I graduated from Marquette University with an MA degree in Theology, with an emphasis in Biblical Theology.  The past couple of months have been pretty rough, with MA comprehensive exams, MA essay, final exams, term papers, etc.  Fortunately, all that time in the library and sitting in front of the computer paid off and I am finally done with my Master’s degree. It was a great journey and I will be forever greatful to my professors and colleagues for helping me get through it.  It has been extremely interesting to be a lone LDS student in a theology program of a Catholic (Jesuit, no less) university.  But despite being the “odd man out”, I felt very welcomed and befriended at Marquette.  I learned a lot and will always cherish these couple of years here.  While I really loved most all my professors, I am especially grateful for having had the opportunity to study with Dr. Andrei Orlov, with whom I share many academic interests, and for his help and support as my advisor during my studies at Marquette. 

During finals week (and luckily after my finals were done!), my wife gave birth to our fourth child, a baby girl we named Christine.  We are overjoyed and feel very blessed to have this special new spirit in our home.  We were also very happy to have my mother stay with us for a while to help out. It was great for our other children to be with their grandma and for her to see them and the new baby.  Was it hard to have a new baby right at the end of the semester? Well, I was sleep-deprived already, so baby Christine didn’t really make that issue worse than it already was!  She has actually been a very good baby and already sleeps through most of the night! Both my wife and the baby are doing very well.  While we often hear about post-partum depression, my wife (and I) have really had our spirits elevated by having this beautiful baby who has recently come from our Heavenly Father’s arms to ours.

I have been accepted to two great PhD programs, both in the UK — Durham University and the University of St Andrews.  I have not yet decided which one I will attend.  At Durham, I would be studying under the supervision of Professor C.T.R. Hayward, known for his excellent work on the Jerusalem Temple and early Jewish literature.  At St Andrews, I would be studying under Professor James Davila, head of their School of Divinity, and one of the very best scholars in the area of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Pseudepigrapha, and early Jewish and Christian literature.  Both schools are very good, their religion departments usually being ranked third and fourth in the UK after Oxford and Cambridge.  If anyone has any input on either of these schools, I would love to hear it.  Whichever school I choose, I will be doing research on the temple, ritual, and ascension/enthronement motifs in the Scriptures and in extra-canonical literature.

I will be traveling to the UK next week to visit Durham and St Andrews, and also to attend Margaret Barker’s temple symposium.  A big thank you to my dear friends who have made this trip possible.  I will be visiting the campuses of the schools I was accepted to in order to get to know them better before I make my final decision.  I have my mind made up pretty well, but I really felt I needed to get to know the schools, professors, and towns where I and my family may be living.  I am also very much looking forward to the temple symposium, which will focus on the role of music in the temple. You can read more about it here.  You can be sure that I will be taking good notes at this conference — I feel incredibly blessed just to have the opportunity to attend! And I can’t wait to get a good look around the Temple Church where the conference will take place. 

• He was born 1491 in Spain and became a strong defender of orthodox Catholicism during the early years of the Protestant Reformation. 
• He is not the Ignatius that many of us are likely most familiar — Ignatius of Antioch, who was one of the “Apostolic Fathers” of the early Christian Church
• St Ignatius of Loyola was a military man who was not, from my understanding, particularly religious in his youth, but who was converted over time through an arduous process
• While studying theology in Paris, he gathered around him a group of like-minded fellows, organizing them into what would become the “Company of Jesus,” later renamed “The Society of Jesus” (S.J.).  This religious order, more commonly known as the Jesuits, was characterized by their strict vows of allegiance to the person of the pope, and also for their dedication to discipline, obedience, and learning.  Marquette University, and many others, are run by the Jesuits. 

The introduction to the text, provided as part of Marquette’s History of Theology volume used in classrooms, has this to say about the Jesuits:

The Jesuits, “the shock troops of the papacy,” as they have been called, were instrumental in checking the further spread of Protestantism in the sixteenth century. The Jesuits’ reliance on rigorous education as a way of preventing the growth of heresy encouraged a more systematic and widespread education for the clergy and laity than the Church had hitherto provided.

These guys were defenders of their faith and wanted both clergy and laiety to know where to stand doctrinally in the face of growing dissertion to Protestant ideas.

With that context in mind, I turn to some of Ignatius’ teachings on the importance of specific “works” that can aid a person in reaching higher levels of spirituality.  Much of what he says is consciously opposed to what Luther and early Protestants were teaching.  The debate over works, justification, and grace is in play here.

The reason I decided to share these ideas on my blog is to highlight how an influential Catholic thinker came down on the grace vs. works debate, as he works his ideas into these “spiritual exercises,” and to make these ideas available to you to compare how acceptable they are in light of your own beliefs.  For Lutherans and other Protestants, Ignatius’ thoughts are likely unacceptably heavy on the “works” side. However, Latter-day Saints may comfortably identify with his advice and reasoning.  See what you think.

Just as walking, traveling, and running are bodily exercises, preparing the soul to remove ill-ordered affections, and after their removal seeking and finding the will of God with respect to the ordering of one’s own life and the salvation of one’s soul, are Spiritual Exercises.

St. Ignatius takes a very practical approach to spirituality. Apparently, by undertaking certain “spiritual exercises,” one may increase in spiritual power and righteousness, and move closer to God and salvation.  This is a very interesting idea to discuss in light of the rise of Protestantism and the whole faith vs. works debate.  Without getting ahead of ourselves, is this type of thinking acceptable at all in Lutheran/Protestant theology? (Note: These are the questions that I asked my fellow students in class. Sometimes it sounds like I am coming down against Ignatius, but my purpose was to evoke some responses from the minority Protestant members of our class.)

The sixth is that he who gives the Exercises, if he perceives that the one who receives them undergoes no spiritual commotions of the mind, such as sadness, nor any agitations of different spirits, ought carefully to inquire whether he performs the Exercises themselves at the prescribed times and in what way.

 Ignatius is obviously expecting some recognizable spiritual response that is a direct result of performing the exercises properly. Is this possible? Can our own works effect in us a spiritual reaction or change? If so, what role does Grace play in this process?

Man was created that he might praise and reverence the Lord his God, and, serving Him, at length be saved. But the other things which are placed on the earth were created for man’s sake, that they might assist him in pursuing the end of his creation; whence it follows that they are to be used or abstained from in proportion as they profit or hinder him in pursuing that end.

 Ignatius states that Man was created to serve God, and apparently, serving God leads one closer to salvation. Again, how would such a proposition hold up in the minds of Lutherans/Protestants and doctrine of pre-destination? Can we work towards our salvation?

The first time of examining is morning when a man ought, as soon as he rises from sleep, to decide to guard against some particular sin or fault which he desires to overcome.

The second is the afternoon in which he must ask of God the grace to be able to remember how often he has fallen into that particular sin or fault and to beware of it in the future. Then let him perform the first reexamination, asking account of his soul concerning the sin or fault already spoken of and, running through the parts of the day from the hour in which he rose down to the present, see how many times he has committed it.

The third time will be the evening in which, after the hour of supper, another review will have to be made by running through in like manner the several hours which have elapsed from the former examination to the present and in the same way remembering and enumerating the times he has been in fault.

 Here we have very precise instructions for maintaining oneself free from sin. Is this an instance of living more by the Law than by Grace? Is it an effective or even beneficial practice?  Is it even necessary for those who claim to be Christian and “alive” in Christ?

After reviewing the “five points” of self-examination, or process of repentance/forgiveness followed by confession, Ignatius claims that:

it is reasonable to expect that he who has thus rightly confessed and is thus rightly disposed will be much better prepared for the reception of the Eucharist, which aids in the highest degree both the expulsion of sin and the preservation and increase of grace received.

Do you agree or disagree that this process would be helpful to go through before partaking of the Eucharist?

The fourteenth: it must also be borne in mind that although it be most true that no one is saved except he who is predestinated, we must speak with circumspection concerning this matter lest, perchance stretching too far the grace of predestination of God, we should seem to wish to shut out the force of free will and the merits of good works, or on the other hand, attributing to the latter more than belongs to them. . . .

The fifteenth: for the like reason we should not speak on the subject of predestination frequently, and if it occur occasionally, we ought so to temper what we say as to give the people no occasion of erroneously saying: If my salvation or damnation is already determined regardless of whether I do ill or well, it cannot happen differently. It happens, consequently, that many neglect good works and other helps of salvation.

The sixteenth: it also happens not infrequently that from immoderate preaching and praise of faith without distinction or explanation being added, the people . . . become indifferent to good works which precede faith or follow it.

The seventeenth: nor must we push to such a point the preaching and inculcating of the grace of God that there may creep into the minds of the hearers the deadly error of denying the faculty of our free will. Concerning grace itself, therefore, it is allowable, indeed, to speak fully, God inspiring us, but no more than redounds to His more abundant glory, lest in our dangerous times both the use of free will and efficacy of good works be taken away.

 Here, Ignatius directly engages the debate of faith vs. works and what role pre-destination has in all this.  He very intuitively identifies the danger inherent in the doctrine of pre-destination — that if its already decided if I’m going to heaven or hell, and that nothing I do can possibly change that, then why make any effort to do good works? If I’m destined for heaven, good works aren’t necessary to help me get there, and if I’m destined for hell, then no amount of good works could ever save me from that fate! He also makes the important point that in all our talk of Grace, we need to remember that God has given us our free will and that will not be taken away. 

The Apocalypse of Abraham is an ancient Jewish document (likely written in the first century AD) that was eventually preserved and passed down by Christian hands. Today we only have access to it through the Slavonic (Slavic) manuscripts kept by the Russian Orthodox church for centuries. It only became known in Western circles towards the latter half of the 19th century. In fact, the first English translation of this text appeared in the Improvement Era (an LDS publication) in 1898. The LDS Church obviously had an interest in this text because of its many similarities to their own Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith had translated from some Egyptian papyri that he had obtained in the 1830s. Interestingly, the Apocalypse of Abraham has many parallels with the Book of Moses as well.

I am providing you with a link here to the notes I made for use in my presentation. Unfortunately, not all of the information I gathered is particularly interesting, as my assignment was to present the “State of the Question,” an analysis of current scholarly opinion on the text, with emphasis on its origin, dating, and other technical issues. Towards the end, I did note some theological themes in the text that would be of interest to our class. So, for whatever it’s worth, I give you my notes. If you have any further questions on them, please feel free to ask me.  Here is the link:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df9gpgs4_2gqzqcnfc

We have recently been discussing the early Christian thinker Origen in my “Age of the Fathers” class. While we have been focusing mostly on his thoughts regarding the Trinity, there has been much in my readings that have struck as peculiarly familiar to my beliefs as a Latter-day Saint. I guess this is to be expected, to an extent, since he was fairly early–born ca. 185 AD. Also, he was the student of Clement of Alexandria and followed the intruiging line of Alexandrian thought. However, many of my fellow students (and many Christians in general) do not especially like Origen. One of my fellow students referred to him as a “space cadet.” One of the frequent complaints is that he was obviously out of touch with mainstream Christianity, being too highly influenced by Greek philosophy (isn’t it funny how that argument can go both ways?).

Origen, like the rest of the Alexandrian school, was highly trained in philosophy. However, he didn’t see philosophy as more important than revelation, but did see it as a reliable source of truth¹.

Despite his scholarly training, Origen does not necessarily try to make Christian doctrine fit his understanding of Greek philosophy. He just wants to organize and systematize the various Christian beliefs using Aristotelian methods of presenting knowledge. Origen created the first systematic theology of Christian beliefs. His reason for doing so, in his words:

Since many…of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points.”²

It is important to note that Origen does not look to Greek philosophical theories to understand Christian doctrines. He wishes only to use the format of the scientific treatise as the vehicle for expounding Christian doctrine. If he sometimes is influenced by philosophical theories, such as Plato’s view that souls exist prior to their birth into mortality, he also has scriptural reasons for accepting that view. In particular his view of the Godhead does not draw on Greek models of deity. Origen holds that the Son makes “the willing in himself just what it was in the Father, so that…the will of the Son is inseparable from the will of the Father, so that there are no longer two wills but one. And this unity of will is the reason for the saying of the Son ‘I and my Father are one [John 10:30].’”³

Thus “they are two separate persons, but one in unity and concord of mind and in identity of will.” And Origen expressly resists the Greek tendency to make God impassible or incapable of emotion:

[Jesus] came down to earth in pity for human kind, he endured our passions and sufferings before he suffered the cross, and he deigned to assume our flesh…What is that passion which he suffered for us? It is the passion of love. The Father himself and the God of the whole universe is “long-suffering, full of mercy and pity” [Psalm 86:15]. Must he not then, in some sense, be exposed to suffering?…The Father himself is not impassible. If he is besought he shows pity and compassion;he feels, in some sort, the passion of love. Origen is not trying to make the Father and the Son sound like the ineffable One and the eternal Logos of the Platonists. He is trying to put into the language of philosphy the traits of God he finds in the Bible.⁴

More On Jesus as a Subordinate God:

In his Commentary on John, Origen noted a difference between the godhood of the Father and that of the Son. Commenting on John’s Prologue (the first verses of John 1), he explains the difference (in the Greek text) between ho Theos (God, with the article) and Theos (without the article) refers to the Father and the Son. Ho Theos, or The God, is the proper term for the Father, the source of all being. The Logos is termed simply Theos, God, conveying the derivative nature of the Son’s divinity. Elsewhere, as Norman Russell explains, this distinction helps Origen explain how the Father and the Son are two Gods in one sense and one God in another. They are two in so far as they are distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. At the same time they are one God in the same way that Adam and Eve are one flesh and Christ and the righteous man are one in spirit. Flesh, spirit, and god are predicates in ascending order of honour and importance.⁵

On Deification:

Just as Christ derived his godhood from the Father and could thus also be called a God, Origen believed that the term “god” could be applied to angels and righteous human beings. He saw the “gods” as the highest class of rational beings alongside the “thrones, dominions, principalities, and authorities of Col. 1:16. He points out Psalms 50:1 (LXX), 136:2, 82:6, and others and compared them with Matt. 22:32, where God is described as the God not of the dead but of the living. The “gods” are therefore living beings and not the dead, or lifeless idols. For Origen, the angelic orders form a continuum extending from the gods down to men. This enables Origen to interpret the “gods” of Scripture sometimes as angels but more often as human beings who have been promoted to the angelic life. The gods are “those to whom the Word of God came” (John 10:35). they are the saints, the perfect, those who live in beatitude. Through participation in God, they have been transformed from men into angels or gods.⁶

On the Preexistence of Souls:

Origen believed that spirits existed in another world prior to their birth into human bodies. Some have imagined that he believed in reincarnation, but this doesn’t appear to have been the case. In his own words:

When the Scriptures are carefully examined regarding Jacob and Esau, it is not found to be unrighteous of God to have said–before they were born, or had done anything in this life–that “the older will serve the younger.” However, it is not unrighteous…if we feel that Jacob was worthily beloved by God according to the deserts of his previous life…Owing to cause that have previously existed, a different office is prepared by the Creator for each one in proportion to the degree of his merit.

It appears to me that this will be seen more clearly at last if each being–whether heavenly, earthly, or infernal–is said to have the causes of his diversity in himself, prior to his bodily birth….There is no doubt that at the Day of Judgment, the good will be separated from the bad (and the just from the unjust) and all will be distributed according to their deserts, by the sentence of God…Similarly, I am of the opinion that such a state of things was the case in the past (i.e., in the pre-mortal world).

I think it should be inquired into as to the reasons why a human soul is acted on sometimes by good and at other times by bad. I suspect the reason for this is older than the bodily birth of the individual…To all these instances, those who maintain that everything in the world is under the administration of Divine providence can give no other answer (as it appears to me) to show that no sadow of injustice rests upon the divine government than to hold that there were ceratin causes of prior existence. And in consequence of this prior existence, our souls contracted a certain amount of guilt in their sensitive nature, before their birth in the body.

This is the objection which they generally raise: They say, “If the world had its beginning in time, what was God doing before the world began?”…I say that God did not begin to work for the first time when he made this visible world. Just as there will be another world after its destruction, so also I believe that other worlds existed before the present one came into being. And both of these positions will be confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture…That before this world others also existed is shown by Ecclesiastes, in the words…”Who will speak and say, ‘Look! This is new’? It has already been in the worlds that have been before us” [Eccles. 1:9, 10, LXX].⁷

There is much, much more in Origen’s writings that would seem familiar and interesting to Latter-day Saints. While I obviously can’t put it all in one post, there are other reasons why I can’t provide you with all that he said that would be of interest. Although Origen would become one of the most popular of the early Church writers ever, he was condemned by later popes as a heretic. As Christianity changed, falling further into apostasy, Origen’s ideas were seen as more and more unorthodox. Later church scholars who preserved Origen’s writings and translated them into Latin, etc., conveniently edited, changed, inserted, omitted things from Origen’s writings that they saw as heretical or not matching with their beliefs. Most of what we have from Origen’s original +/- 2000 works come to us throught the Latin historian Rufinus. Consider the following concerning his opinion on translating/editing Origen’s materials.

Rufinus on Origen’s writings:

Wherever, therefore, we have found in his books anything contrary to that which was piously established by him about the Trinity in other places, either we have omitted it as corrupt and  interpolated, or edited it according to that pattern that we often find asserted by himself. If, however, speaking to the trained and learned, he writes obscurely because he desires to briefly pass over something, we, to make the passage plainer, have added those things that we have read on the same subject openly in his other books…All who shall copy or read this…shall neither add anything to this writing, nor remove anything, nor insert anything, nor change anything.⁸

While Rufinus looks unfavorably upon anyone tinkering with his translations, he felt justified in heavily editing the original documents. Now, unfortunately, when we read Origen (at least from the commonly accepted Latin translation), we don’t know if it is Origen speaking or if it is Rufinus inserting his own version of Origen’s words. Even worse, Rufinus claimed that he was just following the lead of other handlers of Origen’s works before him. 

Rufinus on Macarius:

…Who when he translated over seventy works of Origen, which are called homilies and also several of his writings on the apostle into Latin in which are found several offensive passages, therefore he removed or cleaned up all of these when he translated, so that a Latin reader would find nothing in them that disagrees with our belief. This, therefore, we follow even if we are not so eloquent, nevertheless as much as we can, by the same rules, watching to be sure not to reveal those passages in the books of Origen that disagree and contradict with himself.⁹

Perhaps if we had the opportunity to have direct access to more of Origen’s writings, instead of having them filtered through editors who saw no problem in changing what were probably some of his most interesting concepts, we would gain through them a greater insight into what some of the earliest Christians believed.

1. Noel B. Reynolds, “What Went Wrong for the Early Christians,” Early Christians in Disarray (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 2005), 11
2. Origen, On First Principles, proemium 2, as cited in Daniel W. Graham and James L. Siebach, “The Introduction of Philosophy into Early Christianity,” Early Christians in Disarray, 216
3. Ibid., 218
4. Ibid., 218
5. See discussion in Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 145
6. Russell, 146
7. These quotes taken from David W. Bercot, ed., A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998), 489
8. As cited in John Gee, “The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity,” in Early Christians in Disarray, 172
9. Ibid., 173

10/07/08

This post will cover our class discussion of the Testament of Levi, an important apocalyptic document. I will not go into an overview of all that the document contains of theological interest–there is a vast number of details that could potentially be interesting to the LDS reader. For a great overview of the relevant content in Levi to LDS interests, especially concerning temple themes, I highly recommend Bryce Haymond’s commentary over at www.templestudy.com. Bryce covered all of the most exciting points of the document, so I will just add some insights I gained from Dr. Orlov’s class.

Provenance

The Testament of Levi is found among the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a collection of apocryphal/pseudepigraphical apocalyptic stories that were apparently popular in medieval times They were included in the Armenian Orthodox Bible of 1666. Although it is not known exactly when, or by whom, the testaments were written, they were known to early Christians and are mentioned by Origen and possibly Tertullian. Some suggest a late second century date. 

Although there are many apparently Christian features, many scholars suggest that they were originally written by a Jewish author(s). This claim is substantiated by the discovery of versions of the Testament of Levi in the Cairo Genizah (a discovery of thousands of Jewish texts from the Middle Ages stored in Cairo) and, more interestingly, a number of fragments dubbed Aramaic Levi from the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. A Greek manuscript that matches Aramaic Levi was also found at Mt. Athos, the famous monastic center. Although there are many differences among these versions, they are all comparable to T. Levi.

Parallels with Dead Sea Scrolls

The terminology and themes presented in T. Levi are quite similar to the sectarian texts found at Qumran, especially the Damascus Rule, the Community Rule, and War Rule. Some interesting points of similarity:

• use of the term Beliar (from Belial) for top evil being
• The Two Ways and the Spirit of Truth vs. Spirit of Error
• Focus on priestly Messiah and Davidic/royal Messiah
• The coming of a Messiah of Aaron and a Messiah of David

One of the most important themes in T.Levi is the depiction of the priestly initiation. It joins other Qumran texts in carrying on the idea that when priests received their initiatory rites, they became priests of the heavenly temple, to serve among the angels. Their temple service becomes part of the angelic liturgy in the presence of God.

This theme is most strongly understood in the enigmatic Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400-407, 11Q17, Mas1K) . These Qumran texts are very important for our understanding of heavenly priesthood–and the relation of the earthly priesthood to it.

The Songs of the Sabbath sacrifice are very fragmentary, but seem to be structured like the psalms. (For the importance of the psalms for our understanding of the temple, see my earlier post here).  The Songs purport to describe the Sabbath worship and sacrifice carried on by the angels in the heavenly temple. There are similarities between this description and that of the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. There are 13 songs, corresponding to the number of Sabbaths in the first quarter of the year.

In the songs, the use of the numbers 7 and 3 are employed often, and not coincidentally. They correspond to how the heavens are structured. Dr. Orlov asked: why do we have 3 heavens in some material and sometimes 7? It is because the Heavenly Temple is reflecting the earthly temple (or vice versa)–thus, we have a three-fold structure in heaven. So the heavenly temple was envisioned as being similar in structure to the earthly temple. Sometimes, however, there are 7 heavens–possibly making a parallel to the outer gates and courts of the temple. There is also a likely parallel here to the 7 days of Creation.

For latter-day saints, this is very natural, as Joseph Smith explicitly outlined three degrees of heaven (glory). A seven-fold heaven is not a stretch either, as Joseph Smith also set out three degrees within the highest heaven, plus multiple degrees in the lower two heavens (D&C 76 and 131).

Apparently, the songs were used as part of an actual liturgy, in which the priests involved were part of a dramatic representation in which they saw themselves as angels in the heavenly temple, participating in the worship of God. The leader of the group represented the head archangel, calling the others to praise God. For more on this, please see Crispin Fletcher-Louis, “The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in: C. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 252-279.

This idea of the human priest representing an angelic priest in dramatized ritual is quite certainly related to the idea of Levi becoming an angelic being as he goes through his initiation in heaven. The fact that Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice regularly refers to the angelic beings as elohim (gods) is also very interesting. So the endowment of heavenly clothing and divine attributes can be seen as a process of deification. (It is also interesting to note that the Lord, distinguishable from the Most High, declares himself to be “the angel who intercedeth for the race of Israel”).

I now turn to the actual text of T.Levi (8:2-10) to further expound in this theme of inititation.

And I saw seven men in white raiment saying to me, Arise, put on the robe of the priesthood, and the crown of righteousness, and the breastplate of understanding, and the garment of truth, and the diadem of faith, and the tiara of miracle, and the ephod of prophecy. And each one of them bearing each of these things put them on me, and said, From henceforth become a priest of the Lord, thou and thy seed for ever.

 Levi is given seven articles of clothing comparable to the priestly garments designated for Aaron in the Old Testament. Each of these items carries with it some type of moral/spiritual quality. It seems as if Levi is being endowed with these attributes as he puts on the items of clothing.  After he has been dressed in these garments, the story seems to repeat this sequence, with some changes and additional details.

And the first anointed me with holy oil, and gave to me the rod of judgment. The second washed me with pure water, and fed me with bread and wine, the most holy things and clad me with a holy and glorious robe. The third clothed me with a linen vestment like to an ephod. The fourth put round me a girdle like unto purple. The fifth gave to me a branch of rich olive. The sixth placed a crown on my head. The seventh placed on my head a diadem of priesthood, and filled my hands with incense, so that I served as a priest to the Lord.

 While I won’t go into the details of the rich royal imagery presented here, we see here Levi  being made a king and a priest of the angelic priesthood, ready to officiate in priestly ordinances before the Lord. But why the two different investitures?

Dr. Orlov took note of this oddity in class. He commented that there seem to be two sets of clothing and proposed that this could indicate a transition between two different realms–the earthly and the heavenly (or we could say, between the terrestrial and the celestial). He further commented that perhaps what we are seeing is Levi being endowed with certain godly attributes on earth in preparation to receive their full realization in heaven. Very interesting!

Enoch as the angel Metatron

Prevalence in Second Temple Literature

The theme of the human priest becoming an angelic priest (and numbered among the elohim) emerges as a common theme throughout Second Temple (especially apocalyptic) literature. In these texts, ascending to heaven to become a priest in God’s presence almost always involves a transformation/transfiguration from mortal to divine (at least temporarily). The following is a partial list of documents that demonstrate this theme:

• 1 Enoch 14-36 (The Book of the Watchers)–While transformation isn’t explicit, Enoch is taken into heaven and becomes a heavenly priest and participates with angelic beings.
• 1 Enoch 71 (Similitudes of Enoch)–Enoch is transformed into the heavenly Son of Man. The transformation is not explicit, but does indicate a change to a divine/angelic status.
• 2 Enoch 22-24–Enoch prostrates himself before God in the 7th heaven. Michael removes Enoch from his earthly garments, anoints him, and dresses him in heavenly robes. After this process, Enoch notes that a transformation has taken place and that he now resembles “one of the glorious ones; there was no observable difference” (22:10). God then reveals secrets (of creation) to him never revealed before, not even to the angels (ch. 24). Enoch is asked to sit down by God on a throne even closer than Gabriel’s.
• 3 Enoch 9-12 (Sefer Hekhalot)–This is a later text, but it continues, and strengthens, this idea of transformation. The angel Metatron tells the visionary, Rabbi Ishmael, that he was once the man Enoch and that he had been transformed by God into the great archangel. He was given a glorious throne in heaven–a copy of God’s own throne. He is also dressed in heavenly robes–8 garments, which likely represent the priestly clothing.  Enoch/Metatron is not merely an angel, but is the “lesser Yahweh.”
• The Ascension of Isaiah–Isaiah is taken up through the seven heavens and notices that he becomes more and more glorious in his appearance as he ascends each degree. When he reaches the seventh heaven, he is fully equal to the angels that he sees. He is told of the glorious robes reserved in heaven for the righteous dead.
• The Apocalypse of Zephaniah–the visionary has died and ascends to heaven where he puts on angelic robes and joins the angels in their praise of God.
• The Apocalypse of Abraham–details Abraham’s journey to heaven, where he participates in the song of the divine creatures. He is shown the heavenly garments (formerly belonging to Azazel) that he will inherit.

Glorious Robes of Azazel/Lucifer

This is by no means a complete listing of the instances in which this imagery appears. For more on this, please see M. Himmelfarb, “Revelation and Rapture: The Transformation of the Visionary in the Ascent Apocalypses,” in Mysteries and Revelations, 79-90.

In conclusion, The Testament of Levi is important to our understanding of the priesthood and temple as they were understood in non-mainstream Second Temple literature. Much of this literature (pseudepigrapha, apocalyptic), if scholars like Margaret Barker are correct, preserves the older traditions of the First Temple that have become marginalized in mainstream Jewish thinking. One of the major themes that these texts preserve is the idea that earthly priests were seen as equivalent to the heavenly priests–the angels. The temple initiation of priests was seen as their transformation into divine beings who could then participate in the divine council. These ideas are important to our understanding of the temple and of deification.