He Who Dwells In The Midst Of The Cherubim Shine Forth Mp3 Download
Kasie Wenck
thou that dwellest between the cherubim;
which were over the mercy seat, and were either emblems of angels, among whom Jehovah dwells, and is surrounded by them; by whom Christ was ministered to on earth, and now in heaven, and among whom he was when he ascended thither, and where they are subject to him: or of the two Testaments, which look to Christ, the mercy seat, and agree with each other in their testimony of him, and in other things; and where these are truly opened and explained, there the Lord dwells: or rather of the saints of both dispensations, who look to Christ alone for salvation, and expect to be saved by his grace; are both partakers of it, as they will be of the same glory; and among these the Lord dwells as in his temple; though it seems best of all to consider them as emblems of Gospel ministers, since Ezekiel's four living creatures are the "cherubim", ( Ezekiel 10:20 ) , and these the same with John's four beasts, or living creatures, who were certainly men, being redeemed by the blood of Christ; and were ministers, being distinguished from the four and twenty elders, ( Revelation 4:6-11 ) ( 5:8-14 ) and among these the Lord dwells, and with them he has promised his presence shall be unto the end of the world:
shine forth;
either God the Father, who dwelt between the cherubim, over the mercy seat, who sits upon a throne of grace, from whence he communes with his people and communicates to them; and then the request is, that he would shine forth in the perfections of his nature, as he has done in his Son, the brightness of his glory, and in redemption and salvation by him, where they are all illustriously displayed; and particularly in his lovingkindness through him, which has appeared and shone forth in the mission of Christ, and in giving him up for us all; and by granting his gracious presence unto his people in Zion, in his house and ordinances; see ( Psalms 1:2 ) , or the Messiah, the Shepherd of Israel, and the Leader of his flock, and under whom the living creatures and cherubim are, ( Ezekiel 1:26-28 ) , that he would shine forth in human nature; that this bright morning star would appear; that the dayspring from on high would visit men, and that the sun of righteousness would arise with healing in his wings; and that the glorious light of his Gospel would break forth, and the grace of God, the doctrine of it, appear and shine out unto all men, Jews and Gentiles.
Ps 80:1 (For the choir director; set to El Shoshannim; Eduth. A Psalm of Asaph.) Oh, give ear, Shepherd of Israel, Thou who dost lead Joseph like a flock; Thou Who art enthroned above the cherubim, shine forth!
"Thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth." The Lord's special presence was revealed upon the mercyseat between the cherubim, and in all our pleadings we should come to the Lord by this way: only upon the mercyseat will God reveal His grace, and only there can we hope to commune with Him. Let us ever plead the Name of Jesus, Who is our true Mercyseat, to Whom we may come boldly, and through Whom we may look for a display of the glory of the Lord on our behalf. Our greatest dread is the withdrawal of the Lord's presence, and our brightest hope is the prospect of His return. In the darkest times of Israel, the light of her Shepherd's countenance is all she needs. (see Spurgeon's note)
Spurgeon comments : In these three verses we see the finders of the ark removing it to its appointed place, using a formula somewhat like to that used by Moses when he said, "Rise up, Lord", and again, "Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of Israel." The ark had been long upon the move, and no fit place had been found for it in Canaan, but now devout men have prepared a temple, and they sing, Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength. They hoped that now the covenant symbol had found a permanent abode -- a rest, and they trusted that Jehovah would now abide with it for ever. Vain would it be for the ark to be settled if the Lord did not continue with it, and perpetually shine forth from between the cherubim. Unless the Lord shall rest with us there is no rest for us; unless the ark of his strength abide with us we are ourselves without strength. The ark of the covenant is here mentioned by a name which it well deserved; for in its captivity it smote its captors, and broke their gods, and when it was brought back it guarded its own honour by the death of those who dared to treat it with disrespect. The power of God was thus connected with the sacred chest. Reverently, therefore, did Solomon pray concerning it as he besought the living God to consecrate the temple by his presence. It is the Lord and the covenant, or rather say the covenant Jehovah whose presence we desire in our assemblies, and this presence is the strength of his people. Oh that the Lord would indeed abide in all the churches, and cause his power to be revealed in Zion.
- The commands concerning the tabernacle were given to Moses by the Angel- do phrases like "Let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them" (Ex. 25:8) have primary reference to the Angel speaking the words? In the same way, does Psalm 99:1 refer also to the physical presence of an Angel between the cherubim? "The LORD reigneth. . He sitteth between the cherubim (through His Angel); let the earth (land of Israel) be moved". Similarly "Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel (the Angel- so Isaiah 63 describes the wilderness Angel), thou that leadest Joseph like a flock (the Angel lead them through the wilderness); thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth" (Ps. 80:1). And again in Ps. 20:1,2 "The God of Jacob (i. e. the Angel who Jacob recognized had been so much in his life) defend thee; send thee help from the sanctuary. . ", as if it was in the sanctuary (Holy Place) that the Angel was located.
And the cherubims shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces [shall look] one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.
And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the [one] wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house.
And [one] cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubims unto the fire that [was] between the cherubims, and took [thereof], and put [it] into the hands of [him that was] clothed with linen: who took [it], and went out.
Deut 33:2 He said, The Lord came from Sinai, And dawned on them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came from the midst of ten thousand holy ones; At His right hand there was flashing lightning for them.
Psalm 80:1 Oh, give ear, Shepherd of Israel,You who lead Joseph like a flock; You who care enthroned above the cherubim, shine forth!
Matt 13:43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
Although there are various possible translations of Maranatha,(Our LORD comes, Our LORD has come), the fragments at the end ofthe Book of Revelation show that it was understood at that timeto mean Come LORD. The LORD himself assures his peoplethat he is coming soon to bring the judgement (Rev.22.7, 12, 20),and the prayer reflects this hope of his imminent return. Theposition of these fragments at the end of the Book of Revelationsuggests that they were no longer central to the message of thebook. In other words, Maranatha was being understood in anotherway.
The same prayer appears elsewhere as the closing lines of aletter which give no indication of how it was understood (1Cor.16.22), but also at the close of an early Eucharistic prayer,possibly the earliest known outside the New Testament, a verysignificant context (Didache 10). This links the return of theLORD to the Eucharist. Other lines of the prayer areambiguous: Let this present world pass away, forexample, could imply either a literal understanding of theLORDs return or the present transforming effect of theEucharist. Maranatha in the Eucharist, however, must be theoriginal epiklesis, praying for the coming of the LORD.The Didache prayer has no reference to the words of institutionat the Last Supper and no Passover imagery. As implied inJohns account of the Last Supper (John 13.1-20), Jesus isThy Servant Jesus, and thanks are offered for theknowledge, faith and everlasting life made known through him. Thebread and wine are spiritual meat and drink (cf. John 6.25-58)which cause the Name to dwell in the hearts of those who havebeen fed. This could indicate that Johns understanding ofthe Eucharist was the formative influence here, and that it washis new understanding of Maranatha which led to itstransformation into the Eucharistic epiklesis.
Passover or Day of Atonement?
Despite the apparently clear accounts of the Eucharist in theSynoptic Gospels, there are many problems as to its true originand significance. The Passover is the least likely context asthis was the one sacrifice not offered by a priest (m.Yoma5.6), and the earliest tradition remembers Jesus as the greatHigh Priest[2]. The words of institution known tothe evangelists (Matt.26.26-28; Mark 14.22-24; Luke 22.14-20) andPaul (1 Cor.11.23-26) indicate as their context the priestlysacrifice of the Eternal Covenant, in other words, the Day ofAtonement. The position of the Christian altar in a churchbuilding, beyond the boundary between earth and heaven, showsthat 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), hehad also been taught that his death was for our sins inaccordance with the scriptures (1 Cor.15.3). This indicatesthat the earliest interpretation of the death of Jesus was basedon 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 whosprinkled the atonement blood (Isa.52.15) and was himself thesacrifice (Isa.53.10). A similar expectation is found inPeters temple sermon; the Servant, the Author of life, wasabout to return from heaven bringing times ofrefreshing (Acts 3.13-21). Again, these texts indicate thatthe original understanding of the death of Jesus was the renewalof the Eternal Covenant on the Day of Atonement.
The original context of the Eucharist should sought in the Day ofAtonement, when the High Priest took the blood into the holy ofholies and then returned to complete the rite of atonement andrenewal. At first the Christians had prayed for the literalreturn of the LORD to bring judgement on their enemies and toestablish the Kingdom. Their hopes for the history of their timeswere based on the ancient ritual pattern of the Day of Atonement.Jesus, the great high priest, had sacrificed himself as theatonement offering of the tenth jubilee, had passed into heaven,the true holy of holies, and would emerge again to complete theatonement. When this did not literally happen, John learned inhis vision of the returning high priest (Rev.10) that theexpectations of the Church should return to the temple liturgywhence they had come. In the original temple ritual, the anointedhigh priest, even though he was the LORD, had takeninto the holy of holies the blood of a goat which represented hisown 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 LORDs anointed.Hence Thy Kingdom come.
The Messiah, both High Priest and victim, was the theme of theEucharist 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 offeringsWho is in the heights of the heavens (1 Clem.6) it can besaid with truth that this doctrine of the offering of the earthlyEucharist by the heavenly Priest at the heavenly altar is to allintents and purposes the only conception of the eucharisticsacrifice which is known anywhere in the church... there is nopre-Nicene author Eastern or Western whose eucharistic doctrineis at all fully stated who does not regard the offering andconsecration of the Eucharist as the present action of the LORDHimself, 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 ofthe flesh. Learn rather the blood of the Word and hear him sayingto you This is my blood which is poured out for you for theforgiveness of sins. He who is inspired by the mysteriesknows both the flesh and the blood of the Word of God (OnLeviticus 9.10). Jerome, commenting on Zephaniah 3 wrote ofthe priests who pray at the Eucharist for the coming of theLORD. He too went on to link the day of the LORDscoming to the Day of Atonement, and wait for me, for theday when I rise (RSV Zeph.3.8) was read as Wait forme on the day of my resurrection. This association of thetwo advents of the LORD with the Day of Atonement is found asearly as the Letter of Barnabas, a Levite. As in Jerome,the earthly life of Jesus is compared to the role of thescapegoat who bore the sins, but the point of there beingtwo similar goats is that when they see him coming on the Day,they are going to be struck with terror at the manifest parallelbetween him and the goat (Barn.7). The implication is that theblood of the goat being brought from the holy of holies wasbelieved from the very earliest period to prefigure the Parousiaand that the association of the Eucharist and the Day ofAtonement was well known. Justin in the mid-second century linkedthe sacrificed goat to the second coming, (Trypho 40) and Cyrilof Alexandria wrote some two centuries later: We must perceivethe Immanuel in the slaughtered goat... the two goats illustratethe mystery (Letter 41).
In the Eucharist, the bishop or priest was the HighPriest and therefore the LORD (e.g. Ignatius Magn. 6 Letthe bishop preside in the place of God). He took into theholy of holies the bread and wine of the new bloodless sacrificewhich became the body and blood of the LORD; this effected theatonement and renewal of the creation, and thus established onearth the expected Kingdom. Hence the eschatological emphasis ofthe earliest Eucharists. Dix again: The Eucharist is thecontact of time with the eternal fact of the kingdom of Godthrough Jesus. In it the church within time continually, as itwere, enters into its own eternal being in that Kingdom.[4] In other words, it was the ancienthigh priestly tradition of entering the holy of holies beyondtime and matter, the place of the heavenly throne. A fragment ofthis temple belief in the eternal present of events which humanshave experienced as history, is to be found in the writings ofthe Deuteronomists who did so much to suppress the mysticalelements of the ancient cult. The rebellious generation who hadbeen at Sinai were told they would not live to enter the promisedland (Num.14.26-35); nevertheless, Moses reminded their children:Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant butwith us who are all of us here alive this day (Deut. 5.3).
Had the original understanding of the Eucharist derived from thePassover, we should have expected the Exodus imagery ofliberation from slavery and becoming the chosen people. Instead,the expected benefits of the Eucharist were those of the Day ofAtonement. Early evidence drawn from a variety of sources isconsistent in this respect. Bishop Sarapions Prayer Book,for example, used in Egypt in the middle of the fourth century,speaks of the medicine of life to heal every sickness andnot for condemnation i.e. of the Eucharist bringingjudgement and renewal which are the twin aspects of atonement. Heprayed for angels to come and destroy the evil one, and for theestablishment of the Church, i.e. for the banishing of Azazel andthe establishing of the Kingdom. He prayed that the congregationwould be made living men [5](c.f. Thomas 1 the livingi.e. resurrected Jesus), able to speak of the unspeakablemysteries. Make us wise by the participation of the bodyand the blood. This is the high priestly tradition of thetemple, and the living men are the first resurrected,the kingdom of priests reigning on earth after the evil one hasbeen bound (Rev.20.6). The Liturgy of John Chrysostom praysthat the holy mysteries may bring remission of sins andforgiveness of transgressions, the gift of the Spirit, access tothe LORD and a place in the Kingdom, healing of soul and body,not judgement and condemnation. Even earlier, the Anaphora ofAddai and Mari had prayed for enlightenment, and hopes forremission of sins, pardon of offences, hope of resurrection andnew life in the Kingdom, and the Liturgy of James hadprayed for peace and salvation, for forgiveness and protectionfrom enemies. All these themes derive from the covenantrenewal of the Day of Atonement.
There is a striking similarity between these prayers and theQumran Hymns, and it would be easy to imagine the singer of theHymns as the priest who had offered the Eucharistic prayers. Thesinger knows the mysteries and has been purified from sin (1QH IXformerly I and XII formerly IV). He is one of the angels in theholy of holies, (1QH XIV formerly VI), he is strengthened by theSpirit (1QH XV formerly VII), he has experienced light andhealing (1QH XVII formerly IX), he has been purified and becomeone 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 fromthe judgement, entered into the Covenant and stands in theeternal place illumined by perfect light (1QH XXI formerlyXVIII).
A recurring theme of the liturgies is that of fear and awe. Ahomily on the mysteries attributed to Narsai (Homily XVII A, latefifth century) speaks of the dread mysteries... leteveryone be in fear and dread as they are performed... the hourof trembling and great fear. As the Spirit is summoned tothe bread and wine, the priest worships with quaking andfear and harrowing dread. The people stand in fear as theSpirit descends. In the mid-fourth century, Cyril of Jerusalemspeaks of the most awful hour when the priest beginsthe consecration and of the most awful sacrifice(Catecheses 23.4,9). John Chrysostom has similar words todescribe the coming of the Spirit (On Priesthood 6.4. 34-36), andthe people are commanded in the liturgy to stand infear. Perhaps the oldest example of all is the Anaphoraof Addai and Mari which speaks of the great, fearful,holy, life-giving, divine mystery, before which thepeople stand in silence and awe. The priest prays as did Isaiah(Isa.6.5): Woe is me... for mine eyes have seen the LORD ofHosts, and, in the manner of Moses in the tabernacle(Exod.5.22): How dreadful is this place, for this day Ihave seen the LORD face to face...
Again, the setting is the holy of holies and the imagery drawnfrom the Day of Atonement. The earliest biblical account warnsAaron only to enter the Holy of holies once a year, afterelaborate, preparation on the Day of Atonement. The LORD warnsthat he will appear in the cloud upon the kapporet, andAaron might die (Lev.16.2). The Mishnah records the fearof the high priest as he entered the holy of holies: he spent aslittle time as possible in the holy place (m.Yoma 5.1), and atthe end of the ritual he made a feast for his friendsbecause he had come safely out of the holy of holies(m.Yoma 7.4). When the Glory of the LORD came to the deserttabernacle, Moses was not able to enter (Exod.40.35) and when theGlory came to the temple, the priests had were not able tocontinue their ministrations there (1 Kgs 8. 10-11). The verypurpose of the tabernacle was to provide a place where the LORDcould dwell in the midst of his people (Exod.25.8), and if thisholy place was not pure, the LORD departed (Ezek.8-11). Johndescribed the incarnation as the Glory dwelling on earth, theWord made flesh (John 1.14).
Theurgy and Apotheosis
Several passages in the Merkabah texts have suggested to scholarsthat drawing down the LORD into the temple was a major element ofthe temple service. The temple and the service performedthere were thought of as able to attract the Shekinah (thepresence of the LORD)... we can seriously consider thepossibility that temple service was conceived as inducing thepresence of the Shekinah in the holy of holies.[6] The Hebrew Scriptures show thatthe 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 savehis people (Ps.80.1-2, 3, 7, 19), that he would shine on hisservant (Ps.119.135). The psalmist also prayed for the LORD toarise 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). TheLevites were appointed to serve before the ark, to invoke, tothank and the praise the LORD, the God of Israel (1 Chron.16.4),and there may have been a double meaning to the familiar cryhallelujah, since the first meaning of hll isshine. 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 ofChristianity are relatively well known. The Chaldean Oraclesdescribe how to make an image of the goddess Hecate and how todraw 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 hadan intimate relationship with them and bore their signatures (sunthemata)in the manifest world.[7] The gods gave instructions how therites were to be performed and the ritual of invoking the deitywas theourgia or hierourgia, divine or sacred work.The body of the theurgist became the vehicle through whichthe gods appeared in the physical world and through which hereceived their communion.[8] The theurgic acts were believed tounite the soul to the will and activity of the deity, but not toeffect complete union. It was believed that the divine order wasimpressed on the world. The symbols of theurgy functioned in anmanner similar to Platos forms in that both revealed thedivine order. Plato had taught that the Demiurge completed themoulding of the world after the nature of the model (Timaeus39e). He too had been moulded after the nature of the model (Gen.1.27).
Now this correspondence of heaven and earth is familiar from thetemple and its rites, and it was far older than Plato. There ismuch in the Timaeus, for example, which seems to be dependent onthe teachings of the Jerusalem priesthood of the first temple.The high priest, too, was the LORD on earth when hewore the sacred seal which enabled him to bear thesins of the people (Exod.28.36-38). It has also been suggestedthat much of the Syrian Iamblichus theurgy, written earlyin the fourth century CE, derived directly from the practice ofthe Jewish temple mystics. Even his Semitic name invitesspeculation, deriving as it does from the LORD isKing.[9]
Dionysius used the language of theurgy when he described theChristian mysteries in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Thebread and wine were the symbols of Christ (437CD) whoseoriginal divine work had been to become a man. The bishop repeatsthe sacred work with the sacred symbols: He uncovers theveiled gifts... he shows how Christ emerged from the hiddennessof 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 asking he became the LORD, although the Chroniclerdoes not explain the process (1 Chron.29.20-23). Since the kapporetwas the throne of the LORD, there must have been some linkbetween the enthronement of the human king as the LORD and hisbeing set on the place where the LORD used to appear. Origenimplies that in the Day of Atonement ritual, the sacrificed goatwas the LORD, the king (Celsus 6.43 PG XI 1364). The blood ofthis goat was sprinkled first on the throne and thenbrought out from the holy of holies to effect the atonement bycleansing and healing the creation. In other words, the bloodcarried the power of the divine life. In thebloodless sacrifice of the Christians, the wine was substitutedfor the blood of the goat (cf. Heb.9.12) , but the same processwas believed to take place. The Christian altar, as we shall see,derived from the kapporet in the holy of holies, the placewhere the atonement blood was transformed and the LORD waspresent.
The royal psalms suggest that when the king entered the Holy ofholies he was born in the glory of the holy ones andbecame the Melchizedek priest, the LORD (Ps 110). He was raisedup, that is, resurrected to the heavenly life (Ps.89.19;Heb.7.15-17). This must have been the moment when he became kingand was declared to be the Son (Ps.2.7). Praying for the presenceof the LORD in the holy of holies and in the person of the royalhigh priest at his inauguration, must have been the originalcontext of the Maranatha prayer. Since, as the writer tothe Hebrews knew, the high priest offered himself as theatonement sacrifice but was represented by the blood of the goat,the LORD must also have been invoked at every atonement sacrificewhen the life of the royal high priest was represented by theblood of the goat. The first Christians, believing that they wereseeing the ancient liturgy fulfilled in history, used the Maranathaprayer initially to pray for the Parousia in their own lifetime.After Johns vision of the angel in the cloud, however, theprayer returned to its original setting as they prayed for theLORD to come to the bread and wine of the Eucharist.
When the Day of Atonement is recognised as the original contextof the Eucharist, other elements in the tradition fall intoplace. The epiklesis derived from the Maranatha prayer.The earliest forms do keep the word come and areaddressed to the Second Person whereas later forms are prayers tothe First person to send. Serapions epiklesispreserves the older belief about the presence of the LORDdwelling in the holy of holies: O God of truth, let thyholy Logos come and dwell (epidemesato) upon this bread,that the bread may become the body of the Logos and upon this cupthat the cup may become the cup of the truth...... There isa long epiklesis in the Acts of Thomas 27 whichcalls on Christ to come. All those who have beensealed with baptism perceive a human form and then receive thebread of the Eucharist. In the earlier period, the Spirit wasunderstood to be the Logos (e.g. Justin, Apology 1.33: Itis wrong to understand the Spirit and the Power of God asanything else than the Word who is also the first-born ofGod). It was not until Cyril of Jerusalem (mid-fourthcentury) that the Third Person Spirit epiklesis began tobe used, the prayer for the Father to send the Spirit onto thebread and wine.
The form in Addai and Mari is addressed to the Son:O my LORD, may thy Holy Spirit come and rest upon thisoffering but other unique features of this prayer invitespeculation as to its ultimate origin. The original from has nomention of God the Father or of the Trinity, of the crucifixionor resurrection of Jesus, it does not mention bread, wine, cup,Body or Blood, or the name of Jesus. There is no reference topartaking or communion. Dix again: All these things... arenot of the framework of the prayer as they are the framework ofthe prayers that have been inspired by the systematic Greektheological tradition. Addai and Mari is a eucharistic prayerwhich is concentrated solely upon the experience of theEucharist... Maranatha... The ecstatic cry of the firstpre-Pauline Aramaic speaking disciples is the summary of what ithas to say.[10] Was this derived from a a templeprayer from the Day of Atonement? There were a great manyof the priests obedient to the faith in the earliest daysin Jerusalem (Acts 6.7).
Several writers reveal that it was the Word which came into thebread and wine, but complications arise from the fact that logoscan be understood to mean both the Word, the Second Person,or simply a prayer. Irenaeus, for example, argued ...if thecup which has been mixed and the bread which has been madereceives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body andblood of Christ... (Against Heresies 5.2.3. PG 7. 1125 also1127). Origen, commenting on the Eucharist, said that theconsecration was by the Word of God and prayer(quoting 1 Tim.4.5), where word could be understoodin either sense (On Matthew 11 PG 13 948-9), but his usageelsewhere suggests that he intended the Second Person. Athanasiustaught that after great prayers and holy invocations, theWord comes down into the bread and wine and it becomes hisbody (Sermon to the Baptised PG 26.1325). As late as theearly sixth century, Jacob of Serug could write Togetherwith the priest, the whole people beseeches the Father that hewill send his Son, that he may come down and dwell upon theoblation.
The Traditions of the Priests
The mystery of the Eucharist was associated with Melchizedek.Eusebius wrote: Our Saviour Jesus, the Christ of God, evennow performs through his ministers today sacrifices after themanner of Melchizedek (Proof 5.3). Melchizedek is known inthe Hebrew Scriptures only as the king of Salem, the priest ofGod Most High who brought out bread and wine to Abraham(Gen.14.18), and as the royal high priest, the divine Son whowould bring the Day of Judgement (Ps.110). In the QumranMelchizedek text, however, he is divine, the heavenly highpriest, the anointed prince who comes to Jerusalem to perform thegreat Atonement at the end of the tenth Jubilee and to establishthe Kingdom. In the New Testament, Jesus is identified as thisMelchizedek (Heb.7.15), and the bread and wine of his sacrificemust have had some link to the bread and wine of Melchizedek.
What this was we can only guess, but the meal of bread and winewas associated with the vesting of the (high?)priest. The Testamentof Levi describes how seven angels vested him and fed himbread and wine, the most holy things[11] (T.Levi 8.5), suggesting thatconsuming bread and wine was a part of the consecration process.In the Hebrew Scriptures the most holy things are thepriests portion of the offerings, and only the priestscould consume them (e.g. Lev.6.29; Ezek.42.13; Ezra 2.63). The mostholy was originally believed to communicate holiness (e.g.Exod.29.37), but at the beginning of the second temple periodthere was a new ruling from the priests and only uncleanness washeld to be contagious (Hag.2.12). This is significant as itsuggests that the communication of holiness through consumingsacrificial offerings was a characteristic of theMelchizedek cult of the first temple but not of thesecond. It was, however, known to the author of the Testamentof Levi, and so this may have been how the elements of theEucharist were originally understood.
The Testament of Levi also describes the priestly serviceof the archangels in the highest heaven; they offer atonementsacrifices before the Great Glory and these offerings aredescribed as bloodless and logike, literallylogical or intellectual but commonlyrendered reasonable, the reasonable andbloodless sacrifice (T.Levi 3.6). It has been suggested,however, that logike in the context of liturgy indicatesbelonging to the Logos, just as it is used by Clementto describe the flock of the Good Shepherd who were not reasonablesheep, but sheep of the Logos (Instructor III 112i)[12]. The atonement sacrifice offeredby the archangels in Levis vision would then be thebloodless sacrifice of the Logos. What we cannot tell is whetheror not this was a pre-Christian text and whether or not otherreferences to the reasonable sacrifice should beunderstood in this way.
There is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures or in any related textwhich describes or explains the mystery of the Holy of holies andhow the presence of the LORD was believed to be present. Thismust, however, have been known to the priests who officiatedthere, and raises the question of what it was that Jesus the highpriest is said to have transmitted secretly to a few of hisdisciples after his own experience of resurrection.The evidence is consistent from the earliest period. Ignatius ofAntioch, wrote early in the second century, that our own highpriest is greater (than those of old) for he has beenentrusted with the Holy of holies and to him alone are the secretthings of God committed (Phil.9). Clement of Alexandriacondemned people who were making a perverse use of divinewords... they do not enter in as we enter in, through thetradition of the LORD by drawing aside the curtain(Misc.7.17). The true teachers preserved the tradition ofblessed doctrine derived directly from the holyapostles(Misc.1.1) and this tradition had been impartedunwritten by the apostles (Misc.6.7). There had beenmysteries concealed in the Old Testament which the LORD revealedto the apostles and there were certainly among the Hebrewssome things delivered unwritten (Misc.5.10).
The most likely mysteries to have been concealed in the OldTestament and transmitted unwritten are those of the priests,especially the secrets of the Holy of holies. There is no knownexplanation of the rites of atonement; all that survive are thepractical details of how the ritual was to be performed. Theblood of the sacrifice had to be stirred by an attendant toprevent it clotting so that it could not be sprinkled (m.Yoma4.3), but of the high priests prayer in the temple nodetail is given (m.Yoma 5.1). Only the public prayer is recorded(m.Yoma 6.2). Gardeners could buy the surplus blood for theirgardens (m.Yoma 5.6), but no theology of the bloodsprinkling is offered.
Fragments of sanctuary lore, apart from the evidence in the Bookof Revelation itself, have survived in Daniel 7 and the Parablesof Enoch. In Daniels vision, thought to be closelyrelated to the royal rites of Psalm 2, the Man came in clouds (ofincense?) before the One on the heavenly throne and wasoffered in sacrifice to him (Dan7.13.). The wordusually rendered was presented before him (qrb,literally brought near) is the term used for making atemple offering[13]. Given the temple context ofthis vision offered as a sacrifice is the more likelymeaning. The one offered is then enthroned and given powerover all peoples nations and languages. In the Parablesof Enoch, the blood of the Righteous One was taken up beforethe LORD of Spirits, together with the prayers of the righteousones. The holy ones in heaven unite with one voice to prayand praise and give thanks and bless the name of the LORD ofSpirits. This is the thanksgiving element of the Eucharist.Then the books of the living were opened and read, and thenumber of the righteous whose blood has beenoffered was brought near to the throne (1 En.47.4, wherethe Ethiopic implies the same word as in Dan.7.13). Thiscorresponds to the reading of the diptychs in the liturgy, thenames of the living and the names of the dead who were rememberedat the Eucharist. Next, in the Parables, the Man was given theName in the presence of the LORD of Spirits (i.e. he became theLORD), in the time and place before the stars and the heavenswere 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 werehidden before the creation of the world and foreternity, i.e. in the holy of holies (1 En 48). Then thekings of the earth were judged, and the light ofdays; rested upon the holy and righteous ones. This is theestablishing of the Kingdom, the place of divine light (Rev22.5). The sequence is interesting and it must be related to thesequence in the Liturgy. It was certainly known to the earlyChristians: the anointed one in human form, (the Man) pouredhimself out, was raised up (into heaven), given the Name, andthen worshipped (Phil. 2. 6-11).
Origen, who knew 1 Enoch, said that Jesus beheld theseweighty secrets and made them known to a few (Celsus 3.37).There were doctrines spoken in private to Jesus genuinedisciples, but the words were not written down (Celsus 3.60;6.6). If anyone is worthy to know the ineffable things hewill learn the wisdom hidden in the mystery which God establishedbefore the ages (On Matthew 7.2). Before theages in temple terminology means in the holy ofholies. Origen had had contact with Jewish scholars when helived in Caesarea and must have had good reason to write:The Jews used to tell of many things in accordance withsecret traditions reserved to a few, for they had other knowledgethan that which was common and made public (On John 19.92).
Basil of Caesarea, writing in the mid-fourth century, emphasisedthat some teachings of the Church were drawn from writtensources, but others were given secretly through apostolictradition. If we attacked unwritten customs, he argued, claimingthem to be of little importance, we would fatally mutilate theGospel. There was no written authority for signing with cross,and none for praying facing towards the East, although Origenknew that this latter was linked to the Day of Atonement (OnLeviticus 9.10). Above all Basil cited the words used in theEucharist: Have any saints left for us in writingthe words used in the invocation over the Eucharistic bread andthe cup of blessing? As everyone knows we are not content in theliturgy simply to recite the words recorded by St Paul or theGospels, but we add other words both before and after, words ofgreat importance for this mystery. We have received these wordsfrom unwritten teaching... which our fathers guarded in silence,safe from meddling and petty curiosity. The uninitiatedwere not even allowed to be present at the mysteries, and this helinked to the custom of the temple: Only one chosenfrom all the priests was admitted to the innermost sanctuary...so that he would be amazed by the novelty and strangeness ofgazing on the holy of holies. He went on to distinguish:Dogma is one thing kerygma another; the first isobserved in silence while the latter is proclaimed to theworld. (On the Holy Spirit 66). Basil preserved the mysteryhe had received, but there are enough hints here to show he wasspeaking of the words of the epiklesis, and that thesewere 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 theEucharist, and the Day of Atonement its immediate model. Narsai(Homily XVII A) compared his contemplation of the mysteries ofthe Eucharist to Isaiahs vision of the LORD enthroned inthe holy of holies. Only those who bore the mark like the templepriests were permitted to participate. They were also describedas clad in garments of glory, and, like the guest without awedding garment at the great wedding feast, outsiders were castout (Mat.22.13). The celebrating priest bore in himself theimage of our LORD in that hour, and was warned to be worthyof that state, as were the temple priests who were warned not tobear the Name of the LORD in vain (Exod.20.7). The curioussituation of the one who represents the LORD offering elementswhich also represent the LORD exactly parallels the templecustom, where the High Priest representing the LORD offered theblood 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 deathand burial of Jesus, but the other from the temple. This mayreflect the differing emphases of Antioch and Alexandria, but itcould also be a memory of the early Church describing the earthlylife of Jesus in terms of the high priestly traditions of thetemple. There is evidence of this as early as Peters templesermon, where he describes the Parousia as the heavenly highpriest emerging from the Holy of holies to renew the creation(Acts 3.13-21). For Narsai the sanctuary of thechurch is a type of that Kingdom which our LORD entered andinto which he will bring with him all his friends (c.f. theholy of holies as the heavenly city Rev. 22.16). The Christianaltar is the symbol of the great and glorious throne (as was the kapporetabove the ark in the Holy of holies, Exod.25.17-22). As on theDay of Atonement, so now, the priest trembles with fear forhimself and for his people at that dread hour. The peopleare exhorted to contemplate the Messiah enthroned in heaven whois also the one lying slain on the altar (c.f. Johns wordplay on the themes of crucifixion and exaltation: the Sonof Man is lifted up John 3.14; 8.28; 12.32,34).
There follows a description of the scene in the sanctuary thatevokes the descriptions of heavenly worship in the Songs of theSabbath Sacrifice and the moment of silence which preceded theappearance of the great high priest (Rev.8): The priestsare still and the deacons stand in silence, the whole people isquiet and still, subdued and calm. ... the mysteries are set inorder, the censers are smoking, the lamps are shining, and thedeacons are hovering and brandishing (fans) in the likeness ofthe Watchers. Deep silence and peaceful calm settles on thatplace; it is filled and overflows with brightness and splendour,beauty and power. The people join in the Sanctus, the songof the angels in Isaiahs throne vision and Johns(Isa.6.3; Rev.4.8), and the priest speaks the words whichthe chosen apostles have not made known to us in theGospels. The Spirit comes to the bread and wine andthe Spirit which raised him from the dead comes down nowand celebrates the Mysteries of the resurrection of hisbody. The consecration is the moment of resurrection,another remarkable link to the royal traditions of Israel, forthe king was deemed to be resurrected (translated raisedup, 2 Sam. 23.1) and he too became the LORD enthroned andhe too was worshipped (1 Chron.29.20-23), the LORD with hispeople.
The Anthem of the Sanctuary in the Liturgy of Addai and Maridescribes a similar setting: Thy throne O God endureth forever. The cherubim compass the terrible seat of thy majesty andwith fear moving their wings cover their faces for that theycannot lift up their eyes and behold the fire of thy Godhead.Thus art Thou glorified and dwellest among men, not to burn themup but to enlighten them. Great O my LORD is Thy mercy and Thygrace which thou hast showed to our race. The ultimatesource of this must be Isaiah 33.13-22, which contrasts the fearof sinners at the prospect of the everlasting fires, and thevision of the king in his beauty which awaits the upright.Compare also Enochs account of the flaming fire around theheavenly throne, that no angels could enter because of thebrightness (i.e. no ordinary priests could enter the holy ofholies), and that no flesh could gaze upon the Glory. Enoch layprostrate and trembling until invited to enter (1 En.14.21.25).
Priests and deacons, thousands of Watchers and ministers offire and spirit go forth with the resurrected LORD, saidNarsai, and the people rejoice when they see the Bodysetting forth from the midst of the altar. This is exactlythe procession described for the Day of the LORD, the Day ofJudgement, when the LORD goes forth from his Holy Place with allhis 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 ofthe Day of Atonement, when the high priest emerged from the Holyof holies, carrying the blood which cleansed and hallowed(Lev.16.19), healing and renewing the creation which the templerepresented. The Body of the Risen LORD, wrote Narsai,pardons debts, purifies blemishes, heals diseases, cleansesand purges stains with the hyssop of his mercy.(c.f. Acts3.19 times of refreshing come from the presence of theLORD when the Anointed One returns).
Germanus of Constantinople (early eighth century) in his book Onthe Divine Liturgy presents the temple symbolism in greatdetail, alongside symbolism drawn from the life of Jesus.The church is an earthly heaven, he wrote, inwhich the super-celestial God dwells and walks about(Liturgy 1). This must be the garden of Eden, which had beenrepresented in the temple by the Great Hall. After comparing theapse to the cave of Christs birth and burial and the tableto the place where his dead body rested, he continues: Theholy table is also the throne of God on which, borne by thecherubim, he rested in the body... The altar is and is called theheavenly and spiritual altar where the earthly and materialpriests who always assist and serve the LORD represent thespiritual, serving and hierarchical powers (Liturgy 4, 6,also 41). The holy table, the spiritual altar, corresponds to thekapporet over the ark, the cherub throne where the bloodof the LORD was offered by the High Priest on the Day ofAtonement. The chancel barriers correspond in function to theveil of the temple, separating the Holy of holiesaccessible only to the priests (Liturgy 9). The twenty fourpresbyters are the seraphic powers (c.f. Rev.4.4) and the sevendeacons are images of the angelic powers (c.f. Rev.4.5, Liturgy16, but also the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice whichdescribe the seven angels who are the ruling princes of thesanctuary and the account by John Chrysostom of an old man -presumably himself - who saw angels in shining robes around thealtar (On Priesthood 6.4.45-50).
The priest before the altar speaks to God, as did Moses in thetabernacle, when the LORD spoke to him from above the kapporet,between the cherubim (Exod.25. 22, Liturgy 41) and the priestsees the glory of the LORD. God truly spoke invisibly toMoses and Moses to God; so now the priest, standing between thetwo cherubim in the sanctuary and bowing on account of thedreadful and uncontemplable glory and brightness of the Godheadand contemplating the heavenly liturgy, is initiated even intothe splendour of the life-giving Trinity... (Liturgy 41).The heavenly host in the sanctuary is represented by the deaconsholding fans in the likeness of the six winged seraphim andthe many eyed cherubim (Liturgy 41), exactly as in theHebrew 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 theKingdom and decree destiny in company with the angels of thepresence... may he consecrate you to the holy of holies (1QSb IV); ...standing with the host of the holy ones...withthe congregation of the sons of heaven (1QH XI formerlyIII). The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice speak ofthe priests of the inner temple, ministers of the presenceof the most holy king... their expiations shall obtain hisgoodwill for those who repent from sin... (4Q400), and ofthe wings of the cherubim falling silent as the they bless theheavenly throne (4Q405). As in the liturgy, there are processionsthrough the doors of glory when the `elohim and the holyangels enter and leave, proclaiming the glory of the King (4Q405)c.f. The Cherubic Hymn signified the entrance of all thesaints and righteous ahead of the cherubic powers and the angelichosts 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 fromthe actual temple services which have survived as Christianliturgy.
The Sogitha on the Church of Edessa, composed in the mid-sixthcentury, mentions the cherubim of its altar, adescription (late fifth century) of the church at Quartaminmentions a cherub over the altar and the account of the Muslimcapture of the church of St Jacob in Aleppo alludes to thedestruction of the cherubim above the altar, all three indicatingthat 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 ofAtonement and the Liturgy is the manner of preparing the bread.The central portion of the loaf is removed in the manner of asacrifice, and is then known as the holy bread or the Lamb. Anexactly similar procedure was used for the sin offering on theDay of Atonement in the first century CE, according to the Letterof Barnabas which differs at this point from the Mishnah.According to the latter, the high priest cut open the goat of thesin offering and removed the sacrificial portions, (the fat overthe entrails, the kidneys and a part of the liver Lev.4.8-10) andthen burned them on the altar before sending the rest of thecarcase to be burned outside the temple (m. Yoma 6.7; thecomparison in Heb.13.10-13 is confused). Barnabas, however, saysthat the goat was eaten: the people consumed the carcase, but thepriests had the sacrificial portions, mixed with sour wine.What does it say in the prophet?* Let them eat of the goatwhich is offered for their sins at the fast and, note thiscarefully, let all the priests but nobody else, eat of itsinwards parts, unwashed and with vinegar. Why was this? BecauseWhen I am about to give my body for the sins of this newpeople of mine, you will be giving me gall and vinegar todrink... (Barn. 7).[14] Barnabas, a Levite (Acts 4.36)interpreted the crucifixion as the sin offering and the vinegarwhich Jesus drank (John 19.29) as the vinegar of the sacrificialportion eaten by the priests. This must be the origin of thecustom of removing the middle portion of the loaf and mixing itwith wine.
The role of the bread in the temple is another mystery. Twelveloaves the Bread of the Presence (literally theFace) were set on a golden table in the Great Hall of thetemple, together with incense and flagons for drink offerings(Exod.25.29-30). The bread became holy while it was in thetemple: before being taken in it was placed on a marble table butwhen it was brought out it was placed on a table of gold becauseit had become holy (m.Shekalim 6.4). The loaves were eaten by thehigh priests every Sabbath, perhaps the origin of the weeklycelebration of the Eucharist. The prothesis prayer in the liturgyof the Coptic Jacbites preserves the tradition of the Bread ofthe Face: LORD Jesus Christ... the living bread which camedown from heaven... make thy face shine upon this bread and uponthis cup which we have set upon this thy priestly table.
The Older Testament?
There is much about the temple that is still unknown. There arealso several texts in the Hebrew Scriptures which cannot beplaced in any known context. Together, however, these texts havea certain consistency which at the very least invitesspeculation.