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

However, I did want to share with you a review I just read covering Margaret Barker’s excellent work, The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God. The review, by Benedict Thomas Viviano, O.P.,  was done for the Society of Biblical Literature’s Review of Biblical Literature. The review is well done, but I heartily disagree with most of what Fr. Viviano has to say.

It’s been a little while now since I had the pleasure of reading Mrs. Barker’s brilliant treatment of the Kingdom of Heaven. However, I remember it being one of her most powerful works — inspirational and enlightening — and I could accept and agree with most everything she said. She had some amazing insights into what happened to the ancient temple tradition and priesthood, including some great ideas concerning the Melchizedek Priesthood.  The Kingdom of Heaven that Christ so often mentioned was, according to Barker, a reference to the Holy of Holies of the ancient temple.

I think most of this, however, is lost on Fr. Viviano, who sees all of this as fanciful and certainly inaccurate. He attributes Barker’s conclusions not to a brilliant mind and ability to see the big picture, but to her “eccentricity.” If I had more time, I would love to pick apart his review for you, but I’ll just give you the link and see what you think. If any of you have read this book, please let me know how you feel about the review.  In Viviano’s defense, he comes from a completely different school of scriptural exegesis — I really wouldn’t expect him to understand someone as innovative (some might say “radical”) as Margaret Barker — she goes against everything he has ever learned.

You can read the review here: http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6764

If you haven’t read The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God, I couldn’t recommend it more highly, despite this review.

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.

After a rather long tangent looking at the suppression of ancient doctrines and ordinances, I now return to my commentary on Margaret Barker’s work on the themes of the First Temple that show up in later Christian beliefs. This post will focus on Chapter 6 of Temple Themes, entitled Transformation and Transfiguration. Interestingly, the chapter focuses not so much on these two ideas, but on the First Temple belief that God could be seen, especially in the temple. Transformation and transfiguration were the effect caused on the persons who had the privilege of seeing God. This First Temple expectation (that worshippers could see God therein) was also one of the principle hopes of the early Christians, as expressed in Revelation 22:4: “And they shall see his face.”

Barker gives us some great insights into the nature of this expectation in ancient times. For the early Christians:

“Seeing the face of the Lord” must have been the most important part of Christian worship, but what did it mean? (p. 135)

The setting for the Book of Revelation is in the (heavenly) temple, and Barker reasons that this type of vision was likely central to the worship in the Temple of Solomon.  While it is difficult to ascertain due to lack of sufficient evidence, the belief that Yahweh would appear in his temple is expressed in many Old Testament texts. Barker also points out that many of the Hebrew texts appear to have undergone minor changes that alter the meaning of certain passages related to the temple that obscure the idea that God could be seen there. She says:

The changes as the texts were transmitted show that they were controversial, and so ”seeing the face of the Lord” may have been one of the differences between the first and second temples, one of the elements of the older cult that were restore in Christianity (p. 135).

As discussed in previous posts, there is evidence that the Deuteronomist reform was emphatic about declaring that God could not be seen, and that all contact with Deity involved hearing God’s voice alone (see Deut 4:12, a very clear example of this).  While the Deuteronomistic theology would not have Moses see God’s form, other passages declare that he did:

With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude (Heb. t’munah, “form”) of the Lord shall he behold. 

In what is possibly a more ancient version of the Sinai account, Moses, Aaron, Aaron’s sons, and the elders of Israel

saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink (Exod 24:10).

Barker reasons that because they saw His feet, God must have had a human form (p. 136). In similar manner, Ezekiel sees God on his chariot-throne in the likeness of the appearance of a human (Ezek 1:26).

From the Old Testament, Barker explains, we receive a mixed message. Can God be seen or not? Exodus 33 is a good example. In verse 12, God speaks with Moses face to face, but then in verse 20, we are presented with God saying to Moses: “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” There seem to be two contradicting traditions at play here. Barker comments on the existence of these opposing traditions:

In the Old Testament the issue is confused.  There are two positions: the Lord could be seen — the temple tradition — or could not be seen, the later Deuteronomists’ position. The New Testament is emphatic that the Lord was seen…John opens his Gospel with the words: “We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14), thus rooting Christian tradition firmly in one particular strand of the Old Testament. “Man shall not see me and live” (Exod 33:20) is exactly opposite to John’s teaching that seeing the Lord brings eternal life…(pp. 136-137).

Barker tells of the pilgrimage that the men of Israel were required to make three times a year–at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks and at the Feast of Booths–”to appear before the Lord” (Exod 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16). “To appear before the Lord” is the usual translation, but, according to Barker, the Hebrew actually says: three times a year shall all your men see the face of the LORD (p. 146). She explains:

Under the influence of the Duteronomists and their spiritual heirs, it became the custom to read the letter differently, even though the Psalms show clearly what the original meaning must have been.

She then goes through and points out a large number of scriptures which she believes the Deuteronomists modified, not by changing the original Hebrew consonants, but just in the way the words were pronounced. Because the consonants were not pointed (the words had only consonants and no vowels), the meaning could easily be changed by altering the tradition of how the words were prounounced (just changing the vowel sounds). For those who are familiar with the Hebrew verb system, Barker is suggesting that the Deuteronomists began reading these select words in Niph’al, when the were originally Qal. What this means is that instead of reading a phrase actively (Qal)–”see the face”–they were reading passively (Niph’al)–”be seen/appear before the face.” By switching them back to Qal, we get different meanings for the following passages:

• In Exodus 23:15 and 34:20, the text should read “none shall see my face” instead of “none shall appear before me.”
• The same reading applies for Exod 23:17; 34:23, 24; and Deut 16:16 – all should be “see the face of the LORD” instead of “appear before the LORD.”
• Deut 31:11 should be “When all Israel comes to see the face of the LORD your God” instead of “When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God.”
• In 1 Sam 1:22, Hannah planned to take her son “to see the face of the LORD.” 
• In Isaiah 1:12, the meaning of what the Lord says should be “When you come to see my face.”
• Psalm 42:2 should say: “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and see the face of God?”

For each of these examples, Barker says, the Hebrew Lexicon indicates that the Qal (active) form should be read. Citing Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: “The verbs in all these passage were originally Qal, afterwards pointed Niph’al, to avoid the expression ‘see the face of Yahweh’ (1962 Edition, pp. 816, 908).  Barker goes on to muse about what this could possibly mean or how this appearance occurred.

How the Lord was seen or how the glory shone forth we do not know. The king or high priest in golden vestments perhaps? What was literal? What was poetic? How did they organize and choreograph temple ceremonial? What heavenly reality were they expressing in their liturgy? Were the four living creatures around the throne — the lion, the ox, the eagle and the man –in fact masked priests, like those of Egypt and Assyria? We can only read what is there or, given the sensitive nature of this subject, try to recover what was once there.

Egyptian High Priest

  These are interesting questions for Latter-day Saints, in light of our own temple ceremonies. It would not be hard for us to picture, for example, a mortal priesthood officiator representing the Lord in the temple. We know that this happened in many ancient temples, including in Egypt–that a high priest would dress in costume, representing the god. Although these scriptures may be referring to the literal appearance of Yahweh in his temple, which could certainly be possible, they are more likely referring to temple rituals involving humans. Either way, the real point here is that the belief that those who went to the temple expected to see Yahweh was deliberately obscured by later editors who did not want to pass on this ancient belief.  Notwithstanding these changes, many passages still portray the older view.  Many of the clearest examples are found in the Psalms.

“The Psalms were the hymn book of the temple, and in them we glimpse something of the ancient liturgy” (p. 137). Although we can’t get a complete picture from them, and they don’t include dates and authors, we see many recurring themes. One of these, as Barker points out, is: “the Lord was seen, his glory shone forth from the temple” (p. 138).

In my next post, I will comment further on this chapter of Temple Themes, beginning with the vision of Yahweh as expressed in the Psalms.

Before moving on to more evidence of the suppression of ancient truths, this time at the hands of postexilic priestly editors, I want to mention a couple more good commentaries on the Deuteronomistic reforms, mentioned in my last post.

First, I remembered another great article–a book review–by Kevin Christensen, featured in the FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). The article is called “The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament” and can be found online here. It is one of the best LDS treatments of the topic that I am covering here that I know of. It gives many insights into why the Old Testament seems to be unclear, from our perspective, on topics such as Christ, the priesthood, and the temple. I highly encourage you to take a look at it.

Also, as I have been reviewing the next chapter in Barker’s Temple Themes (no, I have not abandoned my running commentary on the book), I have noticed that she continues to provide many more great insights on this topic. On page 144 of Temple Themes, Barker states the following under the subtitle “Veiling the Temple”:

The writings of the Deuteronomists have a distinct hostility towards temple, monarchy, and theophany, and many aspects of the temple were omitted or obscured in their writings. They denied that any form had been seen at Sinai (Deut. 4:12). In their history of the monarchy, Samual warned that a king would be a disaster (1 Sam 8:10–18), and most of the kings were shown to fall far short of the Deuteronomists’ ideal…The Deuteronomists also disapproved of the temple. It was designed by foreigners, and Solomon had to sell part of his kingdom to the king of Tyre to pay the debts (1 Kgs 9:10–11). Given that these texts–1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings [part of the Deuteronomistic History]–are the most frequently used source for reconstructing the history of the period, any attempt to describe the temple where the LORD appeared, and the royal high priest who probably represented the LORD, faces considerable difficulties.

Their description of the temple omitted certain details which are found elsewhere.  These are not random details, but significant for any attempt to recover the older temple. It is as though the Deuteronomists wantd to rewrite the past and remove whatever theophany had implied.

She then goes through and shows how so much of what the Holy of Holies contained and what the vision of God entailed was simply ignored/suppressed by the Deuteronomists.

History Repeats Itself: The Priestly Reforms

Not long after the King Josiah’s reforms, Judah was conquered by the Babylonians. Many of the royal and priestly classes were carried off into Babylon.  Scholars have noted that while in Babylon, the captives continued to reform the religion of the Jews. We learn from Barker that the Jews in exile had consolidated and developed the definition of the chosen people, and when they returned to Judah, those who had not been deported found themselves excluded from participation in the new religion established by them. Because of the changes made to the faith, those who had not been in exile in Babylon found themselves in exile in their own land. [1]

Gabriele Boccaccini gives us some additional background to this situation. It is apparent that many preexilic religious institutions continued in Jerusalem during the exile. 90-95 % of Judahites had not been deported. The Cult of YHWH continued during the exile, and sacrifices were offered to YHWH throughout the whole period (Jer 41:4–5). Religious institutions did not need to be rebuilt from scratch. There were still Levitical families that were loyal to the Davidic king. The Persians allowed Sheshbazzar, heir of the Davidic line, to return and govern in Jerusalem. The people were overjoyed at the king’s return. Although the Zadokites (the Aaronic priestly class) had begun to oppose the power of the king in exile, it appeared as if the king and levites would have their authority restored. Sheshbazzar began to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem. However, the Zadokites had much influence among the exiles and Sheshbazzar’s building project was never completed. Mysteriously, Sheshbazzar disappears from history.  Darius I later sent Zerubbabel as Davidic king, who ruled jointly with Joshua, the Zadokite priest. This was a new political development giving the priestly class more power than ever before. The Zadokites had a new authority, set up a new priesthood structure, and built the new temple (Zech 6:9–14). The general Levitical priesthood lost the support of the king, their only source of legitimacy. New laws of purity disqualified them from serving as priests. The local population was excluded from participating in the building and administration of Temple. [2]

Before long, the last Davidic king, Zerubbabel, also disappeared and the Zadokites took power. Only exiles were allowed to participate in the temple dedication. The religious functions associated with the Davidic kingship were absorbed by the priests; the Zadokites were left alone as the supreme and unchallenged religious authority in Jewish society. The diarchy with the house of David was gone, but its royal symbols, such as the hereditary succession and the anointing, which the house of Zadok had inherited by their brief association with the monarchy, remained and marked, also visually, the Zadokites’ supersession of kingship. “The old monarchical state had been transformed into a much-reduced theocracy with the high priest as the main native spokesman and leader.” The priestly historiography did its best to hide the role that the Davidic monarchy played during the Babylonian exile and the early Persian period. The Priestly writing transfers back to Sinai the royal status of the priesthood-that they were appointed by God, and not by kings. Ezra and Chronicles (which were histories likely authored by Zadokites) both declare that the Davidic monarchy ended with Zedekiah. [3]

The purpose of this brief history is to give the reader an idea of how the Aaronic Zadokite priests came to power, by suppressing the leadership of the Davidic line, and many important points of Jewish history as well. The Aaronic priesthood apparently did not originally have all the influence that they would later claim to have. While this deserves a separate post, and I have written an entire paper on it, there is significant evidence that the Aaronic priesthood was initially a subordinate priesthood governed by the royal high priesthood (Barker’s term) that the kings held.  This makes sense in view of this theory that they got rid of the kings and then rewrote the history books to make it appear that their priestly authority was never subordinate to them. As Boccaccini explains:

In Chronicles, Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are barely mentioned and deprived of any political role. In Ezra, where the do have a major political role, nothing is said about their royal ancestry. Without a critical analysis of ancient sources, one would never guess that the two illustrious “governors” were from the house of David…As soon as the Temple was built and fully put in order, the usefulness of the Davidic king expired, in the eyes of the postexilic priests. “The Davidic rule, having finished its cultic task, had given way to a new regime with God’s approval because of the dynasty’s unfaithfulness”…For the Zadokites, the divine mission of the Davidic kings-the only reason for their election-was to establish the Zadokite order. Any cultic function of the king was suppressed by priestly writing. Chronicles systematically omits the formula “for the sake of my servant David.” Equally lost is any reference that might suggest a special sacral relationship between God and the king. It erases any surviving reference to the priestly functions of the king, which would conflict with the exclusiveness of the Zadokite priesthood. The “sons of David” are “priests” in 2 Sam, but are transformed into “chief officials in the service of the king” in 1 Chr. In Chr, King Uzziah is criticized for offering sacrifice, which I Kgs allows. [4]

 

According to James VanderKam, it was Zerubbabel, the representative of the Davidic dynasty, who sets the first stone of rebuilt temple-he is the most eminent person of the restoration, not Joshua the High Priest. However, in the later writings of the period, Joshua alone is the protagonist and he does not share the stage with Zerubbabel. [5] It is the Zadokites who end up finishing the Second Temple and who govern its rites and doctrines.
Under the Zadokites, the rebuilt temple was not simply the restoration of the old sanctuary but a new one with new rules and a new priesthood. They created a distinction between “priests” and “levites,” a distinction unknown in preexilic Judaism (61). Further distinction was made between the sons of Zadok (now referred to as “high priests”), who were direct descendents of Aaron’s son Phinehas, and the other descendants of Aaron’s sons Eleazar and Ithamar (the “priests”), and between them and the rest of the descendants of Levi (the “levites”). Boccaccini even goes so far as to declare that “the creation of the Aaronite priesthood was a postexilic phenomenon” and that the Zadokites legitimized their power by tracing their priesthood back to Aaron in their own priestly version of Israel’s history (64-65). [6]

The Second Temple

It is evident from non-Zadokite literature of the Second Temple period that there were many parties who did not accept the new religion of the Zadokites, nor their new temple. They recognized that many rituals and beliefs had been changed and that the priests of the Second Temple were very different from those of the First. Many of the levites and priests who had not gone into exile knew that the Second Temple and its priesthood were corrupt and polluted.  Many of these critics were excluded from participating in the new exiles-only Temple. Some scholars believe that many of these were then exiled from the community or voluntarily removed themselves to escape the corruption. The community at Qumran, the compilers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, may fit this description.

Qumran Site

VanderKam informs us that the “inhabitants at Qumran may have been high-ranking priests that removed themselves from temple at Jerusalem” and that “the Teacher of Righteousness [at Qumran] wanted his group to return and attempt to restore an older order of the high priesthood.” [7]

According to Margaret Barker:

We are told that the Aaronic high priesthood line was uninterrupted and that the rituals between First and Second Temple were unchanged. Many voices (Enochians, 3rd Isaiah, Zechariah, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) condemn priesthood of Second Temple as corrupt and false. The Second Temple was an era of wrath, exemplified by wicked priests. They awaited the true temple. The second temple had had a significantly different “religion” from the first, and even though most of the source material has passed through “second temple” hands, it is clear that a return to the original temple was part of the religious and political agenda of, for example, the Qumran community. For them, the second temple was both the cause and the sign of divine wrath. [8] 

Boccaccini believes (as discussed in a previous post) that the community of Qumran were a part of the so-called Enochic Judaism movement.  According to this theory, the “Enochians” claimed to represent a competing (and more ancient) priestly line than that of the ruling Zadokite priesthood, and did not recognize the legitimacy of the second temple and maintained that Israel was still living in exile. [9] The Enochic literature testifies to the existence, during the Zadokite period, of a nonconformist priestly tradition.  Enochic Judaism directly challenged the legitimacy of the second Temple and its priesthood. Attribution to Enoch (and all Patriarchs from Adam) of priestly characteristics suggests the existence of a pure prediluvian, and pre-fall, priesthood and disrupts the foundations of the Zadokite priesthood, which claimed its origin in Aaron at the time of the exodus. However, because the Zadokites had changed the priestly genealogies and virtually extinguished the High Priesthood of the ancient order, some who could previously prove their right to the priesthood were now excluded and had to prove it through their own literature. [10] This literature would include the Enoch writings, the book of Jubilees, and the Aramaic Levi document–all found at Qumran.

Robert Kugler lends support to this conclusion, telling us that: The [Qumran] Community’s roots can be traced to priests dispossessed of their role in the temple by an apostate and usurping high priesthood. It is understandable that among them would be found literature exalting priesthood classes that had been dispossessed. [11]

While I have not gone into detail here regarding what, doctrinally, the Zadokites reformed, my purpose has been to present some brief evidence that they did make major reforms that some other parties saw as corrupt.  They elevated their position to a place of supreme religious/political authority, when they had previously been subordinate to the kings. The rebuilt temple was considerably different from the First Temple in terms of its rituals and beliefs. I have discussed this topic briefly before. Unfortunately, much of what we know of the Old Testament temple actually comes from memories of the Second Temple. I believe that this is one of the main reasons that the descriptions we have of what the ancient temple was like seem so different from what we know as the Temple today. While there is not space in this post to expound on this, I think the ancient Temple was not simply a place for the offering of sacrifices, but was a place for the performance of many other ceremonies–including reenactments of the creation, other ritual dramas (where the king or high priest represents Yahweh), washings and anointings, and even marriages. However, the Second Temple did not preserve these rites. The new high priests were the leaders of a radical reform movement that changed the face of “Judaism” and suppressed ancient truths.

Notes:

1] Margaret Barker. Temple Themes in Christian Worship. London: T&T Clark (2007), pp. 53-55.

2] Gabriele Boccaccini. Roots of Rabbinic Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (2002), pp. 49-55.

3] Ibid., pp. 55-57.

4] Ibid., pp. 57-60

5] James C. VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. Boston: Brill (2000), p. 171.

6] Boccaccini, Roots, 61-65.

7] VanderKam, pp. 205, 220.

8] Barker, Temple Themes, pp. 54-55, 111.

9] Boccaccini. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1998), p. 185.

10] Ibid., pp. 72-74.

11] Robert Kugler. “The Priesthood at Qumran: The Evidence of References to Levi and the Levites,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich, eds. Boston: Brill (1999), pp. 478-479.