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)

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

What I do want to share with you is from something I’ve been reading (not necessarily Christmas-related, but not far off). Then I’d like to share some links to some good articles that are more Christmas-themed.

As part of my research for my dissertation, I’ve been looking at a book by British scholar Crispin Fletcher-Louis entitled All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Fletcher-Louis, who seems to have some connections to Margaret Barker, has done some great research here, and although his ideas are not accepted by all, he presents a lot of exciting and insightful material.

I just wanted to share a couple of excerpts from my “Christmas” reading. All the Glory of Adam attempts to make sense of the Qumran community’s concept of “divine humanity.” There is much language in the Dead Sea Scrolls that indicates that the community who produced (or at least used) those texts believed that humans could become either angelic or divine (I don’t believe there was much of a difference between angelic or divine, but there is language of humans both becoming angels and becoming gods).

Fletcher-Louis notes that in these texts:

…there seems to be a claim which is usually implicit, but…at other times explicit, that true humanity, as it is restored among the elect, is both angelomorphic and divine (All the Glory of Adam, p. 12, emphasis in original).

The author discusses at length the Qumran and other Second Temple literature that describe what he terms “angelomorphic humanity.” It is quite well established that in this period, at least some Jews (who felt that their belief was orthodox), believed that humans, especially kings, prophets, and priests, were considered to have an angelic status, at least in ritual/cultic settings. He notes, however, that humans are also often described as “gods.” He says:

More startling [than the angelomorphic language] are those statements to the effect that the transformed humanity are “gods”. This is a more persistent and widespread feature of the texts than would permit us to conclude such language is merely an accommodation to Hellenism in which some Jews on the periphery of “orthodoxy” indulged. Already in the biblical texts Moses is “as God [elohim, theos] to Pharaoh” (Exo. 7:1) and the king is hailed as (a) god in Psalm 45:6 (cf. Zech 12:8). Exodus is probably behind Sirach’s ascription of the [elohim] status to Moses in Sirach 45:2. In Jubilees Joseph is acclaimed “god, god, mighty one of God” and in Joseph and Aseneth Jacob is “a god [theos]” to Aseneth.

The existence of god language for humanity within Jewish texts is more remarkable than angel language because of the way in which in the Second Temple period angelology replaced the polytheism of the pre-exilic period. However, just as many biblical and post biblical texts continued to speak of many “gods” (elim, elohim, theoi) with the understanding that these were “angelic” beings on a distinctly lower level of reality than God himself, so it seems there remained the freedom to speak of human as “divine” in similar terms and in certain circumstances. In texts such as those gathered around Moses and Exodus 7:1 there is stressed the fact that Moses’ “divinity” is no independent of that of God himself but is strictly bestowed by the creator of all. This may offend traditional Jewish and Christian views of divinity as a strictly independent, uncreated reality, but it should be remembered that in the ancient world the begetting and creating of gods (theogony) was a much more acceptable notion then than it is now.

The presence of “god” language for humanity in texts as far apart as Sirach, Jubilees, Philo and the rabbis testifies to the degree to which such language was widely spread and accepted in late Second Temple Judaism. (pp. 85-86)

While all of these are very interesting and important statements, I was even more pleased to find that Fletcher-Louis locates the root of all these beliefs in the correct life setting: the Temple and its rituals. He states:

...the principal socio-religious life setting for a Jewish divine anthropology, particularly in its earlier formative stages of development, was the Jewish Temple, its sacred space and priesthood…(p. 5, emphasis in original).

In other words, the proper setting for and origin of this language of humans becoming angels and/or gods, is in the rituals and liturgy of the Temple of Jerusalem.  Very interesting…

So I guess that’s the message I wanted to leave you with this Christmas. As St. Athanasius once wrote (and as is written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church): “For the Son of God became man so that man could become God.” Just as there are many who believe that God came down to earth and became man, so there have also been many that believed that the true destiny and potential of mankind is to become like God.  That is why Christ came down to us — to provide a way for us to, following his example, become like his Father.

As I promised, some great Christmas themed reads:

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw has a great series of articles at Meridian Magazine:

Adam and Christ, Eve and Mary at Christmas Time

Temple Themes in Luke’s Account of the Angels and the Shepherds

Also, check out a similar post at www.templestudy.com, by Bryce Haymond:

Who Were the Shepherds in the Christmas Story?

I’m sure there are lots of others, and if you know of any good ones, please let me know! Above all, I wish you a Merry Christmas from bonnie (and currently snow-covered) Scotland!  May this New Year be full of abundant blessings and new wisdom from God!

Warmest wishes,

David Larsen

The Anointing of the Gods: Sanctification and Authority from Egyptian Pharaohs to Hebrew Priest Kings and Beyond

presentation by Dr. John F. Hall

The title of this paper, which references the “anointing of the gods”, refers to both the fact that the ceremony of anointing belongs to the gods as well as the fact that it provides the means whereby worthy individuals are to be included among the gods — in the company of God and the sons of God.  Thus, the ancient tradition of anointing is related to, or a part of, the doctrine of theosis.

The doctrine of theosis can be found not only in the religion of ancient Israel and among early Christians, but also in several modern Christian religious traditions including my own. It is linked to the temple where instruction is conducted and rites performed which asssist the individual in his quest to come into the presence of the Lord.

The work of Margaret Barker has helped make these connections more clear and shown how the resurrection is a necessary part of the at-one-ment with God, in which the individual obtains exaltation through a heavenly ascent to the throne of God, where he/she is permitted to see God face-to-face.  These elements are all connected to the anointing in the temple setting.

The anointing, then, has to do with:

• a representation of the process of sanctification
• authorization to be sealed unto eternal life
• enabling the ascent to heaven to see the face of God (resurrection)

Perhaps not surprisingly, similarity of purpose and procedure can be noted among temple rituals designed to secure return to the very presence of the Divine along with admission to the hosts of heaven as sons of God, whether in Hebrew, early Christian, or even ancient Egyptian rites and ceremonies.

Those attending this conference will be familiar with Dr. Barker’s research on Solomon’s temple — that it was a place where the pilgrim could have received the anointing with holy oil, the sacrament of Wisdom, which Pope Leo the great informed us was the sacrament of Theosis. The purpose of this rite was a preparation to see the face of God.  We have learned in this conference how common this practice of “chrismation” was, and is, among Christians, and we now know that this is a tradition preserved from the ancient temple of Jerusalem.

The anointing was a sacred rite in other ancient traditions with which the Israelites were very familiar with: those of ancient Egypt.  A number of the key patriarchs of Israel were intimately connected with the land and ways of Egypt. Abraham, Joseph, and Moses spent much time and held influential positions in Egypt.  The Egyptians themselves may have even remembered connections to Noah and Enoch (who were very influential for the temple rituals).  In short, there is evidence for Egyptian influence on Israel (and vice versa). There were many shared understandings regarding divine ascent and related doctrines.

Extra-biblical texts tell the story of Joseph’s marriage to Aseneth in more detail — she was from a royal line in Egypt, the daughter of the high priest of On.  After Joseph was given his own crown, he ruled in the sacred city of Heliopolis, center of the cult of Amon-Re, and sacred city of the God Atum, the first Father from whom the pharaohs would claim descent.  This city was the center of Egyptian temple rites, and was the place where the Ished Tree of Life stood, and the ben-ben stone of creation was located.  Joseph’s place in this holy city most certainly gave the Israelites a strong familiarity with Egyptian temple rituals.

Moses, due to his princely position in Egypt, would have known these traditions as well (see Acts 7:22). When Moses was commanded to prepare the holy anointing oil of olive oil and spices (myrrh, cinnamon, calamus, cassia — Ex. 30:23–25) — this was similar to the anointing oil of the Egyptians, with which Moses was surely familiar.

Ritual anointing with sacred oil is documented as fulfilling an important role in the religious ceremonial of Egypt. From Pyramid texts of the early third millenium B.C.E., to Gnostic documents of the Christian era found at Nag Hammadi, anointing can be shown to provide sanctification and give authorization for ascent to the gods and inclusion in their company.

From the several temple-related Egyptian texts that have been uncovered, we can reconstruct quite well the anointing rituals.

• It took place on the New Year, first day of the month Thoth, the day of greates light of the year (summer solstice)
• Like other Near Eastern New Year rites, it represented the death, resurrection, and ascension of king to the gods
• It was performed in a temple, most likely at Heliopolis or nearby
• It presented ascent/resurrection as preceding death, prefiguring the mission of the Son of Man

The ascent is enabled through the anointing ritual.  With the anointing, the goddesses invest the king with “fiery divine power.” The king is anointed by the Queen of Heaven, the Mother Goddess (earlier on known as Hathor, later as Isis).

Pharaoh was anointed after the pattern of Horus’ anointing by his mother Isis with the protecting nine fiery oils (or oils of fire or light). In the earlier pyramid texts there are seven oils associated with the fiery Eye of Horus, entrance to the ways of light and fiery celestial regions. We remember that like Isis, in the traditions of the first temple period, Wisdom anoints with oil which represents light. For oil or the light which oil symbolizes was the sacrament of Wisdom and to the anointed ones Wisdom was mother, as she was mother to the anointed Messiah (Barker, Temple Themes, 236).

Isis was mother of the messianic god Horus, who was the opener of the ways and responsible for the at-one-ment of those likewise ascending through the seven houses of the gods in the company of Horus on the celestial bark.  In Egypt, messianic function were divided between Horus and Osiris — Horus governs the atonement process and Osiris provided the possibility of atonement through his own death and resurrection.  Because of the death and resurrection of Osiris, and through his anointing at the hands of his mother Isis, which anointing provides a protection, Horus is permitted to ascend through the fiery regions of the heavens.  The pharaoh, then, is anointed after the manner of Horus. He gains the protection that Horus had to accomplish the heavenly ascent. As he is anointed with each of the several oils, a chant is sung declaring the protection given.  The conclusion of the ascent is recognized by the enthronement and crowning of the king and he is given the status of godhood. The accompanying hymn announces:

He lives the life Re lives/ He sees with the vision with which Re sees/ He hears with the vision with which Re hears/ He rules with the power with which Re rules/ He fulfills his eternal round like Re.

The pharaoh’s name can then be written on a leaf of the Tree of Life, confirming his sonship under Amun-Re.

Similar themes are found in other Egyptian temple rituals, including the ordinance known as the “opening of the mouth.” Although some scholars see this as a rite performed only on the dead, there is evidence that it was part of an initiation into the temple mysteries for the living.  (For a similar ritual among the Greeks, see my posts on the Orphic Gold Tablets) There is also evidence that this ritual was not only for royalty, but could be performed on deserving commoners, as well (e.g., Imhotep and Amenhotep, important architects — human beings who were believed to have been deified through this process).

During the opening of the mouth ritual, the initiate was:

• purified through washing
• anointed in specific order of mouth, eyes, ears, head, and different parts of body, including vitals and limbs
• reborn into a higher existence
• resurrected, given authorization to ascend through the seven houses of the gods to the eighth house, where the beings of light reside and where Osiris sits enthroned
• enabled to recall his life before mortal existence, through the oil of memory
• able to reverse the several “blows of death” inflicted from the beginning of the world

The express purpose of this ritual was to enable the individual to achieve exaltation and deification.

After the opening of the mouth the recipient of the ordinance becomes a Horus, with the name of Horus on his forehead, healed of mortality, resurrected and so ascending thorugh the heavens to the place where the great god Amun, the hidden one, sits upon the cosmic throne with its base of diamond and emerald (Nibley, JSP, 170).

There are many connections between these rituals and themes in Jewish and Christian literature, especially pseudepigraphal and apocalyptic texts.  The similarities to the revelation given to John are apparent.  In 2 Enoch (30:8-9), the “seven blows of death” relate to sight, hearing, smell, speech, taste, breathing, and procreation, and Ben Sira refers to the reversal of death in terms of tongue, eyes, ears, and heart — both texts preserve the order of anointing in the opening of the mouth ceremony.

An early Christian hymn preserved in the Apostolic Constitutions (7:38), perhaps related to chrismation, emphasizes the blessing of having, in this specific order: “a tongue for harmony and taste, power to see, and to hear sound, breathing of the air, hands to work and feet to go on.” Cyril of Jerusalem details Christian anointing as “with ointment your forehead and sense organs are sacramentally anointed” (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 484B).  A text used by Christians called Joseph and Aseneth refers to the renewal/resurrection of Aseneth through washing, anointing, and clothing by an angel, after which her name is entered into the Book of Life (Joseph and Aseneth, 8:9-10, 14:3-15, 15:4).

It is through the power of the resurrection of Osiris that others are given power to be resurrected.  Osiris has the right of judgment and power to bestow eternal life. Just as Christians believe that Christ was the first to receive the holy anointing and to ascend to God, similarly Osiris was believed to be the first to pass through anointing to ascent and enthronement, thus establishing a pattern to be imitated by his followers. The individual becomes “an Osiris” by learning his mysteries.

The name “Osiris” is, therefore, assumed at the outset by all deemed worthy to undergo initiation into the mysteries of the Egyptian temple.

Professor Nibley has provided a reconstruction of the ritual:

• The initiate is taken by the godly guide, Thoth (represented by priest), through the sacred precincts (Thoth is often connected to Enoch, which thus connects the Egyptian temple rituals to those of Enoch’s temple on the original Mt. Zion)
• The priest (Thoth), finding the initiate worthy, present him before the gods upon entry
• In the outer courtyard, ritual washings are performed and the initiate is pronounced clean and prepared to enter a new life
• After passing through the temple garden and its tree of life, where the Queen of Heaven presides, the initiate was robed in a leopard or lion skin and taught that entry to and exit from life in this world was through the the garden.
• After entry into the temple itself, there is (arguably) a second clothing, this time in robes of the priesthood — brilliant white linen, representing the heavenly garments of radiant light.

Our opinion is that anointing ceremonies, following the practice and order of the opening of the mouth ceremony, occurred within the more sacred realm. The ritual anointing, as seen in the ceremony of the opening of the mouth, possessed power to bring about resurrection.

To enter the temple, the initiate had to pass through two pillars, similar to the two pillars of Solomon’s temple called Boaz and Joachin that stood at the entrance.  The Egyptian entry pylons marked the horizon, where heaven and earth met, and where the sun could be seen beginning its trajectory — representing the beginning of the soul’s ascent into heaven. The initiate will be as the glory of the sun rising.

The culmination of rites at the later temple of Hathor at Dendera consisted of climbing stairs to exit through the pylons at the time of the sun’s rising. That representation of the sun ascending between columns, the aht hieroglyph, came to symbolize ascent to eternal life (Nibley, JSP, 109-111)…

The ritual continues:

• After entry, anointing, and clothing in heavenly robes (thus being protected and endowed with power), the initiate begins his journey through the seven chambers or houses of the gods, representing the heavens through which the journey passes
• The initiate is taught by Thoth the secrets to passing by the divine guardians of the gates of each house/heaven, in similar manner to the pattern found in Enoch’s Book of Luminaries.
• At the end of this ascent journey, the initiate enters the eighth and final chamber, the abode of the gods (compare to Holy of Holies)
• In this abode of the gods, the journey has ended and the initiate receives the promised reward of beholding the face of Osiris, who is seated on his throne.  The individual is there seated upon the throne of the god and crowned as one of the holy ones of light (compare to Enoch’s transformation and enthronement and Rev. 3: 20–21)

In  the Book of the Dead are recorded the final words of the initiation to this point made possible through the ceremony of anointing. And so with Thoth by his side, the initiate, exalted by the mystery he has completed, and after the manner of Osiris by whom he has been received and approved, declares “I have risen up and walked about in Heaven, I have been raised up in a pillar of light. I have sailed with Ra in the boat of the sun. Bless him in his spinning circuit of sky. I have come to the place of Horus’ eye. I am the unbroken seal on the book of myself. My words are heartfelt, my prayers are like incense to the nostrils of the gods. My spirit flares with the fire of god. I am a shining Osiris. My face is aglow with the radiance of white light. Open the way to me…and the gate opens. (N. Ellis, Awakening Osiris).  And Osiris reveals himself face to face declaring his identity. “I am Eldest, Son of the Great One who dwells in eternal burnings, son of the Burning One. I am exalted, I am renewed, I am rejuvenated, I am Osiris. And so now thou too” (Book of the Dead, 43). The ascent is complete and enthronement occurs as the final aspect of resurrection. The initiate has no further need to fear death, for it has been conquered.

From a stele of the 18th dynasty, a similar themed enthronement scene is described. The initiate is presented by Horus to the God of Gods, Amun, to whom the initiate declares: “I am thy son, O great one, I have seen the hidden  things which are thine, I am crowned upon thy throne as a king and a god — I shall not die.” And Amun replies, “thou art my son, the heir who came forth from my flesh. As long as I shall be, thou shalt be” (A. Gardiner, JEA, 39 (1953), 13-31).

In summary, the Egyptian temple rituals show us that anointing was meant to enable the heavenly ascent, resurrection, and atonement with the gods.  How are these rituals connected to the ceremonies of the First Temple in Jerusalem, the early Christian anointings, and the Gnostic rites? Many of these and our own religious traditions relate in some way to those of ancient Egypt.  It is public knowledge that my own Christian tradition, in our modern temples, includes the practice of washing, anointing, clothing, etc.  These rites are similar to those of Solomon’s temple and early Christianity, but also very much similar to the traditions of ancient Egypt, which were virtually unknown in the time of Joseph Smith, when he instituted the LDS temple ceremonies.  How did the Egyptians receive these traditions, which are shared with our Judeo-Christian tradition, that man can ascend to heaven to behold the face of God, so thus conquer death and obtain eternal life?  This knowledge was to be obtained in the temple, both ancient and modern.

Frederick M. Huchel, in his recent review of Dr. Barker’s Temple Themes in Christian Worship, notes how Joseph Smith restored this ancient tradition that in the temple one could behold the face of God.  This was key to Joseph’s religion. (See FARMS Review of Books)

With your permission I should like to conclude with a scripture with which some here may resonate, undoubtedly the wise men of ancient Egypt would. It is found in the 132nd Section of the Doctrine and Covenants, one of the standard works of the LDS Church, and comes from one of the final teachings of Joseph Smith.

“…When they are out of the world…they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power…

But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.

This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he.

The following are my notes from Dr Margaret Barker’s presentation, which served as an introduction to the use of the holy anointing oil from the time of the First Temple period. Please excuse the incompleteness of the notes, and my apologies to Dr Barker if I misrepresent any of what she communicated in her paper. The following are my own notes, supplemented by the very helpful outline (indicated in bold) she provided as a handout.

The Messiah, the Christ, was the Anointed One, and so the holy anointing oil is central to Christian identity. It gives the Christians their name.

Those anointed in the Holy of Holies became sons of God and were blessed with the company of the Holy Ones (angels). (See my recent post relating to this topic)

Christians are: sons of God, Rom. 8:14; the saints, e.g. Rom. 1:7; raised with Christ, Col. 3:1; passed from death to life 1 Jn 3:14; anointed by the Holy One and know all things, 1 Jn. 2:20, 27; Name on foreheads Rev. 22:4.

Moses was instructed by God to reproduce what he saw in his heavenly vision on Sinai. The holy oil must have been an imitation of a heavenly reality that he had seen.

The oil was meant to be very sacred — it was not to be used on foreigners or the unworthy.

Christian teaching concerning anointing is a conscious continuation of the ancient temple teaching.

The oil was understood to impart holiness — whatever touches the Holy of Holies becomes holy. The oil was kept (in a flask or jar) in the Holy of Holies. It was part of the secret teaching of the high priesthood.  (See: Anointing oil, Exod. 3:22-25. Imparted holiness, Exod. 3:29; Myrrh, Dionysius Eccclesiastical Hierarchy 473B, 476C, 477C; Secret teaching, Num. 18:7, LXX Num. 3:10; Ignatius of Antioch, Philadelphians 9; Clement Miscellanies 7:17, 5:10. Also Clem. Homilies 19:20. Origen, On John 19:22; Basil of Caesarea, Holy Spirit 66).

The anointing with oil was a part of the “secret teaching” passed on to Christianity from Christ through the apostles.  Clement of Alexandria claimed that Christians had unwritten traditions, mysteries into which they “enter in, through the tradition of the Lord, by drawing aside the curtain” (Miscellanies, Book VII, Ch. XVII). This is how the Christians gained sacred knowledge.  Basil of Caesarea said that the anointing was one of the doctrines “we have received delivered to us ‘in a mystery’ by the tradition of the apostles” (On the Holy Spirit, Ch. XXVII, Sec. 66).

The true oil of the Holy of Holies was lost in the time of the reforms of King Josiah. 2 Kgs. 23 — The oil was connected to the Asherah (translated as “the grove”), which Josiah removed and burned. Traditions state that the oil was hidden away when the Ark was removed from the Holy of Holies. (Oil and temple furnishings lost in seventh century BCE, to be restored in time of Messiah: Babylonian Talmud Horayoth 21a; Numbers Rabbah XV:10; Rev. 11:19; 22:2).

In Rev. 22, we read of the Tree of Life restored to the temple.  This is the True Menorah, likely the Asherah that was removed. The Christians knew the ancient Holy of Holies and what it had contained. John, in his vision, saw the true Holy of Holies. He saw the great woman, clothed with the sun, giving birth to a son. John saw what the anointing represented: the son of God born in the holy of holies when he was anointed with the myrrh oil. In John’s vision the woman clothed with the sun takes the place of the oil. Presumably the oil represented this woman. Rev. 12:1–6. This birth in the Holy of Holies represented incarnation/theosis — the human becoming divine.

Ps. 110 also describes the birth of the Divine Son in the Holy of Holies.  The Hebrew of this psalm is difficult to translate. Vs. 3 probably read something like “On the day of thy birth in the glory of the Holy Ones, I have begotten you with the dew (oil) from the womb of the Morning Star.”  Compare this with Ps. 2:7, “the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” See also Isa. 9:6, Pope Leo Sermon VI Epiphany.

One of the best representations of this process is 2 Enoch 22 (Enoch anointed, perfumed dew. Also, see: Isa. 11:3, perfumed anointing; 1 Jn. 2:20, 27; 2 Cor. 2:14) Enoch was anointed with “dew”, clothed, and transformed into an angel. He was taught the heavenly secrets and given a new name.  In 3 Enoch, we learn that the great angel Metatron was Enoch on earth. He had been raised up to a throne and had become “wise.”

The anointing was said to bring wisdom.  Wisdom is personified as the Great Lady of the temple. In later Christian understanding, this female figure became associated with Mary (Eusebius on Psalm 110 “born from Mary”). The “womb” of Ps. 110 is similar, semantically, to the name Mary (Miriam) — it was understood that this verse referred to Christ being born of Mary in the Holy of Holies.

Anointing was key to being “lifted up” — ascent/resurrection. Messiah was, by definition, resurrected. In the tradition of Melchizedek in Hebrews, he is “raised up” to the priesthood.  In the Isaiah scroll from Qumran, the “suffering servant” is not “marred” but anointed, raised up and given knowledge — “transfigured”.  In Ps. 45, the king (who is a Melchizedek high priest) is addressed as divine (v. 6). Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh and was worshipped (1 Chron. 29:20, 23). Was the king an incarnation of Yahweh — his divine son? (Raising up as resurrection/ new birth: Ps. 89:19–20, 26–27; 2 Sam. 23:1; Heb. 7:11–17; Ps. 45: 2, 6–7; 1 Chron. 29:20, 23)

Eusebius informs us that Moses’ vision included a view of the heavenly sanctuary, which he was supposed to imitate in building the Tabernacle (Proof of Gospel IV: 10, 15). The high priests were “christs” — they represented Yahweh by being anointed and wearing name “YHWH” on forehead.  The anointing oil came from the Tree of Life (true menorah, Asherah; see Clem. Recognitions, 1:45-46; Prov. 3; ben Sira 24:10-34). In the Second Temple, there was no anointing of high priests, only vesting (Zech. 3:3–5, 4:14).

Prov. 3: 13, 18 — Wisdom equated with Tree of Life and true happiness. There is a play on words in the Hebrew. Hebrew ashar means “happiness.” Ashar is similar to Asheratah/Asherah, who was the Queen of Heaven, personified by the Tree of Life (see my post on “Tree of Life as Nurturing Mother“).  Wisdom = Happiness = Tree of Life = Heavenly Mother, represented by high priestess of the temple.  She was represented by asherah tree in the temple. This was the true menorah in the Holy of Holies — the menorah of the Second Temple was not the true menorah — contained no “wisdom.” The oil from the true menorah was said to come from above — when the tree was lost, so was the oil. Second Temple high priests were not anointed. (Anointed ones as lights: Exod. 27:20-21; Zohar Exodus 148a and Zohar Leviticus 34b)

Enoch saw the Tree of Life, a fiery tree (represented by menorah) — he saw the tree removed and then transplanted back to temple — this is what John saw in his vision.  When the tree/Wisdom was abandoned, the priests could no longer “see” — there had been an anointing of the eyelids to be able to “see”. Ps. 19: 7–8 (Perfumed tree of fire: 2 Enoch 8:30; Mishnah Aboth 3:10, also Jn. 8:12; Matt. 5:14; Menorah forbidden: Babylonian Talmud Menahot 28b; BT ‘Aboda Zara 43a; BT Ros Hashanah 24ab; Lost oil as lost vision: 1 Enoch 93:8; BT Horayoth 12a)

Philo wrote that when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies, he was not a man, but a divine “Logos”. His Father was God and his Mother Wisdom.  Christians thought of themselves as children of God and Wisdom.  (Child of Wisdom: Philo Flight 109-110; Rev. 12:17)