.

Matthew B. Brown

“Cube, Gate and Measuring Tools: A Biblical Pattern”

There is a close relationship between the ancient Israelite temple and the book of the Apocalypse in the New Testament.

The holy of holies of the temple was based on a divine pattern that was revealed to Moses. What we know of the holy of holies can be compared to what we are told about the New Jerusalem in the book of Revelation in Rev. 21. The New Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven is described as a gold cube, just as is the holy of holies of the temple.

The entrance to the New Jerusalem consisted of three gates on each side, each gate guarded by an angel. This reminds us of the veil of the temple, which was decorated with embroidered cherubim who guarded the way to the holy of holies.

The Ark of the Covenant that sat in the holy of holies represented God’s throne and was supposed to have been placed over the “foundation stone” (the “navel of creation”), which, in turn, sat over the “abyss” (the primeval chaos or flood).

This “throne” of God was associated with the divine attributes of righteousness, truth, and uprightness. These three attributes can be seen as requirements for entrance to the temple, as we see in Ps. 15:2 — compare this to Rev. 21 (my notes here don’t contain the details, but perhaps we are to compare all of Ps. 15 with Rev. 21:7–8, and that both should be considered to be requirements for entry into the respective holy place).

Psalm 24 also represents an entrance liturgy that discusses entry requirements for the temple. According to rabbinic traditions (I have no specific reference), the psalm is said to be associated with the king gaining access to the holy of holies of the temple. The psalm speaks of passing through the gates to ascend to the temple.

We are told in Luke 13:22–30 that the gate for entrance into salvation is “strait” or narrow. There is also talk of “striving” (struggling, contending) to enter through the door, and also of knocking at the door (here M. Brown gives an explanation of a Catholic “entrance liturgy” that involves knocking on a door with a mallet).

Note that Psalm 118:19 makes reference to a temple gate known as the Gate of Righteousness.  “Righteousness”, anciently, was symbolized by the plumb line (Isa. 28:17; a measuring tool) and leveling instruments.  The targum to Psalm 89:8 indicates that faithfulness/truth surrounds God like a circle or compass. Also, the Hebrew verb yashar (I don’t have any references he used, but see, e.g., Ps. 5:8) means: to make straight, right, or level. It involves creating a straight line, not deviating to the right or left. (There is much more to this discussion that is missing from my notes — generally, the attributes or requirements for entering the temple, including righteousness, uprightness, etc., are often symbolized by measuring tools, such as those used by God to create the world, or those used to build the temple.)

In Ezekiel 40:3, when Ezekiel is shown in vision the future/ideal temple, he sees an angel “with a line of flax in his hand, and a measuring reed; and he stood in the gate.” We see here again the relationship between the temple gates and the measuring tools — the line/rope and rod are tools used for building the temple. We see this same theme in Rev. 11:1 and Rev. 21:15, where a rod is used to measure the sacred precincts.

Ezekiel 46:1–2 — we get a description of the king kneeling before the temple gate. He had to “measure up” to be worthy to worship at the temple (from this point on I think I became so enthralled in the presentation that I forgot to take detailed notes, basically only taking down relevant scriptural passages — I will attempt to reconstruct what I can based on this paucity of real notes).

Going back to our temple entrance liturgy in Psalm 24, verses 1-2 make reference to God’s actions at the Creation and the conquering of Chaos. God builds the earth upon the conquered Sea. Other scriptural passages describe God as a master builder using builders’ tools.  Proverbs 8:27, 29 tells about how God set his compass upon the chaos waters and ascribed limitations that they could not pass.  Job 38:5 talks of God laying the foundations of the earth, measuring and “stretching out the line” upon it — God used builders’ tools.

In Psalm 89, verse 9 describes God’s power over the chaos waters, how He rules over the raging of the sea. This is an important symbol of God’s power.  In Ps. 89:25, we can understand that God has delegated this divine power to the Israelite king, who shall likewise rule over the sea.

Psalms 2, 110 — God anoints king, sets him on his holy hill and gives him power over his enemies.

1 Kings 5:17 (see also Ezra 6:3) — King lays the foundation stones for the temple, following similar pattern to God in Creation

Psalm 72:1–2 — This psalm is declared, in the superscription, to be “A Song for Solomon”, and attributes to him the powers and duties of God. “Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king’s son.  He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment.” The succeeding verses continue to demonstrate just how much divine power God has delegated to the king:

Psalm 72:4–11  4 He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.  5 They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations.  6 He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass: as showers that water the earth.  7 In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth.  8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.  9 They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.  10 The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.  11 Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.

The righteousness expected of the king in order to be worthy of this trust is described in Pss. 19:13; 89:24; 101.

In 1 Kings 3:6, we are told that King David possessed the three divine throne attributes (mentioned above): truth, righteousness, and uprightness. The fact that the Davidic king was seen to sit on the very throne of Jehovah (1 Chron. 29:23) emphasizes the need for the king to possess these essential qualities.

The stories in Scripture related to the Creation, the Temple, and the End Times (Eschaton) contain a pattern of similar images and symbols.  We see the cube, the sets of three gates (veil), the cherubim (angels), the Ark of the Covenant (throne of God), the entrance requirements, and the measuring tools — these very significant symbols can be seen in biblical passages regarding the Creation, the Temple, and the New Jerusalem of the End Times.  There are significant parallels between what happens in Heaven and what happens on Earth, and God can be seen to delegate his divine power to mankind.

———————————————–

For more on similar temple-related themes, please see the following papers, also presented at the Expound Symposium (the overlapping of themes was not planned):

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Standing in the Holy Place: Ancient and Modern Reverberations of an Enigmatic New Testament Prophecy”

David J. Larsen, “Ascending into the Hill of the Lord: The Psalms as a Key to Understanding the Rituals of the First Temple”

My apologies to Matthew Brown for anything in my notes that may not fully or properly represent the wording or intentions of his presentation.

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.