Christian beliefs about Jesus sight can be lost of the fact that the peculiarly divine, angelic or exalted status of a particular righteous individual is fundamentally an expression of a universal theological anthropology. (Crisping Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 12)

(Note: angelomorphic = being or appearing in the form of an angel/divine being)

We cannot understand texts by simply reading them

–Mainstream Christianity is being converted into an ethical humanism–we are moving away from doctrines like the resurrection. The liturgy is being converted into an opportunity for celebration of ethical humanism–this is nothing short of a blasphemy. Souls need to understand the way the doors of eternity open (through the liturgy).

Written texts demand traditions of interpretation – most sacred things  need to be kept secret and are not written down. In the  liturgical texts of the Catholic Church, the Father has resolved the Fall of Adam. How does this flesh become eternal? Through what means are we resurrected? (These are answered in the liturgy)

Modern theology doesn’t understand priesthood – who is the priest?  What does priesthood effect? I (Dr Hemming) have learned much about the priesthood from my friends among the Latter-day Saints. Who does the Melchizedek Priesthood concern? Priesthood re-conciliates heaven to earth – provides a way for the fallen to  be before the throne of God continually – it is a means to theosis. It is the means given for us to return to God.

But priesthood is not mentioned in Genesis. In the  Testament of Adam, we read ”Adam, Adam do not fear, you wanted to be a god, and I will make you a god, but not now.”  Adam is speaking to Christ.

The Book of Treasures specifically says that Adam is a priest  — a high priest.

Adamic priesthood is linked to Aaronic priesthood – to be vested in gold garments of Onyx.

Both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are at work in the sacrifice of Abraham –- Levitical priesthood makes visible the works of the Melchizedek/Heavenly priesthood. The sacrifice on the earth parallels the sacrifice in heaven.

The Priesthood should be understood through the liturgical texts.

The Adamic/Levitical priesthood is how we offer gifts to God – the Melchizedek priesthood is how God translates our gifts into higher heavenly gifts.

The parts of the liturgy that have been removed are the parts that originally were not to be written down  — they weren’t written down until the Middle Ages, so people now think they were a late addition – but they weren’t meant to be shared.

In the liturgy, there used to be a “preparatory” sacrifice before the Eucharistic sacrifice. (The preparatory sacrifice representing the earthly/Levitical Priesthood and the Eucharistic sacrifice representing the heavenly/Melchizedek Priesthood) There are two different kinds of priesthood at work here. There is one that remains and one that was lost and needs to be restored. I desire that my church would restore this full understanding.

The bishop is meant to be a high priest.

—————————-

This was a fantastic paper and I apologize that my notes simply do not do it justice. I would be very pleased to see Dr Hemming continue with this research and look forward to his further results in the future.

Note especially how the legends seek to defensively portray Isaac’s decision to bless Jacob — Isaac is not deceived, but comes to the inspired realization that Jacob is the correct son to bless. And that conclusion is reached by many other parties as well — not just Rebekah (who is depicted as adding her own blessing), but also Abraham blesses Jacob before his death. The text makes a point to demonstrate that this is all done with the clear approval of God and his angels.  The narrative also plays up the idea that Esau really was a bad guy, more so than is depicted in the biblical story.

Among the many interesting “extras” in this story, also note the two separate descriptions of special “garments” possessed by Esau.  In the first account, Esau gains a special garment by killing Nimrod the king and stealing them. This garment of Nimrod is the royal/priestly garment give by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden (Pseudo-Jon. to Gen. xxvii. 15), and is what made him such a mighty hunter– the garment bearing such power and authority that all men and animals subjected themselves to its wearer.  Esau kills Nimrod to get this garment.  The next account says that Esau had a high priestly garment that was passed down from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Shem (Melchizedek) and from Shem to Abraham. From Abraham they went to Isaac, and Isaac gave them to his firstborn, Esau. However, in this account, Rebekah takes them and gives them to Jacob, who is the more worthy son–to whom the birthright and the blessing went.  Now these legends about the garment are greatly condensed in Ginzberg’s narrative, and a whole post could be written on this material alone. The narrative here does not tell us how the garments were both in Nimrod’s hands and also passed down the line of patriarchal priesthood to Esau.  These are two different lines of Jewish tradition that get combined here. In one tradition, Nimrod inherits the garment of Adam illegitimately, they having been stolen from Noah by Ham.  The other tradition has the garments staying in the line of Shem (Shem recovers them from Ham, or perhaps there was a new priestly garment made after the original garment was stolen by Ham).  Either way, here the priestly garments end up in the hands of Jacob, who apparently is their rightful possessor in the eyes of God as well. In some traditions, this is the “coat of many colors (or pieces)” that Jacob gives to his favorite son, Joseph.

One more note: on the topic of “marriage in the covenant,” note how the story blames Isaac’s blindness on Esau’s marriage to Canaanite women!  Note also how Esau’s sins are the cause of Abraham’s death. This was obviously a very serious issue, but one into which I will not go further. Enjoy the text of Ginzberg’s Legends of the Jews:

THE SALE OF THE BIRTHRIGHT

Though Abraham reached a good old age, beyond the limit of years vouchsafed later generations, he yet died five years before his allotted time. The intention was to let him live to be one hundred and eighty years old, the same age as Isaac’s at his death, but on account of Esau God brought his life to an abrupt close. For some time Esau had been pursuing his evil inclinations in secret. Finally he dropped his mask, and on the day of Abraham’s death he was guilty of five crimes: he ravished a betrothed maiden, committed murder, doubted the resurrection of the dead, scorned the birthright, and denied God. Then the Lord said: “I promised Abraham that he should go to his fathers in peace. Can I now permit him to be a witness of his grandson’s rebellion against God, his violation of the laws of chastity, and his shedding of blood? It is better for him to die now in peace.”

The men slain by Esau on this day were Nimrod and two of his adjutants. A long-standing feud had existed between Esau and Nimrod, because the mighty hunter before the Lord was jealous of Esau, who also devoted himself assiduously to the chase. Once when he was hunting it happened that Nimrod was separated from his people, only two men were with him. Esau, who lay in ambush, noticed his isolation, and waited until he should pass his covert. Then he threw himself upon Nimrod suddenly, and felled him and his two companions, who hastened to his succor. The outcries of the latter brought the attendants of Nimrod to the spot where he lay dead, but not before Esau had stripped him of his garments, and fled to the city with them.

These garments of Nimrod had an extraordinary effect upon cattle, beasts, and birds. Of their own accord they would come and prostrate themselves before him who was arrayed in them. Thus Nimrod and Esau after him were able to rule over men and beasts.

After slaying Nimrod, Esau hastened cityward in great fear of his victim’s followers. Tired and exhausted he arrived at home to find Jacob busy preparing a dish of lentils. Numerous male and female slaves were in Isaac’s household. Nevertheless Jacob was so simple and modest in his demeanor that, if he came home late from the Bet ha-Midrash, he would disturb none to prepare his meal, but would do it himself. On this occasion he was cooking lentils for his father, to serve to him as his mourner’s meal after the death of Abraham. Adam and Eve had eaten lentils after the murder of Abel, and so had the parents of Haran, when he perished in the fiery furnace. The reason they are used for the mourner’s meal is that the round lentil symbolizes death: as the lentil rolls, so death, sorrow, and mourning constantly roll about among men, from one to the other.

Esau accosted Jacob thus, “Why art thou preparing lentils?”

Jacob: “Because our grandfather passed away; they shall be a sign of my grief and mourning, that he may love me in the days to come.”

Esau: “Thou fool! Dost thou really think it possible that man should come to life again after he has been dead and has mouldered in the grave?”42 He continued to taunt Jacob. “Why dost thou give thyself so much trouble?” he said. “Lift up thine eyes, and thou wilt see that all men eat whatever comes to hand—fish, creeping and crawling creatures, swine’s flesh, and all sorts of things like these, and thou vexest thyself about a dish of lentils.”

Jacob: “If we act like other men, what shall we do on the day of the Lord, the day on which the pious will receive their reward, when a herald will proclaim: Where is He that weigheth the deeds of men, where is He that counteth?”

Esau: “Is there a future world? Or will the dead be called back to life? If it were so, why hath not Adam returned? Hast thou heard that Noah, through whom the world was raised anew, hath reappeared? Yea, Abraham, the friend of God, more beloved of Him than any man, hath he come to life again?”

Jacob: “If thou art of opinion that there is no future world, and that the dead do not rise to new life, then why dost thou want thy birthright? Sell it to me, now, while it is yet possible to do so. Once the Torah is revealed, it cannot be done. Verily, there is a future world, in which the righteous receive their reward. I tell thee this, lest thou say later I deceived thee.”

Jacob was little concerned about the double share of the inheritance that went with the birthright. What he thought of was the priestly service, which was the prerogative of the first-born in ancient times, and Jacob was loth to have his impious brother Esau play the priest, he who despised all Divine service.

The scorn manifested by Esau for the resurrection of the dead he felt also for the promise of God to give the Holy Land to the seed of Abraham. He did not believe in it, and therefore he was willing to cede his birthright and the blessing attached thereto in exchange for a mess of pottage. In addition, Jacob paid him in coin, and, besides, he gave him what was more than money, the wonderful sword of Methuselah, which Isaac had inherited from Abraham and bestowed upon Jacob.

Esau made game of Jacob. He invited his associates to feast at his brother’s table, saying, “Know ye what I did to this Jacob? I ate his lentils, drank his wine, amused myself at his expense, and sold my birthright to him.” All that Jacob replied was, “Eat and may it do thee good!” But the Lord said, “Thou despisest the birthright, therefore I shall make thee despised in all generations.” And by way of punishment for denying God and the resurrection of the dead, the descendants of Esau were cut off from the world.

As naught was holy to Esau, Jacob made him swear, concerning the birthright, by the life of their father, for he knew Esau’s love for Isaac, that it was strong. Nor did he fail to have a document made out, duly signed by witnesses, setting forth that Esau had sold him the birthright together with his claim upon a place in the Cave of Machpelah.50

Though no blame can attach to Jacob for all this, yet he secured the birthright from him by cunning, and therefore the descendants of Jacob had to serve the descendants of Esau.¹

ISAAC BLESSES JACOB

1. Louis Ginzberg et al., Legends of the Jews (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 257–258.
2. Louis Ginzberg et al., Legends of the Jews (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 263–267.

Melchizedek the Priest-King blessing Abram

The title of this post is actually somewhat deceptive as it implies that the post is going to be about Melchizedek, who can be considered a king, a priest, and also a god, and about the “Forbidden Degrees” (sounds tantalizing, eh?), which the title seems to suggest have some connection to Melchizedek. Well, as far as I know, there is no direct connection, so sorry if that was misleading.

But this post is about two exciting, if apparently unrelated, subjects that I’ve read about recently.

Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God

First, I would like to post a few very interesting remarks on the person of Melchizedek that I was recently re-reading in an article by my PhD supervisor, James Davila, entitled “Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God” (in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response, ed. S. Daniel Breslauer (Albany: State University of New York) 217-34). This article contains some of the most current, thorough, and exciting research on Melchizedek I’ve seen. It covers the Melchizedek traditions from the Old Testament (Gen. 14; Ps. 110), the New Testament (Hebrews), the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelchizedek; Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice), Gnostic texts (2nd Book of Jeu, Pistis Sophia, a Coptic Gnostic tractate), and comparisons with the Ugaritic (Canaanite) traditions.

I highlight here some of the most significant ideas.

Davila addresses the first mention of Melchizedek, in Gen. 14:18–21.  Here, Melchizedek is presented as the king of Salem (which Davila later identifies as Jerusalem) and priest of God Most High (El Elyon). He notes that scholars have difficulty dating this passage and identifying its source.  John Van Seters wants to date it to the post-exilic period, imagining that Melchizedek describes the priestly leadership of the Second Temple period. Davila, on the other hand, rejects this view, explaining:

I see no reason for the post-exilic priesthood to hold up a non-Israelite priest-king as an example unless he had already been firmly established in the traditions of the First Temple period. I read Genesis 14 as an epic tale of the heroic exploits of the Abram that, in its present form, serves to show the ancient roots of the priesthood held by the line of Davidic kings. ((Davila, 218))

Psalm 110, Davila suggests, “unambiguously associates the priesthood of Melchizedek with the king in Zion.”¹ This psalm, one of the “royal psalms”, is the only other mention of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible.  Most scholars agree that it had its life setting “in the pre-exilic Judean royal cult located in Solomon’s temple during the period of the Judean monarchy.” It is often associated with an annual New Year enthronement festival. The key verse (v. 4) in this psalm reads: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. This promise of Melchizedek priesthood is given to the Davidic king.  Davila notes:

[T]here are other indications that the Davidic line of kings also carried out priestly functions. In 2 Samuel 6 we are told that  David himself wore a priestly ephod and danced before the ark of the covenant when it was brought into Jerusalem. The list of David’s court officials in 2 Sam. 8:15–18 also informs us that “David’s sons were priests” (v. 18). Thus, Psalm 110 associates a priesthood of Melchizedek with the Davidic royal cult in the Jerusalem temple.²

So, in summary, the Hebrew Bible presents Melchizedek as (apparently) a mortal man who is both the king of Jerusalem and a priest of God Most High. He was seen as the model for the Israelite kingship ideology, and the Davidic kings were likewise seen as both king of Jerusalem and priest of God Most High. Besides the passages in Genesis and Psalm 110, Melchizedek is not mentioned again in the Hebrew Bible — which we may think odd considering his apparent stature and influence in pre-exilic times.  Of course the great histories of the Bible were written just before and after the exile, and these scribes had varying (mostly negative) opinions concerning the monarchy, as well as significantly different religious ideas from that of the royal cult of pre-exilic times. It is only in the New Testament book of Hebrews that we hear tell of Melchizedek again. We read in Hebrews 7:1–3:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;  2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;  3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Davila comments:

It is then argued that Melchizedek was greater than both Abraham and the Levitical Priesthood, and that Jesus is a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek as described in Psalm 110. For the writer of Hebrews, Melchizedek is a preexistent and immortal priestly divine being “like the Son of God.”³

He next turns his analysis to the Qumran text 11QMelchizedek, which although fragmentary, gives some incredible insights regarding the community’s view of this figure, which differs greatly from the simple treatment in the OT and gives possible insights into the thinking of the writer of Hebrews. Davila explains that this text speaks eschatologically and “seems to give a chronology leading up to the eschaton and then describes the final judgment as administered by a divine being named Melchizedek.” Melchizedek is supposed to come at the end of the “tenth jubilee”, on the Day of Atonement, to judge the nations, save the good and destroy the wicked. Furthermore, Davila notes:

…[I]n line 10 of this text Melchizedek is called a “god” (elohim)…So in this document from Qumran Melchizedek is pictured as an angelic or divine being (an elohim) who may have priestly associations and who is an eschatological judge.⁴

Davila goes on to highlight some of the other beliefs expressed in further texts from Qumran and from Gnostic sources.  In most of them, Melchizedek is described as an angelic high priest or god and even identified as Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. What are we to make of all this? Davila is right on with his analysis of it all. He says, summarizing the trajectory of these traditions:

He begins as a king and priest of pre-Davidic Jerusalem and then, some centuries later, is described also a a divine heavenly being, a god (elohim or theos) who defeats and destroys the forces of evil at the last judgment and delivers souls from the underworld. I submit that the problem of the development of this tradition has never been squarely face by scholars. How do we get from Melchizedek the priest-king to Melchizedek the god? My proposal is this: his divinity was not invented in the Second Temple period; rather it was suppressed in the Hebrew bible. In other words, the apparent change from man to god is a matter of suppression of older traditions that were excluded from the biblical canon, not of innovation in the Second Temple literature.⁵

This conclusion is remarkably significant. According to Davila, we are to assume that in the royal religion of the First Temple, Melchizedek would have been seen as a priest-king who was deified.  I think it stands to reason that we could say, then, that the subsequent kings of Jerusalem of the Davidic line could have been viewed in like manner. This helps us understand why in Psalm 45:6 the king is specifically addressed as a god.

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

While the idea that the king is somehow divine is common in Egyptian and other Ancient Near Eastern religions, the idea has not been readily accepted for the Israelite/Judean kings, and that has to do greatly with the fact that there is not much evidence for the idea in the Old Testament as we now have it. However, as Davila states it, it is very likely that these ideas did exist, once upon a time, but were suppressed by later writers and editors that no longer followed that belief system.

The Seal of Melchizedek

The Forbidden Degrees

The following is taken from Dr. Andrei Orlov’s blog (see the specific post here; don’t worry that some of it is in Russian, most is English). For those who haven’t followed this blog long, Andre Orlov was my adviser for my MA program in Theology at Marquette University.  Orlov (who has also written much on Melchizedek), is an expert in the mystical traditions of early Judaism.

I have reproduced some passages that he posted on his blog from the Hagigah (or Chagigah), a Jewish treatise found in the Babylonian Talmud.  I am no expert on these writings, so I really couldn’t share much background info on them with you. It seems that the word hagigah signifies “festivity” and refers to a “festal-offering” that was given at one or more of the three principal pilgrimage festivals of ancient Judaism. The writings apparently give rules for ritual cleanliness and guidelines for the offerings, but offer rules for many other subjects as well. Again, I’m no expert on this, but from what I’ve seen and what I quote below, there is some very interesting material, if you can get past all the technical language and debating over ritual requirements.

A word of warning: the following is not easy to get through and even less easy to understand.  If you can get anything out of it, consider yourself a true sage and enlightened soul!

One more introductory thought: the rabbis (R. Johanan, etc.) cited here were under the belief that certain mystical doctrines were too sacred to speak of (only under certain circumstances with worthy and prepared individuals). These include, as you can read below, the “forbidden degrees”, the “Story of Creation”, and the writings of Ezekiel concerning “the Chariot” (God’s throne). There were certain consquences (good and harmful) when these topics were spoken of, so the greatest of care was needed in addressing them, and they were never expounded on in public. I am not quite sure what the “forbidden degrees” refers to (I can speculate, but may be wrong). I have seen other lists of these forbidden topics, and from what I can remember, I believe the topic of sacred marriage (perhaps as discussed in Song of Solomon?) is sometimes cited. If anyone has any further insights on this, please let me know!

UPDATE: In an email, Dr. Orlov directed me to Rachel Elior’s opinion on what the “forbidden degrees” were as explained in her book, The Three Temples. She indicates that they may have had reference to “the sexual union of the Cherubim” in the Holy of Holies of the temple (I wasn’t far off!).  Now, if the rabbis wouldn’t talk about it, I probably shouldn’t either. I will say that there are some Jewish traditions that say that the cherubim that were in the Holy of Holies were (at least at times) understood to be entwined in a conjugal embrace which likely has something to do with the reason that holiest place was sometimes called “the bridal chamber.” To read more about this, have a look at Raphael Patai’s The Hebrew Goddess, and also Eugene Seaich’s A Great Mystery: The Secret of the Jerusalem Temple, The Embracing Cherubim and At-One-Ment with the Divine.

Here is the text, thanks to Dr. Orlov’s blog:

m. Hagigah 2:1 The forbidden degrees may not be expounded before three persons, nor like Story of Creation before two, nor [the chapter of] the Chariot before one alone, unless he is a Sage that understands of his own knowledge.

Whoever gives his mind to four things it were better for him if he had not come into the world — what is above ? what is beneath ? what was beforetime? and what will be hereafter? And whosoever takes no thought for the honour of his Maker, it were better for him if he had not come into the world.

b. Hagigah 13 R. Johanan said to R. Eleazar: Come, I will instruct you in the ‘Work of the Chariot’. He replied: I am not old enough. When he was old enough, R. Johanan died. R. Assi [then] said to him: Come, I will instruct you in the “Work of the Chariot’. He replied: Had I been worthy, I should have been instructed by R. Johanan, your master.

The Rabbis taught: There was once a child who was reading at his teacher’s house the Book of Ezekiel, and he apprehended what Hashmal was, whereupon a fire went forth from Hashmal and consumed him. So they sought to suppress the Book of Ezekiel, but Hananiah b. Hezekiah said to them: If he was a Sage, all are Sages! What does [the word] Hashmal mean?-Rab Judah said: Living creatures speaking fire. In a Baraitha it is taught: [Hashmal means], At times they are silent, at times they speak. When the utterance goes forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are silent, and when the utterance goes not forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they speak. b. Hag 14b Our Rabbis taught: Once R. Johanan b. Zakkai was riding on an ass when going on a journey, and R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak was driving the ass from behind. [R. Eleazar] said to him: Master, teach me a chapter of the ‘Work of the Chariot’.2 He answered: Have I not taught you3 thus: ‘Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge’? [R. Eleazar] them said to him: Master, permit me to say before thee something which thou hast taught me.4 He answered, Say on! Forthwith R. Johanan b. Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up,5 and sat upon a stone beneath an olive tree. Said [R. Eleazar] to him: Master, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? He answered: Is it proper that whilst thou art expounding the ‘Work of the Chariot’, and the Divine Presence is with us, and the ministering angels accompany us, I should ride on the ass! Forthwith, R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak began his exposition of the ‘work of the Chariot’, and fire6 came down from heaven and encompassed all the trees in the field; [thereupon] they all began to utter [divine] song. What was the song they uttered? — Praise the Lord from the earth, ye sea-monsters, and all deeps . . . fruitful trees and all cedars . . . Hallelujah.8 An angel9 [then] answered10 from the fire and said: This is the very ‘Work of the Chariot’. [Thereupon] R. Johanan b. Zakkai rose and kissed him on his head and said: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, Who hath given a son to Abraham our father, who knoweth to speculate upon, and to investigate, and to expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’ — There are some who preach well but do not act well, others act well but do not preach well, but thou dost preach well and act well. Happy art thou, O Abraham our father, that R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak hath come forth from thy loins.

Now when these things were told R. Joshua, he and R. Jose the priest were going on a journey. They said: Let us also expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’; so R. Joshua began an exposition. Now that day was the summer solstice; [nevertheless] the heavens became overcast with clouds and a kind of rainbow appeared in the cloud, and the ministering angels assembled and came to listen like people who assemble and come to watch the entertainments of a bridegroom and bride. [Thereupon] R. Jose the priest went and related what happened before R. Johanan b. Zakkai; and [the latter] said: Happy are ye, and happy is she that bore you; happy are my eyes that have seen thus. Moreover, in my dream, I and ye were reclining on Mount Sinai, when a Bath Kol was sent to us, [saying]: Ascend hither, ascend hither! [Here are] great banqueting chambers, and fine dining couches prepared for you; you and your disciples and your disciples’ disciples are designated for the third class. But is this so? For behold it is taught: R. Jose b. R. Judah said: There were three discourses: R. Joshua discoursed before R. Johanan b. Zakkai, R. Akiba discoursed before R. Joshua, Hanania b. Hakinai discoursed before R. Akiba; — whereas R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak he does not count! — One who discoursed [himself], and others discoursed before him, he counts; one who discoursed [himself], but others did not discourse before him, he does not count. But behold there is Hanania b. Hakinai before whom others did not discourse, yet he counts him! — He at least discoursed before one who discoursed [before others].

1. Davila, 219
2. Davila, 219
3. Davila, 221
4. Davila, 222
5. Davila, 224

The Consecration of the Holy Oils in the Roman Tradition

presented by Laurence P. Hemming

In the Roman Catholic tradition anointing is very important — there are several sacraments that are accompanied by anointing.

Also, there is not one, but three different types of anointing oil:

• The Oil of Catechumens
• The Oil of the Sick
• The Oil of Chrism

There is very little written on the origin of the anointing oil in the liturgy and even less on the theology.  There are a couple of themes that are predominant.

1. That the oil is associated with the olive branch that is brought to Noah after the flood waters have withdrawn.  The commentators claim that the olive branch is “in the likeness of a gift to come.” The language of anointing is a mystery — the point of anointing is to connect us to “futurity” or eternity.  The bird bringing an olive branch is not a symbol of some particular gift that would come in the future, but the promise of eternity — of eternal life, or “godlikeness” itself.  The branch that the bird brings to Noah is, symbolically, a branch of the Tree of Life.
2. The second theme regarding the origin of the oils is the tradition of making the oils themselves.  According to ancient tradition, the oils, especially the oil of Chrism, were made in the Cathedral, by the bishop, on Maundy Thursday (the Thursday before Easter, commemorating the Last Supper), in the Mass that celebrates the institution of the Mass, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.  Some say that this tradition came about in order to have oil prepared for the baptisms that would occur on Easter, but this is not likely the only reason.

The history of the three oils is quite complex.  First, the oil used for the sick could, in the primitive Church, be blessed not only by priests, but also by laymen. It could be blessed at a lay person’s home and kept on hand.  Only later on was the blessing of the oil more fully reserved for priests and later only bishops.  The oil was used not only for physical ailments, but more specifically for spiritual ills and its use was often accompanied by exorcism.

The oil of catechumens was also related to exorcism and was used repeatedly on adults preparing for baptism and at least once for infants.  Its history is much different than that of the oil for the sick, and traditionally prepared on Maundy Thursday in Rome by the Pope, and then elsewhere by bishops.  Since 1970, its use is not necessary, but is still usually used for exorcism before baptism.  This rite involves anointing the back and breast, but not the hands or face.

The oil of Chrism is different from the other two oils, both in make and use.  Its preparation involves a solemn consecration, while the other two are only blessed.  The Chrism is composed of olive oil mixed with myrrh (balsam), which mixture represents the two natures of Christ.  The Chrism is used in a number of different places and sacraments of the Church.

• Newly baptized are anointed on the crown of the head
• At confirmation, on the forehead
• Priests are anointed on hands
• Bishops on head and hands
• Altars, church walls, bells, sacred vessels are also consecrated with Chrism

In further use, the waters used in the baptismal font, after being divided and part separated for use as “holy water,” the rest of the water is further blessed by adding the oil of Catechumens (called in this rite, the “oil of salvation”) and then adding the Chrism.  The two oils together in the water are the mixture “of the Chrism of sanctification and the oil of unction or baptism.”

There is very little commentary on the meaning and preservation of these traditions.  It is difficult to trace their history.  Some of the oldest commentators seem to be using liturgical texts as their source.  We should take seriously the tradition declared by Pope Fabian that the preparation of the Holy Chrism and the unction was originally taught personally by Christ to the Apostles.  Those who are interested in Temple traditions will not find this hard to accept.

The earliest text regarding the making of the oils is the Gelasian Sacramentary, which is the same as the Roman texts that were in use until the 20th century, when new instructions were adopted and changes made that, unfortunately, have obscured its meaning.

According to the ancient tradition, the oils were made on Maundy Thursday, the same day that the Church celebrates the institution of the Eucharist.  This connection is not accidental, nor merely functional.  There are further connections between the making of the oils and the Holy Eucharist.

The rite of the preparation of the oils is notably different than a normal Mass.

• The bishop is accompanied to the altar by many more ministers than usual — seven deacons and seven subdeacons, and twelve priests — all in Mass vestments
• For the only time in all of the liturgical cycle, the prayer of consecration of the Mass is interrupted, near the end, before the final doxology (praise)
• The blessing and consecration of the oils is inserted at the most sacred point of the Mass, when the bread and wine are consecrated to become the body and blood of Christ.
• Before completing the prayer of consecration, the bishop removes himself to the side of the altar, washes his hands (they have touched the host), and then goes to make the oil of the sick
• He then returns to the Mass and continues to the point where he gives himself the Holy Communion

It is important that the oil for the healing of the sick is made before the completion of the Mass. This is a reduplication of the events of Maundy Thursday itself.  The healing of the sick is done before the events of Good Friday.  While the two other oils are blessed, the Chrism is made by confectio, confection, a term only used otherwise for the Holy Eucharist itself.  So, after the bishop gives himself the Holy Communion:

• The deacons, subdeacons, and priests are given communion, and then all leave to go to the sacristy (the vestry, a small room near the altar), carrying the oils that are to be made into the oil of Catechumens and the Chrism
• A hymn is sung and they there gather around the bishop

The symbolism here is that the bishop represents Christ, surrounded by the priests as the twelve apostles.  The deacons and subdeacons represent the seraphim attending the throne.  This represents, then, the idea that the Chrism is being made by Christ in heaven.

The Chrism is made by mixing balsam with oil.  The prayer for the blessing of the balsam refers to it as “a sweat flowing down from a felicitous branch, serving for priestly anointing.” In a second prayer, it is to be “a perpetual anointing for the sake of priesthood.” Some of the balsam and oil are then mixed and the third prayer then declares that this mixture represents the idea that man be “perennially returned to the double nature that he holds in singular material,” an explicit reference to the restoration of man to his original state and his deification.

The bishop then breathes three times upon the oil and the priests each do likewise.  At this point the rite has reference to Christ as the High Priest and the passing on of his priesthood to the Apostles.  The Chrism, above all else, symbolizes the action of the priesthood.  The effect of the oil is to bestow upon the anointed not just something perpetual, but perpetuity itself: the promise of the tree of life.  The word “joyful” is mentioned more than once in the accompanying prayers.

The Greek root of the Latin used here, hilarus, has the basic meaning of “to lighten or refresh.” When this word occurs in the Bible, it usually has reference to the face (Prov. 16:15).  The face is refreshed and lightened.  The prayer uttered at this point makes reference to David, who predicted the sacraments by singing that our faces were to be made glad, such that with the unction of this oil, our faces are made joyful and serene.

Why should oil on our face make us glad? This refers to the idea that face is made to shine when in the presence of God.  For example:

• The face of Moses shone when he descended from Mt Sinai after being with the Lord
• The Lord’s face shone when he was transfigured on the mount
• Those who go up to the Temple have the glory of the Lord reflected in their faces

The purpose of the oil is to make one fit for being in the presence of the Lord.  Those persons and things which are anointed contain within themselves a measure of the divine presence.  The priesthood is passed on through anointing.  The priesthood has the power to confer the power of holiness. The oil is the agent used to confer holiness.

The Western Catholic tradition is that the priesthood was inaugurated, in this new dispensation, on Maundy Thursday.  From this day forward the levites are not those born into the levitical succession, but ordained into it, from out of whom priests are chosen and anointed.  This, according to Catholic understanding, is not the same as the origin of the priesthood of Christ.  Christ was a levite by birth through his mother Mary, whose cousin Elizabeth was mother of the levite John the Baptist, but Christ was also Melchizedek, whose priesthood is eternal.

The prayer of the consecration of the Chrism is of great significance.  It begins with reference to the tree of life, how when the earth was created, it was commanded to bring forth fruitful trees — the olive tree to provide the oil for the making of the Chrism.  It then makes reference to David, who declares the use of the oil on the face, then Noah and the symbolism of the olive branch.  Like in the flood, our sins are washed away at baptism and then we are anointed with the oil that makes our faces joyful and serene.  The prayer then refers to Moses and his consecration of a priest by unction, after washing with water.  This prepared the way, according to the prayer, for the great honor when Christ was baptized with water in Jordan and then the Holy Spirit fell upon him, fulfilling the words of the prophet David that Christ would be anointed with the oil of joy, in advance of his fellows (Ps. 45:7).

So on Maundy Thursday,  which celebrates the events leading up to the death and resurrection of Christ, with the mixing of the holy oils, we are called to remember also his baptism.  The baptism is normally celebrated on Epiphany, January 6th.  However, as Margaret Barker has helped us understand, the baptism is where the Father informs the Son of his heavenly birth and standing as Melchizedek, the eternal high priest.  It is made clear that the inception of the priesthood stems from the event of the baptism of the Lord — the great honor that explains the meaning of the Holy Chrism itself.   Thus, Origen had objected to the celebration of the Nativity — Christ’s earthly birth, and favored the celebration of Epiphany, the heavenly birth and outpouring of the Spirit.  The opening of the heavens to Jesus at his baptism indicate his taking possession of the heavenly city. At that point, he took possession of what was rightly his.  According to M. Barker, the open heavens, the waters, and the vision of the throne of God are all elements of becoming a priest.

The significance of the Holy Oils, then, is that through the anointing and the action of the priesthood, we become part of the heavenly birth of Christ and the New Jerusalem.

After the completion of singing the prayer of consecration, the bishop bows his head and sings three times, “ave sanctum chrisma,” and then kisses the ampule containing the holy oil.  The priests sing the same once, genuflecting before the ampule.

There is much yet to be understood concerning the theology of the holy oils in the Roman Tradition, but I hope that I have demonstrated how it can only be understood in the context of a Temple theology, a theology of the priesthood that takes us back to Adam in Eden, ritually signified by the Temple in Jerusalem.