-nts-nts27_03-s0028688500006718a.pdf

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

1/21

New Testament Studieshttp://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity

Richard Bauckham

New Testament Studies / Volume 27 / Issue 03 / April 1981, pp 322 - 341

DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500006718, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500006718

How to cite this article:Richard Bauckham (1981). The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity. New

Testament Studies, 27, pp 322-341 doi:10.1017/S0028688500006718

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 189.235.125.24 on 11 Sep 2014

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

2/21

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 11 Sep 2014 IP address: 189.235.125.24

New Test.

Stud.

vol. 27, pp. 322-3 41

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

THE WORSHIP OF JESUS IN

APOCALYPTIC CHRISTIANITY

In the development of Christology in the primitive church, the emergence

of the worship of Jesus is a significant phenomenon. In the exclusive

monotheism of the Jewish religious tradition, as distinct from some other

kinds of monotheism, it was worship which was the real test of mono-

theistic faith in religious practice. In the world-views of the early centuries

A.D.

the gap between God and man might be peopled by all kinds of inter-

mediary beings - angels, divine men, hypostatized divine attributes, the

Logos - and the early church's attempt to understand the mediatorial role

of Jesus naturally made use of these possibilities. In the last resort, however,

Jewish monotheism could not tolerate a mere spectrum between God and

man; somewhere a firm line had to be drawn between God and creatures,

and in religious

practice

it was worship which signalled the distinction be-

tween God and every creature, however exalted. God must be worshipped;

no creature may be worshipped. For Jewish monotheism, this insistence

on the one God's exclusive right to religious worship was far more import-

ant than metaphysical notions of the unity of the divine nature. Since the

early church remained - or at least professed to remain - faithful to Jewish

monotheism, the acknowledgement of Jesus as worthy of worship is a

remarkable development. Either it should have been rejected as idolatry -

and a halt called to the upward trend of christological development - or

else its acceptance may be seen with hindsight to have set the church

already on the road to Nicene theology.

Of course, it may be argued that early Christianity developed from a

kind of Judaism which was

not

as strictly monotheistic as later rabbinic

Judaism. Early Christianity could with considerable plausibility be seen as

a variety of the 'two powers in heaven' heresies against which the Rabbis

later argued.

1

Or, again, it might be held that the worship of Jesus emerged

in Gentile Christianity influenced by Hellenistic syncretism, and therefore

not in the context of a strict distinction between God who must be

worshipped and creatures who may not be worshipped.

Either of these explanations would make the worship of Jesus more

readily explicable, but they do not quite fit the evidence. Some of the

most interesting evidence is that contained in two early Christian writings

which are among the most explicit in their treatment of Jesus as worthy

of divine worship, and yet at the same time seem to be alert to the dangers
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

3/21


WORSHIP OF JESUS IN APOCALYPTIC CHRISTIANITY 3 2 3

of infringing monotheism by worshipping creatures: the Apocalypse of

John and the Ascension of Isaiah.

2

These two works, despite some notable

differences, seem to belong to broadly the same kind of Christianity, a

Christianity which expressed its faith in terms drawn from the tradition of

Jewish apocalyptic and

Merkabah

mysticism.

3

Both works contain

(a)

a

vision of the worship of Christ in heaven, and

(b)

a prohibition of the

worship of angels. Since there seems to be no direct literary dependence

between the two works, it is likely that this combination was typical of

the apocalyptic Christian circles which they represent. It is the purpose of

this article to study this interesting combination of motifs.

I THE ANGEL REFUSES WORSHIP: AN APOCALYPTIC TRADITION

The Apocalypse of John relates, in almost identical terms, two episodes

(Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8 f.) in which the seer prostrates himself before the

interpreting angel to worship him ; the angel interposes, 'Do not do it I

am a fellow-servant with you and with your brothers who hold the testi-

mony of Jesus. Worship God ' (xix. 10; cf. xxii. 9). A similar episode

occurs in the Ascension of Isaiah, where on reaching the second heaven

Isaiah falls down to worship the heavenly being who occupies the throne

in that heaven. His angelic guide forbids him: 'Worship neither angel nor

throne which belongs to the six heavens - for this reason was I sent to

conduct thee - till I tell thee in the seventh heaven. For above all the

heavens and their angels is thy throne set, and thy garments and thy

crown which thou shalt see' (vii. 21 f.).

4

Later, when Isaiah calls his guide

'my Lord', the angel insists, 'I am not thy Lord, but thy fellow-servant'

(viii. 5).

5

It is unlikely that the Ascension of Isaiah is dependent on the Apoca-

lypse

6

or

vice

versa, but the coincidence of ideas is striking. Both forbid

worship of angels on the grounds that only God (in the seventh heaven)

may be worshipped and tha t angels are not the seer's superiors. It looks as

though both reflect a common tradition in apocalyptic Christianity, just

as they elsewhere reflect common traditions about Antichrist (Rev. xi-xiii;

Asc. Isa. iv. 2-14). To understand this tradition we must first examine the

standard pattern of response to angelophanies in apocalyptic and other

Jewish literature.

There seem to be two similar but distinguishable types of reaction to

angelophanies. In both cases the glorious apparition of the heavenly being

provokes fear and prostration. But in one case the fear is extreme and the

prostration is involuntary: the visionary falls on the ground in a faint 'as

one dead'. In the other case the fear is less extreme and the prostration

voluntary: the visionary bows down before the angel in a gesture of awed

reverence. A simple example of the first category occurs in the Testament

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

4/21


3 2 4

RICH RD B UCKH M

of Abraham: when the archangel Michael appeared to Abraham, 'he fell

on his face to the ground as one dead' (9, Rec. A). A more graphic account

occurs in III Enoch i. 7: when R. Ishmael entered the seventh heavenly

Hall: 'As soon as the princes of the

Merkabah

and the flaming Seraphim

perceived me, they fixed their eyes upon me. Instantly trembling and

shuddering seized me and I fell down and was benumbed by the radiant

image of their eyes and th e splendid app earance of their faces.'

7

An example

of the second category is II En och i. 7: when two angels appeared to Enoch,

'I hastened and made obeisance to them and was terrified, and the appear-

ance of my countenance was changed from fear.'

8

Both types of reaction

occur in the resurrection narratives of the Gospels: 'for fear of him the

guards trembled and became like dead men' (Matt, xxviii. 4); 'they were

frightened and bowed their faces to the ground' (Luke xxiv. 5).

Of course neither reaction need constitute worship and neither was

originally regarded as reprehensible in apocalyptic literature. Prostration

(irpooKvvT)ois),

thou gh it could d en ote divine wors hip

9

and occurs as a

response to theophanies,

10

was also a normal gesture of respect, accept-

ably given to human superiors.

11

The gesture in itself was no t an indication

of worship such as belongs to God alone. Terror and fainting commonly

characterize the visionary's response to the vision or voice of God,

12

bu t

also to oth er kinds of visionary phe no me na.

1 3

Nevertheless in both reactions a potential danger of angelolatry might

be seen to lurk. The gesture of prostration came to be unacceptable to

Jews in con texts which gave it idolatro us overton es, such as reverence for

monarchs who claimed divinity.

14

Arguably angelophanies were a compar-

able co nte xt, since po lytheists worshipped similar be ing s,

l s

and apocalyptic

always walked a dangerous tightrope in its relationship with Oriental and

Hellenistic syncretism, borrowing so much and yet needing to distinguish

itself sharply from non-Jewish religion.

16

It would not be surprising if the

need for the apocalyptic tradition to safeguard monotheism sometimes

took the form of prohibitingirpooKvvriois to the angels. Furthermore, the

fear

which is a primary ingredient in both types of reaction to angelo-

phan ies, and beco me s uncon trollable terro r in one, comes very close to

the essentially religious response to the numinous. Accounts of angelo-

phanies depict the angels radiant with the divine glory they share, and

many of the accounts of the visionaries' reactions seem to exemplify pre-

cisely that mixture of terror and fascination which Rudolf Otto described

as man's basic, primitive response to the numinous Other, which lies at the

root of all religious worship.

17

It is easy to see that the prominent role of

angels in apocalyptic visions could come to require some safeguard against

the danger to mo notheism.

18

To provide such a safeguard was the purpose of the tradition in which

an angel is represented as refusing worship. Several texts besides those

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

5/21



already cited in the Apocalypse of John and the Ascension of Isaiah are

evidence of this tradition. The earliest and mildest version is in

(a)Tobitxii. 16-22.

When the angel Raphael revealed his identity, Tobit and Tobias

were both alarmed; and they fell upon their faces, for they were afraid. But he said to

them, 'Do not be afraid; you will be safe. But praise God for ever. For I did not come

as a favour on my part, but by the will of our God. Therefore praise him for ever. . . .'

So they confessed the great and wonderful works of God, and acknowledged that the

angel of the Lord had appeared to them.

19

Here Raphael does not explicitly refuse obeisance, but he makes clear that

he is no more than a servant of 'our God' and emphatically directs all

attention to God, to whom all praise is due.

(b )

Apocalypse of Zephaniah (Akhmimic text ix. 12 -x . 9).

20

I raised myself up, then, and stood there and saw a tall angel who took his stand in

front of me; whose countenance shone like the rays of the sun in his magnificence,

which is filled with his own magnificence; and he was encircled by a golden girdle, like-

wise,

upon his b reast; his feet were like brass which glows in a fire. I, however, when I

had beheld him, was affrighted -1 thought, then that the Lord, the Almighty was come

to visit me. I threw myself down upon my face, and besought him. He spake to me:

'Turn thy heart to him Do not pray to me I am not the Lord, the Almighty, but I

am the archangel Eremiel.'

21

Although it would seem that the Apocalypse of Zephaniah has received a

Christian editing,

22

there is nothing in this passage or its context which

need come from a Christian hand. It is certainly striking that all three

items in the description of the angel recur in the longer description of

Christ in Rev. i. 13-16, but each of the three also occurs in other angelic

descriptions.

23

A Christian translator's or editor's reminiscence of Rev. i.

13-16 may be responsible for the closeness of the resemblance, but he is

unlikely to have created a description of an angel modelled on one of

Christ. Even if Rev. i. 13-16 were the source of the description here, the

account of the seer's worship and the angel's rejection of it is sufficiently

different from that in Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8 f. to be probably independent

of the latter. Probably, therefore, this text is evidence of a more widespread

common tradition on which both the Apocalypse of John and the Ascen-

sion of Isaiah also depended.

(c) Apocalypse of Paul (Coptic version).

And companies of singers were singing and ascribing blessing to the Fa ther, and tens of

thousands of tens of thousands of angels were standing before him, and thousands of

thousands of angels were surrounding him, saying, 'Honourable is thy name and splen-

did is thy glory, 0 Lord'; and the Cherubim and the Seraphim said, 'Amen.' And when

I Paul saw them I quaked in all my members, and I fell down upon my face. And,

behold, the angel who accompanied me came to me and raised me up, saying, 'Fear

thou not, 0 Paul, thou beloved of God; rise up now and follow me, and I will shew

thee thy place.'

24

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

6/21


3 2 6 RICHARD BAUCKHAM

Although the context of this incident is somewhat obscure, its significance

seems to be that Paul should not fear or prostrate himself before the angels

in the third heaven because he is not inferior to them; his own throne, as

he subsequently sees, is set up for him, with those of the prophets, the

other apostles, and the martyrs, in paradise, where the angels honour them.

This text therefore particularly resembles Ascension of Isaiah vii. 21 f.

(d)

Apocryphal Gospel of Matthew iii. 3.

Then Joachim adored the angel, and said to him: 'If I have found favour in thy sight,

sit for a little in my tent, and bless thy servant.' And the angel said to him: 'Do not say

servant, but fellow-servant (conservum);for we are servants of one Master.'

25

This late Christian text, included for the sake of completeness, is likely to

be depe nd en t on Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8 f.

This completes the evidence for the tradition in which an angel refuses

worship. There are also, however, some other texts which counter the

danger of angelolatry in som ewha t different way s. These texts are ad-

ditional evidence that the traditional forms of response to angelophanies

were felt by some within the apocalyptic tradition to run the risk of in-

fringing strict monotheism.

(e )

Ladder of Jacob iii.

And the archangel Sarekl came to me, and I saw: it was a face . . . terrible. But I did

not fear before his look, for the face which I had seen in my dream [i.e. the face of

God ] . . . was more than this,

26

and I feared not the face of an angel.

27

He re th e awe-inspir ing ap pea ran ce of th e archan gel is red uce d to ins ignifi -

cance by compar ison wi th the v is ion o f God

himself.

if) I I I Enoch xv i . 2 -5 .

When Aher [Elishab.Abuyah] came to behold the vision of theMerkabah and fixed his

eyes on me [Metatron], he feared and trembled before me and his soul was affrighted

even unto departing from him, because of fear, horror and dread of me, when he beheld

me sitting upon a throne like a king with all the ministering angels standing by me as

my servants and all the princes of kingdoms adorned with crowns surrounding me: in

tha t m oment he opened his mouth and said: 'Indeed, there are two Divine Powers in

heaven ' Forthwith Bath Qol went forth from heaven from before the Shekina and

said: 'Re turn, ye backsliding children [Jer. iii. 2 2 ] , except Aher ' Then came 'Aniyel,

the Prince . . . in commission from the Holy One, blessed be he and gave me sixty

strokes with lashes of fire and made me stand on my feet.

28

Another version of this story is in b Hag. 15a.

29

Perhaps the version in III

Enoch is the more original and represents an attempt from within the

mystical circles themselves

30

to counter the danger to monotheism which

could be incurred by the extreme exaltation of the figure of Metatron in

this tradition. Aher's terror should be noted, because it is in this response

to M etatr on 's royal appearan ce - the tradition al response to angelophanies -

tha t A her's appreh ension of M etatron as a second divinity consists. Th e

version in b Hag. 15a om its this element and represents M etatron as seated

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

7/21



only because he is the heavenly scribe: it could therefore be seen as a

bowdlerised version from circles less sym path etic to the M etatron trad ition .

(g )

Cairo Genizah Hekhalot A/2, 13-18.

3 1

A you th [i.e. Metatron] comes out to meet you from behind the Throne of Glory. Do

not bow down to him - for his crown is as the crown of his King, and the sandals on his

feet are

as

the sandals of his King, and the robe upon him is as the ro be of his King . . .;

his eyes blaze like to rches, his eyeballs burn like lamps; his brilliance is as the brilliance

of his King, his glory is as the glory of his Maker - Zehobadyah is his name.

Here the

Merkabah

mystic

is

warned not to m istake Metatron for Go d, and

therefore not to perform obeisance which in these circumstances would be

worship. The mistake was no doubt peculiarly easy to make in the case of

Metatron, but the glory of all angels to some extent resembles the glory

of their Maker: this is why the danger of idolatry was always present in

circles which devoted as m uch atte ntio n to angels as apo calyp tic and

Merkabah

mysticism did.

Since the role of Metatron in these

Merkabah

texts presents a closer

parallel to the role of Christ in early Christianity than any other figure in

Jewish religion,

32

it is interesting to notice how the worship of Metatron

in heaven is here explicitly excluded,

33

whereas the worship of Christ in

heaven is explicitly portrayed in the Apocalypse of John and the Ascension

of Isaiah.

These texts, (/) and

(g),

from the

Hekhalot

literature are, of course,

much later than the Apocalypse of John and the Ascension of Isaiah, but

they belong to a tradition which was in some respects continuous with the

older Jewish apocalyptic tradition and with which, as we shall see, the

Ascension of Isaiah has particular affinities. They illustrate again how the

role of mediating heavenly beings could be felt to endanger monotheism,

and how the tradition itself sought to safeguard monotheistic worship

from such danger.

In taking up the traditional motif of the angel who refuses worship the

authors of the Apocalypse of John and the Ascension of Isaiah showed

themselves alert to this kind of danger and sensitive to the implications of

Jewish monotheism in the sphere of worship. We must now examine the

specific use they made of the tradition.

II.

THE TRADITION IN THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN

The usual explanation for the inclusion and repetition of the incident in

Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8 f. is tha t J oh n intende d to cou nter a tenden cy to angel-

worship in the A siatic churches to w hich he addressed his w ork .

3 4

In that

case it is surprising that no reference to this aberration is made in the seven

messages to the churches,

3s

b ut it is possible tha t the prop hetess 'Jezeb el'

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

8/21



(ii.

20) justified her teaching by appeal to visionary revelations given by

angels.

A more adequate understanding of the function of the two passages will

be reached by examining their role in the structure of the Apocalypse. A

literary artist as skilful as John will not have duplicated this incident o ther

than by careful design. In fact, the two parallel passages xix. 9 f. and xxii.

6-9 form the parallel conclusions to two visions (xvii.

1-xix.

10 and xxi.

9-xx ii. 9) which also have closely parallel openings (xvii. 1-3; xxi. 9 f.). It

is clearly John's intention in this way to mark out these two visions as

comparable and contrasting segments of his work: they portray the two

cities Babylon the harlot and Jerusalem the bride, the judgment of the one

and the subsequent establishment of the other.

36

The parallel openings and closings of the two visions raise and answer

the question of the authority on which John receives and communicates

these prophetic revelations. As so often in apocalyptic visions it is in each

case an angel who shows John the vision (xvii. 1-3; xxi.9f.), thoughin

both cases John also adds that this occurs while he is

iv irvevfian

(xvii. 3 ;

xxi. 10; cf. i. 10; iv. 2), i.e. in a condition of visionary rapture attributed

to the action of the divine Spirit.

37

It is as the giver of prophetic revel-

ation that John is tempted to worship the angel (xxii. 8), but in rejecting

worship the angel disclaims this status: he is not the transcendent giver

of prophetic revelation, but a creaturely instrument through whom the

revelation is given, and therefore a fellow-servant with John and the

Christian prophets, who are similarly only instruments to pass on the

revelation.

Instead of the angel John is directed to 'worship God' (xix. 10;xxii. 9)

as the true transcendent source of revelation. In the first version of the

incident, the angel's rejection of worship is further justified by the expla-

nation, 'For the witness of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy' (xix. 10c). The

divine Spirit who gives John the visionary experience in which he may

receive revelation communicates not the teaching of an angel but the wit-

ness which Jesus bears.

38

The second version of the incident (xxii. 6-9)

lacks a precise verbal parallel to xix. 10c, but a similar point is made in the

verses which follow it. For this second version of the incident functions

both as a conclusion to the vision of the New Jerusalem (xxi. 9-xxii. 9)

and also as the beginning of the epilogue to the whole book (xxii. 6-21).

For this reason the question of the authority for revelation in xxii. 6-9 is

no longer limited to the immediately preceding vision, but expands, as the

language of those verses indicates, to include the revelation given in the

whole book. For the same reason the angel is no longer merely the angel

of xxi. 9 but the angel who 'showed' John the whole of his prophetic

vision (cf. i. 1; xxii. 6b). The angel's rejection of worship now functions,

therefore, to claim for the whole book the authority, not of an angel, but

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

9/21



of God himself (hence xxii. 18 f.), to whom alone worship is therefore

due.

The equivalent of the reference to 'the witness of Jesus' in xix. 10 is

now found in the words of the epilogue, in which the angel disappears

from view and Jesus testifies directly: 'I Jesus have sent my angel to you

with this testimony for the churches. . . . He who testifies to these things

says,"Surely I am coming soon"' (xxii. 16, 20). The angel is a mere inter-

mediary, Jesus is the source of the revelation.

39

Thus John has used the traditional motif of the angel who refuses

worship in order to affirm the divine source of his prophecy and play

down the role of the angelic intermediaries. What is interesting from the

point of view of Christology is that for John it seems that Jesus is the

source, not the intermediary, of revelation. It is true that Jesus is subordi-

nate to God and receives the revelation from God. The title of the Apoca-

lypse (i.1 setsoutachain of communication of the revelation: God, Jesus,

angel, John, Christians. But when it comes to distinguishing the giver of

revelation from the instrument of revelation it is clear that for John Jesus

belongs with Godasgiver,while the angel belongs with John as instrument.

Implicitly the monotheistic prohibition of the worship of angels does not

prohibit the worship of Jesus.

40

John has chosen to make his point about the au thority for his prophecy

by using a tradition about

worship.

There was good reason for this. In a

sense the theme of his whole prophecy is the distinction between true

worship and idolatry, a distinction for which Christians in the contem-

porary situation needed prophetic discernment. The 'eternal Gospel' is

summarised in the words 'Fear God and give him glory . . . and worship

him ' (xiv. 6), and the conflict between God and Satan takes historical form

in the conflict of human allegiances manifest in

worship.

The Apocalypse

divides mankind into the worshippers of the dragon and the beast (xiii. 4,

8, 12, 15; xiv. 9, 11 ; xvi. 2; xix. 20 ; xx. 4; cf. the emphasis on idolatry in

ii.14,20 ; ix.20) and those who will worship God in the heavenly Jerusalem

(vii.

15; xiv. 3 ; xv. 3 f.; xxii. 3; cf. xi. 1). This contrast reaches its climax

in the two visions of Babylon the harlot in xvii.

1-xix.

10 (where the meta-

phor of harlotry retains as its primary sense the Old Testament meaning of

false worship; cf. also ii. 20-22), and Jerusalem the bride in xxi. 9-xxii. 9,

with its picture of the city in which God himself dwells as its temple (xxi.

22) and his servants do him priestly service (xxii. 3). The message of these

two visions is emphasised by their parallel conclusions (xix. 10; xxii. 8 f.),

which enable John to end both with the injunction 'Worship God ' The

angel's refusal of worship reinforces the point: Do not worship the beast,

do not

even

worship

God's servants

the angels,

worship God

Such deliberate treatment of the question of true and false worship im-

plies tha t when John portrays the worship of Christ in heaven in chap, v he

cannot be doing so in forgetfulness of the stringent claims of monotheism

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

10/21



in the sphere of worship. In that chapter John - like many an apocalyptic

seer andMerkabahmystic - has been adm itted to the heavenly throne-

room of God, not, as was perhaps sometimes the case inMerkabah mysti-

cism, for the sake of a merely private experience of heavenly worship,

but rather, in the old prophetic tradition continued by the apocalyptists,

in order to be present at the heavenly council-meeting to learn God's plans

for his action in history. The divine purpose of establishing his kingdom

John sees entrusted to Christ, who has proved

himself,

by his redeeming

death, to be the only one worthy to execute it. Since it is he who has

achieved salvation on the cross it is he who must bring it to completion in

the final eschatological events by which evil is destroyed and the reign of

God established. The question of the angel, 'Who is worthy . . .?' (v. 2) -

which follows an ancient pattern of procedure in the heavenly council

(I Kings xxii. 20 f.; Isa. vi. 8)

41

- elicits the important information, not

only that the Lamb is worthy, but also that

noone else is worthy

(v. 3).

This establishes Christ's unique role in distinction from all angels who act

as the instruments of God's purpose. Such angels appear frequently in the

visions in which John portrays the Lamb's execution of his commission: at

every point before the

parousia

itself (xix. 11 ff.) it is angels who actually

implement the divine purposes in history. But this instrumental role of the

angels - for which no special worthiness is required and no praise given - is

distinguished sharply from the role of Christ as the divine agent of salvation

and judgment, even though that role is the subordinate one of executing

the Father's will (opening the scroll received from him who sits on the

throne). For his acceptance of that unique role Christ receives the worship

of the heavenly host (v. 8-12).

The distinction between Christ and the angels which John establishes

in chap, v with regard to the work of establishing God's reign is therefore

strictly parallel to the distinction we have observed John using with regard

to the giving of revelation. Just as the angels are only fellow-servants with

the Christian prophets in the communication of revelation and may not be

worshipped (xix. 10; xxii. 8 f.), so the angels who implement the divine

purpose in history are only fellow-servants with the prophets and martyrs

who bear the witness of Jesus in the world. In both cases, however, Christ,

although he receives the revelation from God (i. 1) and the scroll from

God (v. 7), is not classed with the servants who may not be worshipped

but w ith God to whom worship is due.

42

There can be no doubt that in v. 8-12 John portrays explicit divine

worship paid to Christ: the parallels between iv. 9-11 and v. 8-12 make

this clear.

43

The setting, it should be remembered, is the heavenly throne-

room in which the apocalyptic and

Merkabah

traditions portrayed the

ceaseless angelic worship of God.

44

The hymn of v. 12,

4S

in its accumu-

lation of doxological terms, resembles on a minor scale the more elaborate

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

11/21



hymns of the Hekhalot texts .

4 6

Of course, never in the Jewish texts are

such angelic hymns sung to any except God.

4 7

At v. 13 the climax of the throne-vision is reached as the circle of wo rship

expands to encompass the whole creation and the doxology is addressed

to both God and the Lamb, uniting the praise of God (iv. 9-11) and the

praise of the Lamb (v. 9-12) in a single hymn which anticipates the goal

of God's purpose through Christ, the universal worship in the new heaven

and earth . The conjunction of God and the Lam b (cf. vii. 10 ; xi. 1 5; xiv. 4;

xx. 6, 22; xxii. 1) in this verse illustrates how John, while holding Christ

wo rthy of worsh ip, remains sensitive to the issue of mono theism in w orship.

Christ cannot be a second object of worship alongside God, and so the

specific worship of Ch rist (v. 9-12 ) leads to th e jo in t worship of God and

Christ, in a formula in which God retains the primacy. Although elsewhere

Jo hn represen ts Christ as sharing God 's thro ne (iii. 2 1 ; xxii 1, 3), here God

alone is called 'he who sits on the throne'.

4 8

Probably the same concern

leads to a peculiar usage in other passages of the Apocalypse, where men-

tion of God and Christ together is followed by a singular verb (xi. 15) or

singular pronouns (xxii. 3 f.).

49

Whether the singular in these passages

refers to God alone or to God and Christ 'as a unity',

5 0

John is evidently

reluctant to speak of God and Christ together as a plurality.

51

Their 'func-

tional unity'

5 2

is such that Christ cannot be an alternative object of w orship ,

but shares in the glory due to God.

Arguments that the heavenly liturgy of the Apocalypse reflects an

earthly liturgy practised in John's churches

53

can probably not be sus-

tained.

54

John's eschatological perspective is such that he reserves for the

New Jerusalem the church's participation in the angelic liturgy in the face-

to-face presence of God.

5S

But the worship of Christ in the Apocalypse is

nevertheless 'highly suggestive of the devotional attitude of the Asiatic

C h u rc h . . . towards the Person of Chris t '.

56

Th e doxolo gy in i. 5 f., w he the r

or not based on a traditional formula,

57

is evidence enough that John's

churches offered praise to Christ comparable with that offered by th e

angels in heaven.

S8

III

THE TRADITION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH

Th e Ascension of Isaiah is more closely related t o th e trad ition s of

Merkabah

mysticism than is the A pocalypse of Jo hn . It shows a great ma ny rem ark-

able similarities to the later Hekhalot literature , including features no t

otherwise attested in the older Jewish and Christian apocalypses. It de-

scribes, for example, Isaiah's ascent through the seven heavens, each with

its hosts of angels, in progressively increasing glory.

59

From the vision of

the descent of Christ through the heavens we learn that each heaven has its

door-keepers who demand seals to be shown before permitting entry (x. 24,

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

12/21



25,

27, 29): a

striking correspondence with

the Hekhalot

li terature.

60

Isaiah's entry into

the

seventh heaven

is

challenged

by an

angel before

he

is admitted

(ix. 1-5).

61

In

each heaven Isaiah

is

transformed into

the

glory

of

the

angels

of

that heaven

(vii. 25; ix. 30,

33) .

6 2

He

joins

the

angels

in

their worship of God (viii. 17; ix. 28, 33) .

6 3

The angels in heaven cannot

bear to see the glory ofGod (ix. 37) but the righteous behold thegloryof

God 'with great power' (ix.39) .

6 4

Alltheseare featuresof theliteratureof

ascent

to the Merkabah.

6S

On

the

other hand,

by

comparison with

theMerkabah

texts ,

the

angel-

ology

is

restrained. This

may be due in

part

to the

abbreviation which

all

versions

of the

work have suffered,

66

but it is

stil l noteworthy that

no

angel except Michael

is

named,

67

few

specific angels

are

singled out,

6 8

and

there is relatively little mention of the various classesand ranksof angels.

More definitely, there isa statement tha t thesecret nam esof angels cannot

be known by any man before death (vii.4 f.; cf.viii.7; ix. 5, of the name

of Christ): this must

be a

deliberate rejection

of

the techniques

of Merkabah

mysticism,

in

which

it was

essential

for the

mystic

to

know

the

names

of

the angelic doorkeepers

he

must pass

and to be

able

to

invoke

the

names

of other angels

as

protection during

his

ascent.

69

Any

suggestion that

Isaiah's ascent could be an example of what a would-be mystic could

accomplish

on his own

initiative

by the

theurgic

use of

angelological lore

is thereby countered. Isaiah is able to ascend only because God himself

has sent

an

angel from

the

seventh heaven

to

conduct

him

there

as an

exceptional privilege,

so

that

he may

receive

the

prophetic revelation

of

the descent

of

Christ into

the

world

(vi.

13 , vii.

4 f., 8;

viii.

8-10; xi. 34).

For

the

righteous

in

general

the

ascent

to

heaven

is

possible only after

de ath (vii. 2 3 ; viii. 1 1;

xi.

34) .

7 0

The Ascension of Isaiah therefore seems to be deliberately rejecting a

form

of

Merkabah

mysticism (whether Jewish

or

Christian

is not

clear)

in which angels were reverenced

and

invoked b oth

as

obstacles

and as

aids

in

the

mystical ascent

to

heaven.

71

The

author

saw

this

as a

dangerous

obsession with angels, bordering

on

idolatry,

and in

order

to

oppose

it

head-on

he

also used

the

traditional

motif,

already developed

as a

safeguard

for monotheism in apocalyptic and Merkabah mystical circles, in which

the seer attempts to worship an angel and is forbidden. With the version

of this in theEthiopic (to which theSlavonicand Latin are similar) at vii.

21

f.,

should

be

compared

the

rather different version preserved

in the so-

called 'Greek Legend'

ii.

21

f.:

And he tookme up into the sixth heaven,

72

and Icouldnolonger bearthesplendour

and

the

lights,

and I was

greatly afraid

and

fell

on my

face.

And the

angel

of

God

who

was withme said: 'Listen, prophet Isaiah,son ofAmos:do not worship (npoaKW^ffQ?)

angels

nor

archangels

nor

dominions

(nvpuiTqTaq) nor

thrones, until

I

tell

you. And

seizingme by thehand,he strengthened the spirit whichis inm e.

73

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

13/21



In view of the abbreviation which all versions of the Ascension of Isaiah

have suffered, it may well be th at the add itiona l material here is original.

Certainly, the dazzling, overwhelming effect of the angel's glory, the

visionary's fear and trembling, and the angel's action to bring him to his

feet and strengthen him, are all authentic parts of the response to angel-

ophanies in the apocalyptic and

Hekhalot

li terature.

7 4

The further incident

in Ascension of Isaiah viii. 5 (also in the Greek Legend ii. 10 f.), where the

angel refuses to be called Kvptxx;because he is Isaiah's fellow-servant

(ovv-

SovXos),

m akes a similar po int to th at m ade in Rev. xix. 10 ; xxii. 8 f.: the

interpreting angel is not the source of the revelation given to Isaiah, but

only a servant of God sent to guide him through the heavens.

In the Ascension of Isaiah the prohibition of the worship of angels is

more directly linked with the vision of the worship of God in heaven than

it is in the Apocalypse of John. Throughout his passage through the six

lower heavens Isaiah's attention is directed upwards to the seventh (cf. vii.

27).

The sole function of all the angels in the lower heavens is to praise

God and his Beloved and the Ho ly Spirit (vii. 17; viii. 18) in the seventh

heaven. Similarly Isaiah is not to worship the angels in these lower heavens,

because his place is in the seventh heaven, participating in the worship of

God there (vii. 21 f.). The angel forbids Isaiah to worship 'till I tell thee in

the seventh hea ven' (vii. 22 ), a clause wh ich fun ctions exp licitly to link the

prohibition in the second heaven with the angel's commands to worship,

whe n Isaiah reaches the seventh heaven (ix. 3 1 , 36 ; cf. 'Worship G od ' in

Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 9).

It is therefore the more remarkable that these commands to worship are

commands to worship Christ (the pre-existent Christ, most often called

'the Beloved' in the Ascension of Isaiah) and 'the angel of the Holy Spirit'.

The worship which is prohibited in the case of angels is commanded in the

case of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The carefully structured form of the

account of the trinitarian worship in the seventh heaven should be noticed.

It is set out in the following pattern:

A. Worship of Christ

1. the righteous worship and Isaiah joins them (ix. 28)

2. the angels worship (ix. 29)

3.

the guiding angel's command 'Worship this one' (ix. 31),

and identification of the object of worship, 'This is . . .' (ix. 32).

B.Worship of th e Holy Spirit

1.

the righteous worship and Isaiah joins them (ix. 33)

2.

the angels worship (ix. 34)

3.

the guiding angel's command 'Worship him',

and identification of the object of worship, 'This is. .. ' (ix. 36).

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

14/21


3 3 4

RICH RD B UCKH M

C. Worship of God

1.

Christ and th e Holy Spirit worship (ix. 40)

2.

the righteous worship (ix. 41)

3.

the angels worship (ix. 42)

and th e praises of the six heaven s ascend (x. 1-5)

4 .

the guiding angel's identification of the object of worship, 'This

is . . .' (x. 6).

7S

The fact that Christ and the Holy Spirit are here represented as worshipping

God (ix. 40)

7 6

is just as no tew ort hy as the fact tha t they are themselves

wo rshipped . This subo rdina tion, thou gh it takes a different form from the

subordination in the Apocalypse of John, manifests the same desire to

ensure th at all worship is ultim ately directed to God the F athe r. Christ and

the Holy Spirit share in this worship but are not rival objects of worship

alongside the Father, and to express that they themselves worship him.

The Ascension of Isaiah has commonly been held to embody an angel-

Christology. The two figures of the Beloved and 'the angel of the Holy

Spirit', on the right and left hand of God respectively (ix. 35 f.; xi. 32 f.),

77

have been identified either with Michael and Gabriel,

78

or with the two

Seraph im of Isaiah vi. 2 f., whom Origen identified as Christ and the Holy

Spirit

{de Princ.

I. iii. 4).

7 9

Th e form er identification has very little to

recommend it, for:

(a)

in spite of Dantelou's argument, when Michael is

nam ed in iii. 16 he canno t be a nam e for Christ;

(b)

the addition of Michael

in the Slavonic and Latin versions at ix. 23, 29, 42, may well be original;

(c) xi. 4 does not identify the 'angel of the Holy Spirit' with Gabriel, since

the angel there is the angel of M att. i. 20, not Gabriel of Lu ke's a cco unt, of

which this section is ignorant;

80

(d)

the evidence that Michael and Gabriel

were represented as seated on either hand of God is scanty (2 Enoch xxiv.

1);

(e)

Michael and Gabriel would be a natural pair in iii. 16, but this is

hardly a compelling argument. The identification with the Seraphim can-

not be refuted, but nor is there anything in the text to support it.

This is no t to say tha t there m ay n ot be elem ents of an angel-Christology

behind the Ascension of Isaiah. Both ix. 27 (cf. ix. 21) and the description

of the Holy Spirit as 'the angel of the Holy Spirit' suggest that Christ and

the Holy Spirit are conceived as heavenly beings analogous to the angels.

The theme of the descent and ascent of the Lord (x. 7-xi. 32) probably

has an angelological background.

81

B ut just as in the Ap ocalypse of Jo hn ,

8 2

these angelic features are thrust into the background by the rigorous differ-

en tiatio n betw een C hrist and the angels. Christ is 'th e Lord of all the g lories

[i.e. angels ]

8 3

which thou hast seen' (ix. 32), 'the Lord with me [God] of

the seven heavens and of their angels' (x. 11), worshipped by the angels of

all the heavens (vii. 17; viii. 1 8; x. 19; xi. 26 -3 2) . Th e Christology of the

Ascension of Isaiah is less aptly defined in terms of an angel-Christology,

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

15/21



than in terms of worship, the combination of the prohibition of the worship

of angels with the comm and to worship C hrist. Finally, it should b e noticed

tha t here C hrist's statu s as wo rthy of worship already belongs to him in

his pre-existence (ix. 27 -3 2) , thou gh it is app arently his redem ptive work

which leads to his enthro nem ent (xi. 32) .

IV. CONCLUSION

The worship of Jesus in early Christianity could neither be easily rejected,

since it was a natural response to his role in the Christian religion, nor un-

reflectively permitted, since it raised the relationship of Christology to

monotheism in its acutest form. No doubt the latter consideration, com-

bined w ith th e conservatism of th e liturgy , wh ich so largely followed

Jewish models, accounts for its absence from the formal liturgies which

have survived from the pre-Nicene period.

84

That it occurred at least in

hymns and spontaneous worship, however, cannot be doubted,

8 s

and the

Christological significance of this should not be underrated. That the

highest Christology, including the direct ascription of the title 'God' to

Jesus,

seems to have occurred earliest in contexts of worship, has often

been noticed,

86

but sometimes with the implication that it should there-

fore be taken less seriously. In fact, on the contrary, if it is in worship that

monotheism is tested in religious practice, the devotional attitude to Jesus

in worship is the critical test of Christology.

There were probably early Christian circles in which a general neglect of

the limits of monotheism in worship accompanied the emergence of the

worship of

Jesus.

This is perha ps evident in a passage of Justin M artyr: 'him

[ G o d ] ,

and the Son who came from h im ,. . . and the army of oth er good

angels who follow him and are made like him, and the prophetic Spirit, we

worship and adore(oe(36neda

Kal irpoonvpoviiev).'*

1

But the im portance of

the material studied in this article lies in its sensitivity to the issue of mono-

theism in worship. So far from endorsing a general tend ency to reverence

interm ediary beings, these writers - and no d ou bt the apo calyp tic Christian

circles they represent - emphasised a traditional motif designed to rule out

angelolatry. At the same time they depicted the worship of Jesus in the

thron e-roo m of heaven. This com bination of motifs had the effect, prob -

ably more clearly than any other Christological theme available in their

world of ideas, of placing Jesus on the divine side of the line which mono-

theism must draw between God and creatures.

88

N O T E S

[1] Cf. A. F . Segal,

Two

Powers

in Heaven. Early Rabbinic Reports about

Christianity

and Gnos-

ticism(Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25) (Leiden, 1977).

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

16/21



[2] For the purposes of this article it is not necessary to enter the discussion on the date of these

works, or on the question of the unity of the Ascension of Isaiah, since our concern is only with

the vision in chaps, vi-xi. These chaps, (with or without the section xi. 2-22, which is only in the

Ethiopic version) have frequently been da ted w ithin the first century: in the 60s (with the rest of

the work) by R. Laurence,AscensioIsaiae Vatis(Oxford, 1819), pp. 171-7, and again recently by

J. A. T. Robinson,Redating the New Testament(London, 1 976), p. 240 n.

98;

in the 80s (with the

rest of the work) by J. Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity(London, 1964), pp. 12 f.;

at the end of the first century, by R. H. Charles, The AscensionofIsaiah(London, 1900), pp. xliv

f., and by G. H. Box, in R. H. Charles and G. H. Box,The AscensionofIsaiah(London, 1917), pp.

x f. But they have also been plausibly placed in the second century: within the first three or four

decades (with the rest of the work), by F. C. Burkitt,

Jewish

and

Christian

Apocalypses

(Schweich

Lectures 1913) (London, 1914), p. 46; in the first half of the century, by E. Tisserant,/lsee/wion

d'Isaie (Paris, 19 09), p. 60; cf. also E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher (trans. R. McL. Wilson)

New Testament Apocrypha, ii (London, 1965), p. 643 .

[3] For the relationship between apocalyptic andMerkabahmysticism, see various comments in

G. G. Scholem,MajorTrends in Jewish Mysticism (London, 1955), chap. 2; idem, Jewish Gnosti-

cism,

Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York, 1965), chap. 3; and especially

(including discussion of Rev. iv) C. C. Rowland,The influence of the first chapter of Ezekiel on

Jewish andearly Christian literature(unpublished Cambridge Ph.D. thesis, 1975 ). In using the term

'Merkabahmysticism' with reference to the first and second centuries A.D., I do not of course

intend to imply that all features of the medievalMerkabah texts can be read back into that period.

I use the term to identify the continuity which can be demonstrated between descriptions of ascent

to the throne of God in earlier texts (among which the Ascension of Isaiah is prominent) and the

literature of medievalMerkabah mysticism.

The similarities between the Ascension of Isaiah and Gnostic literature, pointed out byA. K.Helm-

bold, 'Gnostic Elements in the "Ascension of Isaiah"',N.T.S. xviii (197 1-2) , 222- 7, do not show

the Ascension of Isaiah to be Gno stic, since these features are also to be found in Jewish apocalyp-

tic;

they show ra ther that Gnosticism was indebted to th e kind of Jewish and Jewish Christian

apocalypticism that the Ascension of Isaiah represents. There are no distinctively Gnostic features

in the Ascension of Isaiah.

On the Ascension of Isaiah as a woik of Jewish Christian apocalyptic, see Danielou, op. cit., pp.

12,173-6; on its relationship toMerkabah mysticism, see below, section III .

[4] This translation by D . Hill, in Hennecke and Schneemelcher, op . cit., ii, p. 654. The last sen-

tence follows the Ethiopic version; the Latin (to which the Slavonic is similar) has: 'Similarly

worship him who is above all angels, thrones, and above the garments and crowns which you will

see afterwards' (see Tisserant, op. cit., p. 156).

[5] For this translation , see R. H. Charles, op. cit., pp. 54 f., with no te; the original Greek of the

angel's reply is preserved in the Greek Legend ii. 11: O6K iyu Kvpiaq, \\a avvSov\6

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

17/21



[12] I Enoch lx. 3; lxv. 4; Apoc. Abr. x; Matt. xvii. 6.

[13] Dan. v. 6;vii.1 5,

28;

viii.

2 7;I Enoch xiv. 9,1 3 f.; II Esdias x. 30.

[14] The earliest Jewish instance of a refusal to prostra te oneself is Esther iii. 2, which is inter-

preted as a monotheistic objection to-npoanvvr^oKin the LXX Additions to Est. xiii. 12-14 ('I will

not bow down before any but thee, my Lord') and the Second Targum to Est. iii. 3 ('I will not bow

down, except to the living and true God'): see the discussion (with these and other texts cited) in

L.B.Paton,Acriticaland exegeticalcomm entaryonthe Book of Esther(I.C.C.)(Edinburgh, 1908),

pp .

195 -7. The question became acute in relation to those Roman Emperors who demanded explicit

divine honours: cf. Philo, leg. Gai. 116. For the monotheistic rejection of npooicvvrioK see also

Acts x. 25 f.: for Cornelius, his action is the reverence due to a human messenger of God, but Peter

regards it as inappropriately given to a mere man.

[15] If it is true that Jewish apocalyptic and its angelology are indebted to Zoroastrianism, it is rel-

evant to note that

in

Zoroastrianism both the Bounteous Immortals and th eyazadswere w orshipped.

Jewish angels certainly also had an older relationship to the gods of the Canaanite pantheon.

[16] On the relationship of apocalyptic to non-Jewish culture, see my article, T h e Rise of Apoca-

lyptic',Themeliosiii. 2 (1978), 10-23.

[17] R. Otto ,The IdeaoftheHoly (Oxford, 1923), chap. 4.

[18]-A. L. Williams, The Cult of Angels atColossae'./.r.S. x (1909), 413-38; M. Simon, 'Remar-

ques sur l'angelolatrie juive au debut de l erechretienne',^4cad^miedesinscriptionset belles-lettres.

Comptes rendus des stances de Vannie 1971,

120-3 2, discuss the main evidence for Jewish angel-

olatry and rightly conclude that there was no officially sanctioned cult of angels in mainstream

Judaism, though prayer to angels seems to have been at least an occasional feature of popular p iety,

and invocation of angels was a Jewish contribution to Hellenistic magic. Neither discusses the texts

examined in this section.

[19] RSV, translating the text in Vaticanus. The text in Sinaiticus gives a similar sense.

[20] I accept as probable the identification of the Akhmimic, 'Anonym ous Apocalypse' (from

which this passage comes) with the Apocalypse of 'Sophonias' (Zephaniah), extant in a Sahidic

fragment (texts of both in G. Steindorff,Die Apokalypse des Elias, eine unbekannte Apokalypse

und Bruchstiicke der Sophonias-Apokalypse (T.U.17. 3a) (Leipzig, 1899)): see M. R. James,T he

Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament(London, 1920), p. 73 ; J. H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepi-

grapha andModernResearch(Missoula, M ontana, 1976), pp. 2 20 -2 . If it is also the Apocalypse of

Zephaniah which Clement of Alexandria quotes(Str.V. xi. 77), then it belongs to the same type of

apocalypse as the Ascension of Isaiah.

[21 ] Translation by H. P. Houghton, Th e C optic Apocalypse',Aegyptusxxxix (1959), 81 f.

[22] J. B. Frey, D.B.S. i, col. 457, thinks the work wholly Jewish, but at least minor Christian

editing seems probab le.

[23] Face shining like the sun: Test. Abr. ii, vii, xii (Rec. A); II Enoch i. 5; xix. 1; III Enoch xlviii

C. 6; Apoc. Paul xii.

Girded with golden

girdle:

D an. x. 5; Apoc. Paul xii.

Feet like brass in the fire: Ezek. i. 4, 7; Dan. x. 6.

[24] Translation in E. A. W. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic texts in the dialect of Upper Egypt

(London, 1915), p. 1078.

[25] Translation in A. Walker, Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations (A.N.C.L. xvi) (Edin-

burgh, 1873), p. 21; Latin text in C.Tischendorf, ed.,Evangeliaapocrypha(Leipzig, 1876, 2nd

ed.),

p. 59.

[26] Chapteridescribes the face ofGod: 'the middle face was higher than all, which I saw made of

fire, to the shoulder and the arm, very terribly'; cf. the description of the face of God in II Enoch

xxii.

1 (A); xxxix. 3.

[27] Translation in James, op. cit., p. 98 . [28] Translation in Odeberg, op. cit.

[29] This text is discussed in Segal, op . cit., chap. 3; P. S. Alexander, T h e Historical Setting of

the Hebrew Book of Eno ch',J.J.S.xxviii (1977), 177 f.

[30] Odeberg, op. cit., intro. pp . 85 f., believes the chapter to emanate 'from early opponents to

the Metatron-speculations of the mystics'; but by comparison with the version in b Hag. 15a its

demotion of Metatron is moderate. It is therefore better to see it as an attempt at self-correction

from within the Metatron tradition.

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

18/21



[31] Fragments of th e Cairo Genizah Hekhalot published by I. Gruenwald,Tarbizxxxviii (1969),

354 -73 ;xxxix (1970), 216 f.: this passage on pp . 362 f. The translation I give is by P. S. Alexander,

from his edition of III Enoch in the forthcoming D oubleday edition of the Pseudepigrapha; I am

grateful to him for drawing my attention to this passage.

[32] For some of th e parallels, see A. Murtonen, 'The Figure of METATRON', V.T. ill (1953),

409-11, though his view that the figure of Metatron has been influenced by the Christian view of

Jesus is improbable. Even less tenable is the view that 'Metatron is a rough draft of which Jesus is

the marvellous finished pro duct': P. L. Couchoud, The Book of Revelation: A key to Christian

origins(London, 1932), p. 65.

[33] Were there

Merkabah

mystics whodidworship Metatron? Presumably the warnings against

the danger of this presuppose that the danger was sometimes realised, though perhaps those who did

'worship' Metatron would not

have

regarded it

as

worship. In b Sanh. 38b (discussed in E . E. Urbach,

Th eSages(Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 138 f.; Segal, op. cit., pp.

68-71;

Alexander, art. cit., 177) R. Idi

disputes with amin who argues from Ex. xxiv. 1 that there is a second divine figure w ho should be

worshipped. Since it is R. Idi who calls this figure M etatron we cannot be quite sure that them inis

an adherent of theMet tion-Merkabah traditions. Urbach thinks it 'most likely that the reference

is actually to a Christian sectarian' (p. 139), while Segal supposes that Metatron was the rabbinic

name for a variety of mediating beings in heresies, and finds no convincing evidence that Merkabah

mystics were ever called heretical (p. 200). On the other hand, the warnings against the worship of

Metatron make it quite

possible

that

someMerkabah

mystics strayed into 'two powers' heresy.

[34]

So ,

for example,

W.housset Die

OffenbarungJohannis(Gdttingen,1906) ,p.493 ;H. B. Swete,

The Apocalypse of St John (London, 1907, 2nd ed.), pp. 249, 304; M. Kiddle,The Revelation of

St John, Moffatt NT Commentary (London, 1940), pp. 382, 449; A. S. Peake,The Revelationof

John (London, n.d., 71919), p. 355 n. 1; L.Morris,The Revelationof St John,Tyndale NT Com-

mentaries (London, 1969), p . 2 28; R. H. Preston and A. T. Hanson, The Revelation of Saint John

the Divine, Torch Commentaries (London, 1949), pp. 120, 143 f.; J. Sweet,Revelation,SCM Peli-

can Commentaries (Lond on, 1 979), p. 280.

[35] So G.

B.

Caird, The Revelation of St John the Divine, Black's NT Commentaries (London,

1966),

p. 237.

Nicolaitanism, distinguished by its lack of moral strictness (ii. 14, 20), seems to have been a

form of gnosticising libertinism (see E. S. Fiorenza, 'Apocalyptic and Gnosis in the Book of Revel-

ation and Paul', J.B.L. xcii (1973) , 565-81 ), and therefore m ore like the antinomian heretics in

Jude,

who slandered angels (Jude 8), than the ascetic legalists at Colossae, who worshipped them

(Col. ii. 18). But this classification may be too schematic. It is quite possible that the Nicolaitan

prophets enjoyed visions in which angelic beings loomed large.

[36] The struc ture of these passages and its theological significanceisstudied in detail by C. H. Gib-

lin, 'Structural and Thematic Correlations in the Theology of Revelation 16-22',Biblicalv (1974),

487-504. The following two paragraphs are much indebted to his analysis.

[37] On the significance of the phrase iv tivewaTi see my article, 'The Role of the Spirit in the

Apocalypse',Evangelical Quarterlylii (1980), 66-72.

[38] For the subjective genitive innaprvpLa 'ITJCTOO,cf. i. 2 ; xxii. 20 . In a subordinate sense both

John (i. 2) and the angel (xxii. 16) bear witness to Jesus' witness.

[39] Cf., in more detail, Giblin, art. cit., 49 6-8.

[40] Cf. Caird, op . cit., p. 283 : the repetition of the incident 'further serves to enhance the divine

majesty of Christ, to whom worship is paid without any sense of detraction from what is due to

God alone'.

[41] K.-P. Jorn s,D as hymnischeEvangelium (Giitersloh, 1971), pp. 45 f., following H. P. Miiller,

'Die himmlische Ratsversammlung. Motivgeschichtliches zuApk.5,l-5',Z.JV.H'. liv (1963), 254-67.

[42] There are traces of an angel-Christology in the terminology of the Apocalypse (i. 13 -16 ,

where most of the terms are paralleled in descriptions of angels, cf. especially Dan. x. 5 f.; Apoc.

Abr. xi; Apoc. Zephaniah, Akhmimic ix. 14-19, quoted above; and Rev. xiv. 14 f., which seemsto

imply that Christ can be called an angel), but it has been reduced to relative insignificance by the

sharp theological distinction between Christ and angels.

[43] Cf. K iddle, op. cit., p. 105 (on v. 11 f.): 'Nowhere else in the New Testament is Christ adored

on such absolutely equal terms with the Godhead'; Swete, op. cit., p. 127 (on chap, v): 'This chap-

ter is the most powerful statement of the divinity of Christ in the New Testament, and it receives

its power from the praise of God the Creator which precedes it.'

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

19/21



[44] For the hymns sung in heaven, see Apoc . Abr. xvii; I Enoch xxx ix. 12 f.; 4QShiiShab; II

Enoch xxi. 1 ; III Enoch i. 12 ; xix. 7 ; xx. 2; xxxix. 2 ; xl. 1 f.; xlviii B. 2. Also Odeberg, op. cit.,

intro.

pp. 1 83 -7; Scholem,

Jewish

Gnosticism,chap. 4.

[45] The thiee hymns using the formula tffuxr . . .Xafleiv (iv. 11 ; v. 9, 12) have commonly been

called 'acclamations'. It is not, however, likely that the formula derives, as Peterson argued, from

Greek secular acclamations: see the most recent discussions in Jorns, op. cit., pp.56-73;W.C. van

Unnik, '"Worthy is the Lamb." The Background of Apoc. 5\Melanges bibliques(Festschrift for

B.

Rigaux), ed. A. Descamps and A. de Halleux (Gembloux, 1970), pp.

445-61.

Jorns prefers to

see the three 'Axios-Strophes' as antiphonal responses.

This is not to deny, however, that in view of John's polemic against Emperor-worship, a parallel

and contrast with the acclamations of the Emperor are probably intended. It is interesting to com-

pare Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shiita 1, where doxological hymns to God are very explicitly com-

pared with acclamations of human kings: see J. Goldin,Th e Song at theSea(New Haven/London,

1971),

pp. 80 f.

[46] Cf., e.g. Hek. R ab. xxviii. 1; also the hymns in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shirta 1, with the

attem pt at reconstruction in Goldin, op. cit., p. 81 .

[47] Perhaps the closest parallels are III Enoch xxii. 1: 'Above them (the Hayyot) there is one

prince, noble, wonderful, strong, and praised with all kinds of praise. His name is Ker ub iel .. .';

Hek. Rab. xxiii. 2: 'Anaphiel-YHVH, Lord of Israel - a revered, awesome, terrifying, noble, glori-

fied, powerful, mighty, and valiant prince whose name is mentioned before the Throne of Glory

three times a day, in the heavens, from the day the world was created until now, in praise, because

the signet ring of th e heavens and of the earth is given into his power' (translation in D. R. Blumen-

thal,Understanding Jewish Mysticism(New York, 1978), p. 76). The prostration ofangelsbefore

superior angels is described in III Enoch iv. 9; xiv. 5;xviii;Hek. Rab. xxiii. 3. There is certainly also

a tendency in the Hekhalot texts to dwell on the glory of the angels, in terms which almost become

doxological (Hek. Rab. xxiii. 2, 4; III Enoch xvii. 1; xix. 1; xx. 1;

xxvi.

1; xxviii. 1) - precisely the

tendency against which the texts in section I are aimed. But notice: (a) such passages are no doubt

intended to enhance the glory of God by describing the glory of the creatures whose purpose is to

glorify God; and (b) even th is tendency does no t lead to doxologies addressed join tly to God and

the angels, like the doxology of God and Christ in Rev. v. 13 .

The Parables of Enoch mention several times the 'worship' of the Son of Man or Elect One

(most clearly: I Enoch xlviii. 5; lxii. 6, 9), but always as the eschatological subjection of men to

God's vicegerent, never as worship by angels in heaven (unless lxi. 7 refers to th is).

[48] P. Beskow,Rex Gloriae. The Kingship of

Christ

in the

Early Church

(Stockholm, 1962), pp.

140 f.: bu t he exaggerates the subordination of Christ in the Apocalypse by ignoring

v.

9-12.

[49] xx. 6 is hardly in the same category, sinceaiirovrather obviously refers to Christ (cf. xx. 4).

[50] G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation,New Century Bible (London , 1974), p. 332

(on xxii. 3); cf. p. 189 (on xi. 15); Swete, op. cit., p. 142 (on xi. 15); R. H. Mounce,TheBook of

Revelation,New International Commentary on the NT (Grand Rapids, 1977), p. 231 (on xi. 15);

T. Holtz,D ieChristologieder ApokalypsedesJohannes, T.U.lxxxv (Berlin, 1962) , pp. 202 f. God

and Christ take a singular verb in1Thes. iii. 11.

[51] Probably in vi. 17 the reading OUTOV should be preferred, since it is easier to understand cor-

rection of aurovto airrCiv than viceversa(so C. A. Scott,Revelation, Century Bible (Edinburgh,

n.d.),

p. 187): this passage then presents a phenomenon rather similar to xi. 15; xxii. 3. At v. 14

(where the reading fami ek TOU

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

20/21



[56] Swete, op. cit., p. 84.

[57] E. S. Fioienza, 'Redemption as liberation: Apoc. l:5f. and

5:9f.\

C.B.Q. xxxvi (1974),

223-7,

thinks John has turned a traditional confessional formula into a hymn of praise by adding

the doxology.

[58] Doxologies addressed to Christ also appear in II Tim. iv. 18; II Pet. iii.

18;

perhaps I Pe t. iv.

l l ; H e b .

xiii. 21 ; I Clem. xx. 12; 1. 7.Cf. also Pliny's report tha t Christians 'carmen Christo quasi

deo dicere secum invicem'(Ep.x. 96).

[59] The seven heavens in Asc. Isa. resemble the seven halls of the later Hekhalot te xts rather than

the seven heavens of Test.Levi ii f.; II Enoch; or even Visions of Ezekiel. Cf. also Apoc. Zephaniah

as quoted by Clement of Alexandria,Str.V. xi. 77.

[60] Cf. Ill Enoch xviii. 3; Hek. Rab .

xvii;

xix; xx. 5-xx i. 3; xxii. 2; xxiii. According to the E thi-

opic version of Asc. Isa., Christ 'gave the password' at each gate; bu t the Latin has 'ostendeba t

characterem' (x. 25) and 'dedit signa' (x. 29) (Slavonic, in Bonwetsch's Latin translation, has

'ostendebat signa' and 'dedit signum'). Evidently the Greek had xapanrrip,meaning the impress

on a seal, corresponding to Hek. Rab. xix, where at each gate seals imprinted with the names of

angels had t o be shown. This motifisnot otherwise known from the older apocalypses.

[61 ] Cf. Ill Enoch ii. 2-4;

iv.

7-9;vi.2 f.

[62] Cf. II Enoch xxii. 10; III Enoch xv. 1; xlviii. C. 6.

[63] Cf. I Enoch xxx ix. 9 f.; lxxi.

1 1;Apoc.

Abr. xvii; III Enoch i. 11 f.; Hek. R ab. xxv.

[64] In theHekhalot texts the angels cannot behold God but the mystic can: Hek. Rab. xxiv. 5;

Lesser Hekhalot, as quoted by Scholem,Major

Trends,

p. 63 ('God who is beyond the sight of his

creatures and hidden to the angels who serve him, but who has revealed himself to Rabbi Akiba in

the vision of the

Merkabah').

Cf. I Enoch xiv. 21 ; and, for the idea of 'power', I Enoch lxxi. 11 ;

III Enoch i. 11 .

The versions of Asc. Isa. are confused as to whether Isaiah himselfwasable to see God (ix. 37,

39 ;

x. 2; xi. 32): it seems that in the original he could only bear the sight momentarily. The con-

fusion in the versions may be due to a doctrinal difference, since the two recensions of II Enoch

xxii also differ as to whether or no t Enoch was able to see God.

[65 ] Cf. also Scholem,JewishGnosticism,pp. 30,129.

[66] Such abbreviation is apparent from the comparison of the versions, and the Greek Legend,

and also from the quotation of ix. 35 f. preserved in EpiphaniusHaer. lxvii. 3 (Charles, op. cit.,

p.67).

The Greek Legend seems to show traces of a richer angelology: cf. the lists in ii. 40: yye\oi,

ipxAyye^-oi,

8p6voi,

KuptdTTjres, dpx

a

'> 4ovolcu, Ka\ naacu twv oipavuv ai Swipeis (the corre-

sponding verse, Asc. Isa. x. 15, has shorter lists in Latin and Slavonic), and ii. 22, quoted below.

But the resemblance to Col. i. 16 is probably against the originality of these lists. More suggestive is

the mention ofviro6p6vvafu>a in Greek Legend ii. 20.

[67 ] Michael is named at iii. 16 ('the chief of the holy angels'), and, in Slavonic and Latin but no t

Ethiopic, at ix. 2 3, 29, 42.

[68] Apart from Michael and 'th e angel of the church' (iii. 15), only Isaiah's guide (vii. 2 etc .), the

angel who presides over the worship in the sixth heaven (ix. 4), and the angel ofix.21 (identified

as Michael by Slavonic and Latin at ix . 23).

[69] Hek. R ab. xvi. 4 f.; xvii;cf. Scholem,

Major Trends,

pp . 50 f.; Alexander, art. cit., p. 1 78. No

doubt this is why the technique of passing the gatekeepers is mentioned in Christ's descent (x. 24,

25,27,29), not in Isaiah's ascent: presumably Isaiah's guiding angel deals with this for him.

[70] Perhaps there is also some polemic against the Enoch traditions , though a moderate polemic,

in view of ix. 9. The author does not deny Enoch's translation, though he equates it with the post-

mortem ascensions of the other righteous men of the Old Testament (ix. 7-9); he does seem to

deny Enoch's visit to heaven before his translation.

[71 ] This suggests tha t Asc. Isa. should be given more atten tion than it has had in the discussion

ofCol.ii. 18.

[72] In Asc. Isa. the incident occurs in the second heaven, while in the sixth heaven occurs the

exchange in which the angel refuses to be called 'Lord'. The Greek Legend has moved the latter

back to the firmament below the first heaven (ii. 10 f.) and replaced it in the sixth heaven by the

prohibition of angel-worship. It is perhaps possible that the original included two versions of the

seer's attempt to worship angels and its prohibition, one in the second and one in the sixth heaven.

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS27_03-S0028688500006718a.pdf

21/21

WORSHIP OF JESUS IN APOCALYPTIC CHR ISTIAN ITY 3 4 1

[73] Greek text in

Charles,

op.

cit.,

p. 144. (The Greek Legend is a much abbreviated and rewritten

version of

Asc.

Isa., bu t it frequently preserves the original Greek of the latter.)

[74] Dan. viii. 17 f.; x. 10 ,1 8 ;

Apoc.

Abr. x; III Enoch i. 7-9; Hek. Rab. xxiv. 2 f.

[75] The need for a specific command to 'Worship Go d' was perhaps redundant he re, though it is

not clear why Isaiah is not stated to

have

joined in the worship of God.

[76] Cf. also Irenaeus,Demonstratiox.

[77] The positions in ix. 35 f. are clearer in the version in Epiphan ius,Haer. lxvii. 3; see Charles,

op .cit.,p .6 7.

[78] So Danielou, op. cit., pp . 127-9, followed by C. Stead, T he Origins of the Doctrine of the

Trinity, 1',Theologylxxvii (1974), 51 4.

[79] So M. Werner,Theformation ofChristiandogma(London, 195 7), p. 1 32; cf. G . Kretschmar,

Studien zur

friihchristlichen Trinitdtstheologie

(Tubingen, 1956), pp. 73, 78. On Origen's identifi-

cation, see Danielou, op. cit., pp. 134-6; Kretschmar, op. cit., pp. 64-8; a similar identification in

Irenaeus, Danielou, op. cit., p. 138.

[80] For the probability that x i. 2-22 , though only in the Ethiop ic version, belongs to the original

tex t, see Charles, op. cit., pp . xxii-xxiv; A. Vaillant, 'Un apocryphe pseudo-bogomile: la Vision

d'Isaie',Revue desEtudes slavesxlii (1963), 111 f.

[81 ]

C. H. Talbert, T he Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiqui ty',

N.T.S. xxii (1975-6), 422-6.

[82] See above n. 42 .

[83] This is probably the sense of 'glories' (Lat.gloriarum)here: cf. Jude 8; 1QH x. 8; II Enoch

xxii.

7 ,10 .

[84] J. Jungmann, ThePlace of Christ inLiturgical Prayer (London/Dublin, 1965, 2nd ed.). It is

important to notice that the liturgies are more conservative, in the area of prayer to and worship

of Jesus, than the evidence of the New Testament suggests was true of Christian worship towards

the end of the first century: cf. the doxologies addressed to Christ cited in n. 58 above. The extent

to which prayer is addressed to Jesus in the New Testament has been frequently underestimated

(see E. Delay, 'A qui s'addresse la priere chretienne?',Revue de thiologie et dephilosophicxxxvii

(1949),

189-201); note especially John xiv. 14, which lays down a general principle.

[85] See A. E. J.Rawlinson,

The New

Testament Doctrine

of

the Christ (Bampton Lectures 1926)

(London, 1926), pp. 135 f.; R.P.Martin, Worship in the Early Church(London, 1964), p. 31 ;

Jungmann, op. cit., chap. 10.

[86] E.g. Segal, op. cit., p. 215.

[87] IApol. 6. 2; the translation follows that of L.W.Barnard,JustinMartyr:his life and thought

(Cambridge, 1967), p.105,who rules out attemp ts to read th e passage differently.

[88] In the preparation of this article I have been helped by valuable comm ents on my argument

from

Prof.

C. F. D. Moule, Dr P. S. Alexander, and Dr J . P. Kane.

-nts-nts27_03-s0028688500006718a.pdf

Documents