Although there are various possible translations of Maranatha,
(Our LORD comes, Our LORD has come), the fragments at the end of
the Book of Revelation show that it was understood at that time
to mean Come LORD. The LORD himself assures his people
that he is coming soon to bring the judgement (Rev.22.7, 12, 20),
and the prayer reflects this hope of his imminent return. The
position of these fragments at the end of the Book of Revelation
suggests that they were no longer central to the message of the
book. In other words, Maranatha was being understood in another
way.
The same prayer appears elsewhere as the closing lines of a
letter which give no indication of how it was understood (1
Cor.16.22), but also at the close of an early Eucharistic prayer,
possibly the earliest known outside the New Testament, a very
significant context (Didache 10). This links the return of the
LORD to the Eucharist. Other lines of the prayer are
ambiguous: ‘Let this present world pass away’, for
example, could imply either a literal understanding of the
LORD’s return or the present transforming effect of the
Eucharist. Maranatha in the Eucharist, however, must be the
original epiklesis, praying for the coming of the LORD.
The Didache prayer has no reference to the words of institution
at the Last Supper and no Passover imagery. As implied in
John’s account of the Last Supper (John 13.1-20), Jesus is
‘Thy Servant Jesus’, and thanks are offered for the
knowledge, faith and everlasting life made known through him. The
bread and wine are spiritual meat and drink (cf. John 6.25-58)
which cause the Name to dwell in the hearts of those who have
been fed. This could indicate that John’s understanding of
the Eucharist was the formative influence here, and that it was
his new understanding of Maranatha which led to its
transformation into the Eucharistic epiklesis.
Passover or Day of Atonement?
Despite the apparently clear accounts of the Eucharist in the
Synoptic Gospels, there are many problems as to its true origin
and significance. The Passover is the least likely context as
this was the one sacrifice not offered by a priest (m.Yoma
5.6), and the earliest tradition remembers Jesus as the great
High Priest[2]. The words of institution known to
the evangelists (Matt.26.26-28; Mark 14.22-24; Luke 22.14-20) and
Paul (1 Cor.11.23-26) indicate as their context the priestly
sacrifice of the Eternal Covenant, in other words, the Day of
Atonement. The position of the Christian altar in a church
building, beyond the boundary between earth and heaven, shows
that it derived from the kapporet in the Holy of holies,
the place where the Atonement blood was offered.
Even though Paul knew Christ as the paschal lamb (1 Cor.5.7), he
had also been taught that his death was ‘for our sins in
accordance with the scriptures’ (1 Cor.15.3). This indicates
that the earliest interpretation of the death of Jesus was based
on the fourth Servant Song, which, in the form known at Qumran,
depicts a suffering Messiah figure who bears the sins of others
(1Q Isaa 52.13-53.12). He was the High Priest who
sprinkled the atonement blood (Isa.52.15) and was himself the
sacrifice (Isa.53.10). A similar expectation is found in
Peter’s temple sermon; the Servant, the Author of life, was
about to return from heaven bringing ‘times of
refreshing’ (Acts 3.13-21). Again, these texts indicate that
the original understanding of the death of Jesus was the renewal
of the Eternal Covenant on the Day of Atonement.
The original context of the Eucharist should sought in the Day of
Atonement, when the High Priest took the blood into the holy of
holies and then returned to complete the rite of atonement and
renewal. At first the Christians had prayed for the literal
return of the LORD to bring judgement on their enemies and to
establish the Kingdom. Their hopes for the history of their times
were based on the ancient ritual pattern of the Day of Atonement.
Jesus, the great high priest, had sacrificed himself as the
atonement offering of the tenth jubilee, had passed into heaven,
the true holy of holies, and would emerge again to complete the
atonement. When this did not literally happen, John learned in
his vision of the returning high priest (Rev.10) that the
expectations of the Church should return to the temple liturgy
whence they had come. In the original temple ritual, the anointed
high priest, even though he ‘was’ the LORD, had taken
into the holy of holies the blood of a goat which represented his
own lifeblood. As he emerged, he sprinkled ‘his’ blood,
i.e. he gave his life, to cleanse and consecrate the creation.
This renewed on earth the kingdom of the LORD’s anointed.
Hence ‘Thy Kingdom come.’
The Messiah, both High Priest and victim, was the theme of the
Eucharist as it was of the Day of Atonement. Dix concluded:
‘From the days of Clement of Rome in the first century,
for whom our LORD is ‘the High-priest of our offerings’
Who is ‘in the heights of the heavens (1 Clem.6) it can be
said with truth that this doctrine of the offering of the earthly
Eucharist by the heavenly Priest at the heavenly altar is to all
intents and purposes the only conception of the eucharistic
sacrifice which is known anywhere in the church... there is no
pre-Nicene author Eastern or Western whose eucharistic doctrine
is at all fully stated who does not regard the offering and
consecration of the Eucharist as the present action of the LORD
Himself, the Second Person of the Trinity.’[3]
Interpreting the Eucharist as the Day of Atonement offering,
Origen wrote: ‘You who came to Christ the true high priest,
who made atonement for you... do not hold fast to the blood of
the flesh. Learn rather the blood of the Word and hear him saying
to you “This is my blood which is poured out for you for the
forgiveness of sins.” He who is inspired by the mysteries
knows both the flesh and the blood of the Word of God (On
Leviticus 9.10). Jerome, commenting on Zephaniah 3 wrote of
‘the priests who pray at the Eucharist for the coming of the
LORD’. He too went on to link the day of the LORD’s
coming to the Day of Atonement, and ‘wait for me, for the
day when I rise’ (RSV Zeph.3.8) was read as ‘Wait for
me on the day of my resurrection’. This association of the
two advents of the LORD with the Day of Atonement is found as
early as the Letter of Barnabas, a Levite. As in Jerome,
the earthly life of Jesus is compared to the role of the
scapegoat who bore the sins, ‘but the point of there being
two similar goats is that when they see him coming on the Day,
they are going to be struck with terror at the manifest parallel
between him and the goat (Barn.7). The implication is that the
blood of the goat being brought from the holy of holies was
believed from the very earliest period to prefigure the Parousia
and that the association of the Eucharist and the Day of
Atonement was well known. Justin in the mid-second century linked
the sacrificed goat to the second coming, (Trypho 40) and Cyril
of Alexandria wrote some two centuries later: We must perceive
the Immanuel in the slaughtered goat... the two goats illustrate
the mystery (Letter 41).
In the Eucharist, the bishop or priest ‘was’ the High
Priest and therefore the LORD (e.g. Ignatius Magn. 6 ‘Let
the bishop preside in the place of God’). He took into the
holy of holies the bread and wine of the new bloodless sacrifice
which became the body and blood of the LORD; this effected the
atonement and renewal of the creation, and thus established on
earth the expected Kingdom. Hence the eschatological emphasis of
the earliest Eucharists. Dix again: ‘The Eucharist is the
contact of time with the eternal fact of the kingdom of God
through Jesus. In it the church within time continually, as it
were, enters into its own eternal being in that Kingdom.’[4] In other words, it was the ancient
high priestly tradition of entering the holy of holies beyond
time and matter, the place of the heavenly throne. A fragment of
this temple belief in the eternal present of events which humans
have experienced as history, is to be found in the writings of
the Deuteronomists who did so much to suppress the mystical
elements of the ancient cult. The rebellious generation who had
been at Sinai were told they would not live to enter the promised
land (Num.14.26-35); nevertheless, Moses reminded their children:
‘Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant but
with us who are all of us here alive this day’ (Deut. 5.3).
Had the original understanding of the Eucharist derived from the
Passover, we should have expected the Exodus imagery of
liberation from slavery and becoming the chosen people. Instead,
the expected benefits of the Eucharist were those of the Day of
Atonement. Early evidence drawn from a variety of sources is
consistent in this respect. Bishop Sarapion’s Prayer Book,
for example, used in Egypt in the middle of the fourth century,
speaks of ‘the medicine of life to heal every sickness and
not for condemnation’ i.e. of the Eucharist bringing
judgement and renewal which are the twin aspects of atonement. He
prayed for angels to come and destroy the evil one, and for the
establishment of the Church, i.e. for the banishing of Azazel and
the establishing of the Kingdom. He prayed that the congregation
would be made ‘living men’ [5](c.f. Thomas 1 ‘the living
i.e. resurrected Jesus’), able to speak of the unspeakable
mysteries. ‘Make us wise by the participation of the body
and the blood.’ This is the high priestly tradition of the
temple, and the ‘living men’ are the first resurrected,
the kingdom of priests reigning on earth after the evil one has
been bound (Rev.20.6). The Liturgy of John Chrysostom prays
that the holy mysteries may bring remission of sins and
forgiveness of transgressions, the gift of the Spirit, access to
the LORD and a place in the Kingdom, healing of soul and body,
not judgement and condemnation. Even earlier, the Anaphora of
Addai and Mari had prayed for enlightenment, and hopes for
remission of sins, pardon of offences, hope of resurrection and
new life in the Kingdom, and the Liturgy of James had
prayed for peace and salvation, for forgiveness and protection
from enemies. All these themes derive from the covenant
renewal of the Day of Atonement.
There is a striking similarity between these prayers and the
Qumran Hymns, and it would be easy to imagine the singer of the
Hymns as the priest who had offered the Eucharistic prayers. The
singer knows the mysteries and has been purified from sin (1QH IX
formerly I and XII formerly IV). He is one of the angels in the
holy of holies, (1QH XIV formerly VI), he is strengthened by the
Spirit (1QH XV formerly VII), he has experienced light and
healing (1QH XVII formerly IX), he has been purified and become
one of the holy ones, been resurrected and given understanding,
he has stood in the assembly of the living, those with knowledge
(1QH XIX formerly XI). A creature of dust, he has been saved from
the judgement, entered into the Covenant and stands in the
eternal place illumined by perfect light (1QH XXI formerly
XVIII).
A recurring theme of the liturgies is that of fear and awe. A
homily on the mysteries attributed to Narsai (Homily XVII A, late
fifth century) speaks of ‘the dread mysteries... let
everyone be in fear and dread as they are performed... the hour
of trembling and great fear.’ As the Spirit is summoned to
the bread and wine, ‘the priest worships with quaking and
fear and harrowing dread.’ The people stand in fear as the
Spirit descends. In the mid-fourth century, Cyril of Jerusalem
speaks of the ‘most awful hour’ when the priest begins
the consecration and of ‘the most awful sacrifice’
(Catecheses 23.4,9). John Chrysostom has similar words to
describe the coming of the Spirit (On Priesthood 6.4. 34-36), and
the people are commanded in the liturgy ‘to stand in
fear.’ Perhaps the oldest example of all is the Anaphora
of Addai and Mari which speaks of ‘the great, fearful,
holy, life-giving, divine mystery’, before which the
people stand in silence and awe. The priest prays as did Isaiah
(Isa.6.5): ‘Woe is me... for mine eyes have seen the LORD of
Hosts’, and, in the manner of Moses in the tabernacle
(Exod.5.22): ‘How dreadful is this place, for this day I
have seen the LORD face to face...’
Again, the setting is the holy of holies and the imagery drawn
from the Day of Atonement. The earliest biblical account warns
Aaron only to enter the Holy of holies once a year, after
elaborate, preparation on the Day of Atonement. The LORD warns
that he will appear in the cloud upon the kapporet, and
Aaron might die (Lev.16.2). The Mishnah records the fear
of the high priest as he entered the holy of holies: he spent as
little time as possible in the holy place (m.Yoma 5.1), and at
the end of the ritual ‘he made a feast for his friends
because he had come safely out of the holy of holies’
(m.Yoma 7.4). When the Glory of the LORD came to the desert
tabernacle, Moses was not able to enter (Exod.40.35) and when the
Glory came to the temple, the priests had were not able to
continue their ministrations there (1 Kgs 8. 10-11). The very
purpose of the tabernacle was to provide a place where the LORD
could dwell in the midst of his people (Exod.25.8), and if this
holy place was not pure, the LORD departed (Ezek.8-11). John
described the incarnation as the Glory dwelling on earth, the
Word made flesh (John 1.14).
Theurgy and Apotheosis
Several passages in the Merkabah texts have suggested to scholars
that drawing down the LORD into the temple was a major element of
the temple service. ‘The temple and the service performed
there were thought of as able to attract the Shekinah (the
presence of the LORD)... we can seriously consider the
possibility that temple service was conceived as inducing the
presence of the Shekinah in the holy of holies.’[6] The Hebrew Scriptures show that
the LORD had been expected to appear in his temple (Num.6.23-26,
Isa.64.1, Mal.3.1), enthroned between the heavenly beings
(Isa.6.1-5), or to speak from above the cherubim of the kapporet
(Exod.25.22). The psalmist prayed that the Shepherd of Israel,
enthroned upon the cherubim, would shine forth and come to save
his people (Ps.80.1-2, 3, 7, 19), that he would shine on his
servant (Ps.119.135). The psalmist also prayed for the LORD to
arise and come to help his people (e.g. Pss 3.7; 7.6; 68.1),
and he was certain that the LORD would appear (Ps.102.12). The
Levites were appointed to serve before the ark, to invoke, to
thank and the praise the LORD, the God of Israel (1 Chron.16.4),
and there may have been a double meaning to the familiar cry
‘hallelujah’, since the first meaning of hll is
‘shine’. Was the cry ‘Make the LORD shine’,
cause his presence to shine forth, as the psalmist had prayed?
The theurgical practices of pagan mysteries in the early years of
Christianity are relatively well known. The Chaldean Oracles
describe how to make an image of the goddess Hecate and how to
draw her down into it. Certain words, materials and objects (symbols)
were believed to have a special affinity with a particular deity.
‘The objects became receptacles of the gods because they had
an intimate relationship with them and bore their signatures (sunthemata)
in the manifest world.’[7] The gods gave instructions how the
rites were to be performed and the ritual of invoking the deity
was theourgia or hierourgia, divine or sacred work.
‘The body of the theurgist became the vehicle through which
the gods appeared in the physical world and through which he
received their communion.’[8] The theurgic acts were believed to
unite the soul to the will and activity of the deity, but not to
effect complete union. It was believed that the divine order was
impressed on the world. The symbols of theurgy functioned in an
manner similar to Plato’s forms in that both revealed the
divine order. Plato had taught that the Demiurge completed the
moulding of the world after the nature of the model (Timaeus
39e). He too had been moulded after the nature of the model (Gen.
1.27).
Now this correspondence of heaven and earth is familiar from the
temple and its rites, and it was far older than Plato. There is
much in the Timaeus, for example, which seems to be dependent on
the teachings of the Jerusalem priesthood of the first temple.
The high priest, too, ‘was’ the LORD on earth when he
wore the sacred seal which enabled him to ‘bear’ the
sins of the people (Exod.28.36-38). It has also been suggested
that much of the Syrian Iamblichus’ theurgy, written early
in the fourth century CE, derived directly from the practice of
the Jewish temple mystics. Even his Semitic name invites
speculation, deriving as it does from ‘ the LORD is
King’.[9]
Dionysius used the language of theurgy when he described the
Christian mysteries in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. The
bread and wine were the symbols of Christ (437CD) whose
original divine work had been to become a man. The bishop repeats
the sacred work with the sacred symbols: ‘He uncovers the
veiled gifts... he shows how Christ emerged from the hiddenness
of his divinity to take on human form’ (444C).
The mystery at the very heart of the first temple has been lost,
but some texts invite speculation. When Solomon was enthroned as
king he became the LORD, although the Chronicler
does not explain the process (1 Chron.29.20-23). Since the kapporet
was the throne of the LORD, there must have been some link
between the enthronement of the human king as the LORD and his
being set on the place where the LORD used to appear. Origen
implies that in the Day of Atonement ritual, the sacrificed goat
was the LORD, the king (Celsus 6.43 PG XI 1364). The blood of
this goat was sprinkled first on the ‘throne’ and then
brought out from the holy of holies to effect the atonement by
cleansing and healing the creation. In other words, the blood
‘carried’ the power of the divine life. In the
bloodless sacrifice of the Christians, the wine was substituted
for the blood of the goat (cf. Heb.9.12) , but the same process
was believed to take place. The Christian altar, as we shall see,
derived from the kapporet in the holy of holies, the place
where the atonement blood was transformed and the LORD was
present.
The royal psalms suggest that when the king entered the Holy of
holies he was ‘born’ in the glory of the holy ones and
became the Melchizedek priest, the LORD (Ps 110). He was raised
up, that is, resurrected to the heavenly life (Ps.89.19;
Heb.7.15-17). This must have been the moment when he became king
and was declared to be the Son (Ps.2.7). Praying for the presence
of the LORD in the holy of holies and in the person of the royal
high priest at his inauguration, must have been the original
context of the Maranatha prayer. Since, as the writer to
the Hebrews knew, the high priest offered himself as the
atonement sacrifice but was represented by the blood of the goat,
the LORD must also have been invoked at every atonement sacrifice
when the life of the royal high priest was represented by the
blood of the goat. The first Christians, believing that they were
seeing the ancient liturgy fulfilled in history, used the Maranatha
prayer initially to pray for the Parousia in their own lifetime.
After John’s vision of the angel in the cloud, however, the
prayer returned to its original setting as they prayed for the
LORD to come to the bread and wine of the Eucharist.
When the Day of Atonement is recognised as the original context
of the Eucharist, other elements in the tradition fall into
place. The epiklesis derived from the Maranatha prayer.
The earliest forms do keep the word ‘come’ and are
addressed to the Second Person whereas later forms are prayers to
the First person to ‘send’. Serapion’s epiklesis
preserves the older belief about the presence of the LORD
dwelling in the holy of holies: ‘O God of truth, let thy
holy Logos come and dwell (epidemesato) upon this bread,
that the bread may become the body of the Logos and upon this cup
that the cup may become the cup of the truth......’ There is
a long epiklesis in the Acts of Thomas 27 which
calls on Christ to ‘come’. All those who have been
sealed with baptism perceive a human form and then receive the
bread of the Eucharist. In the earlier period, the Spirit was
understood to be the Logos (e.g. Justin, Apology 1.33: ‘It
is wrong to understand the Spirit and the Power of God as
anything else than the Word who is also the first-born of
God’). It was not until Cyril of Jerusalem (mid-fourth
century) that the Third Person Spirit epiklesis began to
be used, the prayer for the Father to send the Spirit onto the
bread and wine.
The form in Addai and Mari is addressed to the Son:
‘O my LORD, may thy Holy Spirit come and rest upon this
offering’ but other unique features of this prayer invite
speculation as to its ultimate origin. The original from has no
mention of God the Father or of the Trinity, of the crucifixion
or resurrection of Jesus, it does not mention bread, wine, cup,
Body or Blood, or the name of Jesus. There is no reference to
partaking or communion. Dix again: ‘All these things... are
not of the framework of the prayer as they are the framework of
the prayers that have been inspired by the systematic Greek
theological tradition. Addai and Mari is a eucharistic prayer
which is concentrated solely upon the experience of the
Eucharist... Maranatha... The ecstatic cry of the first
pre-Pauline Aramaic speaking disciples is the summary of what it
has to say.’[10] Was this derived from a a temple
prayer from the Day of Atonement? There were ‘a great many
of the priests obedient to the faith’ in the earliest days
in Jerusalem (Acts 6.7).
Several writers reveal that it was the Word which came into the
bread and wine, but complications arise from the fact that logos
can be understood to mean both the Word, the Second Person,
or simply a prayer. Irenaeus, for example, argued ‘...if the
cup which has been mixed and the bread which has been made
receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body and
blood of Christ...’ (Against Heresies 5.2.3. PG 7. 1125 also
1127). Origen, commenting on the Eucharist, said that the
consecration was ‘by the Word of God and prayer’
(quoting 1 Tim.4.5), where ‘word’ could be understood
in either sense (On Matthew 11 PG 13 948-9), but his usage
elsewhere suggests that he intended the Second Person. Athanasius
taught that after great prayers and holy invocations, ‘the
Word comes down into the bread and wine and it becomes his
body’ (Sermon to the Baptised PG 26.1325). As late as the
early sixth century, Jacob of Serug could write ‘Together
with the priest, the whole people beseeches the Father that he
will send his Son, that he may come down and dwell upon the
oblation.’
The Traditions of the Priests
The mystery of the Eucharist was associated with Melchizedek.
Eusebius wrote: ‘Our Saviour Jesus, the Christ of God, even
now performs through his ministers today sacrifices after the
manner of Melchizedek’ (Proof 5.3). Melchizedek is known in
the Hebrew Scriptures only as the king of Salem, the priest of
God Most High who brought out bread and wine to Abraham
(Gen.14.18), and as the royal high priest, the divine Son who
would bring the Day of Judgement (Ps.110). In the Qumran
Melchizedek text, however, he is divine, the heavenly high
priest, the anointed prince who comes to Jerusalem to perform the
great Atonement at the end of the tenth Jubilee and to establish
the Kingdom. In the New Testament, Jesus is identified as this
Melchizedek (Heb.7.15), and the bread and wine of his sacrifice
must have had some link to the bread and wine of Melchizedek.
What this was we can only guess, but the meal of bread and wine
was associated with the vesting of the (high?)priest. The Testament
of Levi describes how seven angels vested him and fed him
‘bread and wine, the most holy things’[11] (T.Levi 8.5), suggesting that
consuming bread and wine was a part of the consecration process.
In the Hebrew Scriptures ‘the most holy things’ are the
priests’ portion of the offerings, and only the priests
could consume them (e.g. Lev.6.29; Ezek.42.13; Ezra 2.63). The most
holy was originally believed to communicate holiness (e.g.
Exod.29.37), but at the beginning of the second temple period
there was a new ruling from the priests and only uncleanness was
held to be contagious (Hag.2.12). This is significant as it
suggests that the communication of holiness through consuming
sacrificial offerings was a characteristic of the
‘Melchizedek’ cult of the first temple but not of the
second. It was, however, known to the author of the Testament
of Levi, and so this may have been how the elements of the
Eucharist were originally understood.
The Testament of Levi also describes the priestly service
of the archangels in the highest heaven; they offer atonement
sacrifices before the Great Glory and these offerings are
described as bloodless and logike, literally
‘logical’ or ‘intellectual’ but commonly
rendered ‘reasonable’, ‘the reasonable and
bloodless sacrifice’ (T.Levi 3.6). It has been suggested,
however, that logike in the context of liturgy indicates
‘belonging to the Logos’, just as it is used by Clement
to describe the flock of the Good Shepherd who were not reasonable
sheep, but sheep of the Logos (Instructor III 112i)[12]. The atonement sacrifice offered
by the archangels in Levi’s vision would then be the
bloodless sacrifice of the Logos. What we cannot tell is whether
or not this was a pre-Christian text and whether or not other
references to the ‘reasonable’ sacrifice should be
understood in this way.
There is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures or in any related text
which describes or explains the mystery of the Holy of holies and
how the presence of the LORD was believed to be present. This
must, however, have been known to the priests who officiated
there, and raises the question of what it was that Jesus the high
priest is said to have transmitted secretly to a few of his
disciples after his own experience of ‘resurrection’.
The evidence is consistent from the earliest period. Ignatius of
Antioch, wrote early in the second century, that our own high
priest is greater (than those of old) for ‘he has been
entrusted with the Holy of holies and to him alone are the secret
things of God committed’ (Phil.9). Clement of Alexandria
condemned people who were ‘making a perverse use of divine
words... they do not enter in as we enter in, through the
tradition of the LORD by drawing aside the curtain’
(Misc.7.17). The ‘true teachers preserved the tradition of
blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy
apostles(Misc.1.1) and this tradition had ‘been imparted
unwritten by the apostles’ (Misc.6.7). There had been
mysteries concealed in the Old Testament which the LORD revealed
to the apostles and ‘there were certainly among the Hebrews
some things delivered unwritten’ (Misc.5.10).
The most likely mysteries to have been concealed in the Old
Testament and transmitted unwritten are those of the priests,
especially the secrets of the Holy of holies. There is no known
explanation of the rites of atonement; all that survive are the
practical details of how the ritual was to be performed. The
blood of the sacrifice had to be stirred by an attendant to
prevent it clotting so that it could not be sprinkled (m.Yoma
4.3), but of the high priest’s prayer in the temple no
detail is given (m.Yoma 5.1). Only the public prayer is recorded
(m.Yoma 6.2). Gardeners could buy the surplus blood for their
gardens (m.Yoma 5.6), but no ‘theology’ of the blood
sprinkling is offered.
Fragments of sanctuary lore, apart from the evidence in the Book
of Revelation itself, have survived in Daniel 7 and the Parables
of Enoch. In Daniel’s vision, thought to be closely
related to the royal rites of Psalm 2, the Man came in clouds (of
incense?) before the One on the heavenly throne and ‘was
offered in sacrifice to him’ (Dan’7.13.). The word
usually rendered ‘was presented before him’ (qrb,
literally ‘brought near’) is the term used for making a
temple offering[13]. Given the temple context of
this vision ‘offered as a sacrifice’ is the more likely
meaning. The one offered is then enthroned and given power
‘over all peoples nations and languages.’ In the Parables
of Enoch, the blood of the Righteous One was taken up before
the LORD of Spirits, together with the prayers of the righteous
ones. The holy ones in heaven ‘unite with one voice to pray
and praise and give thanks and bless the name of the LORD of
Spirits.’ This is the thanksgiving element of the Eucharist.
Then the books of the living were opened and read, and the
‘number’ of the righteous whose blood ‘has been
offered’ was brought near to the throne (1 En.47.4, where
the Ethiopic implies the same word as in Dan.7.13). This
corresponds to the reading of the diptychs in the liturgy, the
names of the living and the names of the dead who were remembered
at the Eucharist. Next, in the Parables, the Man was given the
Name in the presence of the LORD of Spirits (i.e. he became the
LORD), in the time and place before the stars and the heavens
were created, (i.e. in the holy of holies, Day One of Creation).
He became the staff of the righteous, the light of the Gentiles,
and all on earth were to worship him. All these things were
‘hidden before the creation of the world and for
eternity’, i.e. in the holy of holies (1 En 48). Then the
kings of the earth were judged, and ‘the light of
days;’ rested upon the holy and righteous ones. This is the
establishing of the Kingdom, the place of divine light (Rev
22.5). The sequence is interesting and it must be related to the
sequence in the Liturgy. It was certainly known to the early
Christians: the anointed one in human form, (the Man) poured
himself out, was raised up (into heaven), given the Name, and
then worshipped (Phil. 2. 6-11).
Origen, who knew 1 Enoch, said that Jesus ‘beheld these
weighty secrets and made them known to a few’ (Celsus 3.37).
There were doctrines spoken in private to Jesus’ genuine
disciples, but the words were not written down (Celsus 3.60;
6.6). ‘If anyone is worthy to know the ineffable things he
will learn the wisdom hidden in the mystery which God established
before the ages’ (On Matthew 7.2). ‘Before the
ages’ in temple terminology means ‘in the holy of
holies’. Origen had had contact with Jewish scholars when he
lived in Caesarea and must have had good reason to write:
‘The Jews used to tell of many things in accordance with
secret traditions reserved to a few, for they had other knowledge
than that which was common and made public’ (On John 19.92).
Basil of Caesarea, writing in the mid-fourth century, emphasised
that some teachings of the Church were drawn from written
sources, but others were given secretly through apostolic
tradition. If we attacked unwritten customs, he argued, claiming
them to be of little importance, we would fatally mutilate the
Gospel. There was no written authority for signing with cross,
and none for praying facing towards the East, although Origen
knew that this latter was linked to the Day of Atonement (On
Leviticus 9.10). Above all Basil cited the words used in the
Eucharist: ‘Have any saints left for us in writing
the words used in the invocation over the Eucharistic bread and
the cup of blessing? As everyone knows we are not content in the
liturgy simply to recite the words recorded by St Paul or the
Gospels, but we add other words both before and after, words of
great importance for this mystery. We have received these words
from unwritten teaching... which our fathers guarded in silence,
safe from meddling and petty curiosity’. The uninitiated
were not even allowed to be present at the mysteries, and this he
linked to the custom of the temple: ‘Only one chosen
from all the priests was admitted to the innermost sanctuary...
so that he would be amazed by the novelty and strangeness of
gazing on the holy of holies’. He went on to distinguish:
‘Dogma is one thing kerygma another; the first is
observed in silence while the latter is proclaimed to the
world.’ (On the Holy Spirit 66). Basil preserved the mystery
he had received, but there are enough hints here to show he was
speaking of the words of the epiklesis, and that these
were associated with the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement.
Church and Temple
Later texts also indicate that the temple was the setting of the
Eucharist, and the Day of Atonement its immediate model. Narsai
(Homily XVII A) compared his contemplation of the mysteries of
the Eucharist to Isaiah’s vision of the LORD enthroned in
the holy of holies. Only those who bore the mark like the temple
priests were permitted to participate. They were also described
as clad in garments of glory, and, like the guest without a
wedding garment at the great wedding feast, outsiders were cast
out (Mat.22.13). The celebrating priest ‘bore in himself the
image of our LORD in that hour’, and was warned to be worthy
of that state, as were the temple priests who were warned not to
bear the Name of the LORD in vain (Exod.20.7). The curious
situation of the one who represents the LORD offering elements
which also represent the LORD exactly parallels the temple
custom, where the High Priest representing the LORD offered the
blood of the goat which represented the LORD (Lev.16.8 lyhwh,
‘as the LORD’, cf. Heb.9.12 which implies this).
Narsai offers two sets of symbolism, one derived from the death
and burial of Jesus, but the other from the temple. This may
reflect the differing emphases of Antioch and Alexandria, but it
could also be a memory of the early Church describing the earthly
life of Jesus in terms of the high priestly traditions of the
temple. There is evidence of this as early as Peter’s temple
sermon, where he describes the Parousia as the heavenly high
priest emerging from the Holy of holies to renew the creation
(Acts 3.13-21). For ‘Narsai’ the sanctuary of the
church is ‘a type of that Kingdom which our LORD entered and
into which he will bring with him all his friends’ (c.f. the
holy of holies as the heavenly city Rev. 22.16). The Christian
altar is the symbol of the great and glorious throne (as was the kapporet
above the ark in the Holy of holies, Exod.25.17-22). As on the
Day of Atonement, so now, the priest ‘trembles with fear for
himself and for his people at that dread hour.’ The people
are exhorted to contemplate the Messiah enthroned in heaven who
is also the one lying slain on the altar (c.f. John’s word
play on the themes of crucifixion and exaltation: ‘the Son
of Man is lifted up’ John 3.14; 8.28; 12.32,34).
There follows a description of the scene in the sanctuary that
evokes the descriptions of heavenly worship in the Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice and the moment of silence which preceded the
appearance of the great high priest (Rev.8): ‘The priests
are still and the deacons stand in silence, the whole people is
quiet and still, subdued and calm. ... the mysteries are set in
order, the censers are smoking, the lamps are shining, and the
deacons are hovering and brandishing (fans) in the likeness of
the Watchers. Deep silence and peaceful calm settles on that
place; it is filled and overflows with brightness and splendour,
beauty and power.’ The people join in the Sanctus, the song
of the angels in Isaiah’s throne vision and John’s
(Isa.6.3; Rev.4.8), and the priest speaks the words which
‘the chosen apostles have not made known to us in the
Gospels.’ The Spirit comes to the bread and wine and
‘the Spirit which raised him from the dead comes down now
and celebrates the Mysteries of the resurrection of his
body.’ The consecration is the moment of resurrection,
another remarkable link to the royal traditions of Israel, for
the king was deemed to be resurrected (translated ‘raised
up’, 2 Sam. 23.1) and he too became the LORD enthroned and
he too was worshipped (1 Chron.29.20-23), the LORD with his
people.
The Anthem of the Sanctuary in the Liturgy of Addai and Mari
describes a similar setting: ‘Thy throne O God endureth for
ever. The cherubim compass the terrible seat of thy majesty and
with fear moving their wings cover their faces for that they
cannot lift up their eyes and behold the fire of thy Godhead.
Thus art Thou glorified and dwellest among men, not to burn them
up but to enlighten them. Great O my LORD is Thy mercy and Thy
grace which thou hast showed to our race.’ The ultimate
source of this must be Isaiah 33.13-22, which contrasts the fear
of sinners at the prospect of the everlasting fires, and the
vision of the king in his beauty which awaits the upright.
Compare also Enoch’s account of the flaming fire around the
heavenly throne, that no angels could enter because of the
brightness (i.e. no ordinary priests could enter the holy of
holies), and that no flesh could gaze upon the Glory. Enoch lay
prostrate and trembling until invited to enter (1 En.14.21.25).
Priests and deacons, ‘thousands of Watchers and ministers of
fire and spirit go forth’ with the resurrected LORD, said
Narsai, and the people ‘rejoice when they see the Body
setting forth from the midst of the altar.’ This is exactly
the procession described for the Day of the LORD, the Day of
Judgement, when the LORD goes forth from his Holy Place with all
his holy ones (Deut.32.43 expanded in Ass.Mos.10; Deut.33.2-5).
The effect of receiving the Body of the risen LORD, was that of
the Day of Atonement, when the high priest emerged from the Holy
of holies, carrying the blood which cleansed and hallowed
(Lev.16.19), healing and renewing the creation which the temple
represented. The Body of the Risen LORD, wrote Narsai,
‘pardons debts, purifies blemishes, heals diseases, cleanses
and purges stains with the hyssop of his mercy.’(c.f. Acts
3.19 ‘times of refreshing come from the presence of the
LORD’ when the Anointed One returns).
Germanus of Constantinople (early eighth century) in his book On
the Divine Liturgy presents the temple symbolism in great
detail, alongside symbolism drawn from the life of Jesus.
‘The church is an earthly heaven’, he wrote, ‘in
which the super-celestial God dwells and walks about’
(Liturgy 1). This must be the garden of Eden, which had been
represented in the temple by the Great Hall. After comparing the
apse to the cave of Christ’s birth and burial and the table
to the place where his dead body rested, he continues: ‘The
holy table is also the throne of God on which, borne by the
cherubim, he rested in the body... The altar is and is called the
heavenly and spiritual altar where the earthly and material
priests who always assist and serve the LORD represent the
spiritual, serving and hierarchical powers’ (Liturgy 4, 6,
also 41). The holy table, the spiritual altar, corresponds to the
kapporet over the ark, the cherub throne where the blood
of the LORD was offered by the High Priest on the Day of
Atonement. The chancel barriers correspond in function to the
veil of the temple, separating ‘the Holy of holies
accessible only to the priests’ (Liturgy 9). The twenty four
presbyters are the seraphic powers (c.f. Rev.4.4) and the seven
deacons are images of the angelic powers (c.f. Rev.4.5, Liturgy
16, but also the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice which
describe the seven angels who are the ruling princes of the
sanctuary and the account by John Chrysostom of an old man -
presumably himself - who saw angels in shining robes around the
altar (On Priesthood 6.4.45-50).
The priest before the altar speaks to God, as did Moses in the
tabernacle, when the LORD spoke to him from above the kapporet,
between the cherubim (Exod.25. 22, Liturgy 41) and the priest
sees the glory of the LORD. ‘God truly spoke invisibly to
Moses and Moses to God; so now the priest, standing between the
two cherubim in the sanctuary and bowing on account of the
dreadful and uncontemplable glory and brightness of the Godhead
and contemplating the heavenly liturgy, is initiated even into
the splendour of the life-giving Trinity...’ (Liturgy 41).
The heavenly host in the sanctuary is represented by the deacons
holding fans ‘in the likeness of the six winged seraphim and
the many eyed cherubim’ (Liturgy 41), exactly as in the
Hebrew Scriptures, where the priests were the angels of the LORD
(e.g. Mal.2.7), and in the Qumran Hymns and Blessings: e.g.
‘May you attend upon the service in the temple of the
Kingdom and decree destiny in company with the angels of the
presence... may he consecrate you to the holy of holies’ (1Q
Sb IV); ‘...standing with the host of the holy ones...with
the congregation of the sons of heaven’ (1QH XI formerly
III). The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice speak of
‘the priests of the inner temple, ministers of the presence
of the most holy king... their expiations shall obtain his
goodwill for those who repent from sin...’ (4Q400), and of
the wings of the cherubim falling silent as the they bless the
heavenly throne (4Q405). As in the liturgy, there are processions
through the doors of glory when the `elohim and the holy
angels enter and leave, proclaiming the glory of the King (4Q405)
c.f. ‘The Cherubic Hymn signified the entrance of all the
saints and righteous ahead of the cherubic powers and the angelic
hosts who run invisibly in advance of the Great King,
Christ...’ (Liturgy 37). The Qumran Hymns and Blessings,
and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice must derive from
the actual temple services which have survived as Christian
liturgy.
The Sogitha on the Church of Edessa, composed in the mid-sixth
century, mentions ‘the cherubim of its altar’, a
description (late fifth century) of the church at Quartamin
mentions a cherub over the altar and the account of the Muslim
capture of the church of St Jacob in Aleppo alludes to the
destruction of the cherubim above the altar, all three indicating
that the earliest Christian altars derived from the kapporet.
In Ethiopian churches, there is an ark in the sanctuary.
The Sacrifice
Perhaps the most striking parallel of all between the Day of
Atonement and the Liturgy is the manner of preparing the bread.
The central portion of the loaf is removed in the manner of a
sacrifice, and is then known as the holy bread or the Lamb. An
exactly similar procedure was used for the sin offering on the
Day of Atonement in the first century CE, according to the Letter
of Barnabas which differs at this point from the Mishnah.
According to the latter, the high priest cut open the goat of the
sin offering and removed the sacrificial portions, (the fat over
the entrails, the kidneys and a part of the liver Lev.4.8-10) and
then burned them on the altar before sending the rest of the
carcase to be burned outside the temple (m. Yoma 6.7; the
comparison in Heb.13.10-13 is confused). Barnabas, however, says
that the goat was eaten: the people consumed the carcase, but the
priests had the sacrificial portions, mixed with sour wine.
‘What does it say in the prophet?* Let them eat of the goat
which is offered for their sins at the fast and, note this
carefully, let all the priests but nobody else, eat of its
inwards parts, unwashed and with vinegar. Why was this? Because
‘When I am about to give my body for the sins of this new
people of mine, you will be giving me gall and vinegar to
drink...’ (Barn. 7).[14] Barnabas, a Levite (Acts 4.36)
interpreted the crucifixion as the sin offering and the vinegar
which Jesus drank (John 19.29) as the vinegar of the sacrificial
portion eaten by the priests. This must be the origin of the
custom of removing the middle portion of the loaf and mixing it
with wine.
The role of the bread in the temple is another mystery. Twelve
loaves ‘the Bread of the Presence’ (literally ‘the
Face’) were set on a golden table in the Great Hall of the
temple, together with incense and flagons for drink offerings
(Exod.25.29-30). The bread became holy while it was in the
temple: before being taken in it was placed on a marble table but
when it was brought out it was placed on a table of gold because
it had become holy (m.Shekalim 6.4). The loaves were eaten by the
high priests every Sabbath, perhaps the origin of the weekly
celebration of the Eucharist. The prothesis prayer in the liturgy
of the Coptic Jacbites preserves the tradition of the Bread of
the Face: ‘LORD Jesus Christ... the living bread which came
down from heaven... make thy face shine upon this bread and upon
this cup which we have set upon this thy priestly table.’
The Older Testament?
There is much about the temple that is still unknown. There are
also several texts in the Hebrew Scriptures which cannot be
placed in any known context. Together, however, these texts have
a certain consistency which at the very least invites
speculation.
When Eusebius described the re-establishment of the churches in
the time of Constantine, he included an account of the oration
delivered to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre (History 10.4). The new
building was compared to the tabernacle and the temple, its
builder to Bezalel and Solomon. This could indicate that the
church was deliberately adopting the temple as its model and that
all temple elements in the later liturgies were a conscious
imitation of the older rites. Origen, however, had known of the
temple traditions a century earlier, and he had also known of the
secret traditions of both Jews and Christians. It is more likely
that there had been an unbroken tradition from the temple
liturgies into the Church.
There is insufficient evidence for certainty, but such as there
is indicates that the great high priest gave his followers a new
way of offering the sacrifice of atonement. It was the very
oldest understanding of the Day of Atonement, and it was
perpetuated in the Eucharist.
[1] This section was first published as an
Excursus in my book The Revelation of Jesus Christ
Edinburgh 2000
[2] In the Temple Scroll calendar (11QT), the
Day of Atonement always falls on a Friday, but Passover always
falls on a Tuesday.
[3] G.Dix The Shape of the Liturgy
London (1945) 1949 p.186
[4] Ibid.p.225
[5] C.f. the opening words of the Gospel of
Thomas ‘The words of the living (i.e.resurrected) Jesus.
[6] M.Idel Kabbalah. New Perspectives
New Haven and London 1988 p.168.
[7] G.Shaw Theurgy and the Soul. The
Neoplatonism of Iamblichus Pennsylvania 1995 p.48
[8] Ibid.p.57
[9] J.Vanderspoel ‘Merkavah Mysticism and
Chaldean Theurgy’ in Religion in the Ancient World
ed. M.Dillon Amsterdam 1999 pp.511-22
[10] Dix op.cit.n.3 p.252
[11] Reading R.H.Charles’ translation
[12] C.Kucharek The Byzantine Slav Liturgy of
St John Chrysostom Ontario 1971
[13] This is implied here in the Greek of
Theodotion.
[14] This reference cannot be identified,
but it is not impossible that something relevant to Christian
origins has dropped from the Hebrew Scriptures, as can be seen
from the Qumran texts of Deuteronomy 32.8 (which mentions the
sons of God who have disappeared from the MT at this point)
Deuteronomy 32.43 where the Qumran Hebrew corresponds to the
longer LXX and Isaiah 52.14 (which identifies the Suffering
Servant as the Anointed One and not, as in the MT, the
disfigured one).
Download pdf. file of this article