Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NTS NTS27 - 03 S0028688500006718a PDF
NTS NTS27 - 03 S0028688500006718a PDF
http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS
Additional services for New
Testament Studies:
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 monotheistic 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 intermediary 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 between 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 important 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
IP address: 189.235.125.24
323
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
324
RICHARD BAUCKHAM
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
325
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, likewise, upon his breast; 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
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
326
RICHARD BAUCKHAM
This late Christian text, included for the sake of completeness, is likely to
be dependent 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 somewhat different ways. These texts are additional evidence that the traditional forms of response to angelophanies
were felt by some within the apocalyptic tradition to run the risk of infringing 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
Here the awe-inspiring appearance of the archangel is reduced to insignificance by comparison with the vision of God himself.
if) III Enoch xvi. 2 - 5 .
When Aher [Elisha b. Abuyah] came to behold the vision of the Merkabah 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
that moment 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: 'Return, ye backsliding children [Jer. iii. 22], 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 themselves30 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 Metatron's royal appearance - the traditional response to angelophanies that Aher's apprehension of Metatron as a second divinity consists. The
version in b Hag. 15a omits this element and represents Metatron as seated
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
327
Here the Merkabah mystic is warned not to mistake Metatron for God, 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 much attention to angels as apocalyptic 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.
The usual explanation for the inclusion and repetition of the incident in
Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8 f. is that John intended to counter a tendency to angelworship in the Asiatic churches to which he addressed his work. 34 In that
case it is surprising that no reference to this aberration is made in the seven
messages to the churches, 3s but it is possible that the prophetess 'Jezebel'
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
328
RICHARD BAUCKHAM
case an angel who shows John the vision (xvii. 1-3; xxi. 9 f.), though in
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 revelation 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 explanation, '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 witness 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
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
329
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
330
RICHARD BAUCKHAM
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
331
hymns of the Hekhalot texts. 46 Of course, never in the Jewish texts are
such angelic hymns sung to any except God. 47
At v. 13 the climax of the throne-vision is reached as the circle of worship
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 Lamb (cf. vii. 10; xi. 15; xiv. 4;
xx. 6, 22; xxii. 1) in this verse illustrates how John, while holding Christ
worthy of worship, remains sensitive to the issue of monotheism in worship.
Christ cannot be a second object of worship alongside God, and so the
specific worship of Christ (v. 9-12) leads to the joint worship of God and
Christ, in a formula in which God retains the primacy. Although elsewhere
John represents Christ as sharing God's throne (iii. 21; xxii 1, 3), here God
alone is called 'he who sits on the throne'. 48 Probably the same concern
leads to a peculiar usage in other passages of the Apocalypse, where mention 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', 50 John is evidently
reluctant to speak of God and Christ together as a plurality. 51 Their 'functional unity' 52 is such that Christ cannot be an alternative object of worship,
but shares in the glory due to God.
Arguments that the heavenly liturgy of the Apocalypse reflects an
earthly liturgy practised in John's churches53 can probably not be sustained. 54 John's eschatological perspective is such that he reserves for the
New Jerusalem the church's participation in the angelic liturgy in the faceto-face presence of God.5S But the worship of Christ in the Apocalypse is
nevertheless 'highly suggestive of the devotional attitude of the Asiatic
Church... towards the Person of Christ'. 56 The doxology in i. 5 f., whether
or not based on a traditional formula,57 is evidence enough that John's
churches offered praise to Christ comparable with that offered by the
angels in heaven.S8
III. THE TRADITION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
332
RICHARD BAUCKHAM
21 f., should be compared the rather different version preserved in the socalled 'Greek Legend' ii. 21 f.:
And he took me up into the sixth heaven,72 and I could no longer bear the splendour
and the lights, and I was greatly afraid and fell on my face. And the angel of God who
was with me said: 'Listen, prophet Isaiah, son of Amos: do not worship (npoaKW^ffQ?)
angels nor archangels nor dominions (nvpuiTqTaq) nor thrones, until I tell you.' And
seizing me by the hand, he strengthened the spirit which is in me.73
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
333
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
334
RICHARD BAUCKHAM
C. Worship of God
1. Christ and the Holy Spirit worship (ix. 40)
2. the righteous worship (ix. 41)
3. the angels worship (ix. 42)
and the praises of the six heavens 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) 76 is just as noteworthy as the fact that they are themselves
worshipped. This subordination, though it takes a different form from the
subordination in the Apocalypse of John, manifests the same desire to
ensure that all worship is ultimately directed to God the Father. 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 angelChristology. 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
Seraphim of Isaiah vi. 2 f., whom Origen identified as Christ and the Holy
Spirit {de Princ. I. iii. 4). 79 The former identification has very little to
recommend it, for: (a) in spite of Dantelou's argument, when Michael is
named in iii. 16 he cannot be a name 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 Matt. i. 20, not Gabriel of Luke's account, 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 cannot be refuted, but nor is there anything in the text to support it.
This is not to say that there may not be elements 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 But just as in the Apocalypse of John, 82
these angelic features are thrust into the background by the rigorous differentiation between Christ and the angels. Christ is 'the Lord of all the glories
[i.e. angels] 83 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. 18; x. 19; xi. 26-32). The Christology of the
Ascension of Isaiah is less aptly defined in terms of an angel-Christology,
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
335
NOTES
[1] Cf. A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven. Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25) (Leiden, 1977).
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
336
RICHARD BAUCKHAM
[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 dated within the first century: in the 60s (with the rest of
the work) by R. Laurence, Ascensio Isaiae Vatis (Oxford, 1819), pp. 171-7, and again recently by
J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London, 1976), 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 Ascension of Isaiah (London, 1900), pp. xliv
f., and by G. H. Box, in R. H. Charles and G. H. Box, The Ascension of Isaiah (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, 1909), 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 and Merkabah mysticism, see various comments in
G. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (London, 1955), chap. 2; idem, Jewish Gnosticism, 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 and early Christian literature (unpublished Cambridge Ph.D. thesis, 1975). In using the term
'Merkabah mysticism' with reference to the first and second centuries A.D., I do not of course
intend to imply that all features of the medieval Merkabah 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 medieval Merkabah mysticism.
The similarities between the Ascension of Isaiah and Gnostic literature, pointed out by A. K. Helmbold, 'Gnostic Elements in the "Ascension of Isaiah"', N.T.S. xviii (1971-2), 222-7, do not show
the Ascension of Isaiah to be Gnostic, since these features are also to be found in Jewish apocalyptic; they show rather that Gnosticism was indebted to the 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 to Merkabah mysticism, see below, section III.
[4] This translation by D. Hill, in Hennecke and Schneemelcher, op. cit., ii, p. 654. The last sentence 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 note; the original Greek of the
angel's reply is preserved in the Greek Legend ii. 11: O6K iyu Kvpiaq, &\\a avvSov\6<; aov ekii.
[6] There are few signs that Ascension of Isaiah is dependent on any New Testament writings. The
passage xi. 2-17 (Ethiopic version only) seems dependent on Matt, i f.
[7 ] Translation in H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch, or The Hebrew Book of Enoch (Cambridge, 1928). Other
examples: IV Mace. iv. 10 f.; Rev. i. 17; Hekhalot Rabbati xxiv. 2 f. Fainting is probably the sense
in Dan. viii. 18; x. 8 f. In some accounts of angelophanies only fear is mentioned: Test. Abr. xiii
(Rec. B); II Enoch xx. 1; cf. Mark xvi. 5,8; Luke xxiv. 37.
[8] Other examples: Num. xxii. 31; Josh. v. 14; Dan. viii. 17.
[9] E.g. Exod. xx. 5; xxiii. 24; Deut. v. 9; Apoc. Moses xxvii. 5; xxxiii. 5; Matt. iv. 9 f.
[10] Gen. xvii. 3;Ezek. i. 28; iii. 23; xliii. 3; xliv. 4; I Enoch lxxi. 11; II Enoch xxii. 4; Vita Adae
xxvi. 1; xxviii. 1; cf. I Enoch xiv. 24. I Enoch lx. 3; lxxi. 2 seem to be generalised reactions to the
vision of the throne of God and its surrounding angels.
[11] E.g. Gen. xviii. 2;xix. 1; xxiii. 7,12; xxxiii. 2; I Sam. xxviii. 14; I Kings ii. 19; II Kings ii. 15;
Isa. xlv. 14; Rev. iii. 9. In III Enoch iv. 9; xiv. 5, the angels prostrate themselves before Metatron;
and in III Enoch xviii there is elaborate description of how each rank of angels shows respect for its
superiors: 'they remove the crown of glory from their head and fall on their faces' (cf. also Hek. Rab.
xxiii. 3). On npooicvvrioK and worship, see H. Greeven in T.D.N.T. vi, pp. 758-66; C. F. D. Moule,
The Origin of Christology (London, 1977), pp. 175 f.; B. A. Mastin, 'Daniel 2W and the Hellenistic
World', Z.A.W. lxxxv (1973), 80-93. When Greeks objected to npoonvvnou; to a living man, it was
not because it was blasphemous, but because it was servile: see M. P. Charlesworth, 'Some Observations on Ruler-Cult, Especially in Rome', H.T.R. xxviii (1935), 5-44, especially 16-20.
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
337
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
338
RICHARD BAUCKHAM
[31] Fragments of the Cairo Genizah Hekhalot published by I. Gruenwald, Tarbiz xxxviii (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 Doubleday edition of the Pseudepigrapha; I am
grateful to him for drawing my attention to this passage.
[32] For some of the 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 product': P. L. Couchoud, The Book of Revelation: A key to Christian
origins (London, 1932), p. 65.
[33] Were there Merkabah mystics who did worship 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,
The Sages (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 138 f.; Segal, op. cit., pp. 68-71; Alexander, art. cit., 177) R. Idi
disputes with a min who argues from Ex. xxiv. 1 that there is a second divine figure who should be
worshipped. Since it is R. Idi who calls this figure Metatron we cannot be quite sure that the min is
an adherent of the Met&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 some Merkabah 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 Revelation of
John (London, n.d., 71919), p. 355 n. 1; L.Morris, The Revelation of St John,Tyndale NT Commentaries (London, 1969), p. 228; 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 Pelican Commentaries (London, 1979), 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 Revelation and Paul', J.B.L. xcii (1973), 565-81), and therefore more 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 structure of these passages and its theological significance is studied in detail by C. H. Giblin, 'Structural and Thematic Correlations in the Theology of Revelation 16-22', Biblica lv (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 Quarterly lii (1980), 66-72.
[38] For the subjective genitive in naprvpLa '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., 496-8.
[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. Jorns, Das hymnische Evangelium (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 seems to
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. Kiddle, 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 chapter 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.'
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
339
[44] For the hymns sung in heaven, see Apoc. Abr. xvii; I Enoch xxxix. 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. 183-7; 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 compare Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shiita 1, where doxological hymns to God are very explicitly compared with acclamations of human kings: see J. Goldin, The Song at the Sea (New Haven/London,
1971), pp. 80 f.
[46] Cf., e.g. Hek. Rab. xxviii. 1; also the hymns in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shirta 1, with the
attempt 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 Kerubiel.. .';
Hek. Rab. xxiii. 2: 'Anaphiel-YHVH, Lord of Israel - a revered, awesome, terrifying, noble, glorified, 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 the heavens and of the earth is given into his power' (translation in D. R. Blumenthal, Understanding Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1978), p. 76). The prostration of angels before
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 this tendency does not lead to doxologies addressed jointly 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 this).
[48] P. Beskow, Rex Gloriae. The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church (Stockholm, 1962), pp.
140 f.: but he exaggerates the subordination of Christ in the Apocalypse by ignoring v. 9-12.
[49] xx. 6 is hardly in the same category, since aiirov rather 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, The Book of
Revelation, New International Commentary on the NT (Grand Rapids, 1977), p. 231 (on xi. 15);
T. Holtz, Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes, T.U. lxxxv (Berlin, 1962), pp. 202 f. God
and Christ take a singular verb in 1 Thes. iii. 11.
[51] Probably in vi. 17 the reading OUTOV should be preferred, since it is easier to understand correction of aurov to airrCiv than vice versa (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<T aitova? rCjv aliovojv might conform to this usage, but is much
too poorly attested to be original) John probably deliberately avoided specifying the object of
worship, since v. 13 would require it to be plural (elsewhere when he uses the same terms, in iv. 10;
vii. 11; xi. 16; xix. 4, the object of worship is specified as God; cf. v. 8, of the Lamb). Holtz, op.
cit., p. 202 (following Lohmeyer), suggests that the repeated ainov in i. 1 is another example of a
singular pronoun for both God and Christ.
[52] Holtz, op. cit., pp. 202 f.
[53] O. A. Piper, 'The Apocalypse of John and the Liturgy of the Ancient Church', Church History xx (1951), 10-22; L. Mowry, 'Revelation 4-5 and Early Christian Liturgical Usage', J.B.L.
lxxi (1952), 75-84; M. H. Shepherd, The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse (London, 1960).
J. J. O'Rourke, 'The Hymns of the Apocalypse', C.B.Q. xxx (1968), 399-409, finds only fragments
of pre-existing hymns (and none in chap. v).
[54] Jorns, op. cit., pp. 178-84.
[55] E. S. Fiorenza, art. cit., 577-9; idem, 'Cultic Language in Qumran and the New Testament',
C.fl.0. xxxviii (1976), 175.
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
340
RICHARD BAUCKHAM
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24
341
[73] Greek text in Charles, op. cit., p. 144. (The Greek Legend is a much abbreviated and rewritten
version of Asc. Isa., but it frequently preserves the original Greek of the latter.)
[74] Dan. viii. 17 f.; x. 10,18; Apoc. Abr. x; III Enoch i. 7-9; Hek. Rab. xxiv. 2 f.
[75] The need for a specific command to 'Worship God' was perhaps redundant here, though it is
not clear why Isaiah is not stated to have joined in the worship of God.
[76] Cf. also Irenaeus, Demonstratio x.
[77] The positions in ix. 35 f. are clearer in the version in Epiphanius, Haer. lxvii. 3; see Charles,
op. cit., p. 67.
[78] So Danielou, op. cit., pp. 127-9, followed by C. Stead, The Origins of the Doctrine of the
Trinity, 1', Theology lxxvii (1974), 514.
[79] So M. Werner, The formation of Christian dogma (London, 1957), p. 132; cf. G. Kretschmar,
Studien zur friihchristlichen Trinitdtstheologie (Tubingen, 1956), pp. 73, 78. On Origen's identification, 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 xi. 2-22, though only in the Ethiopic version, belongs to the original
text, see Charles, op. cit., pp. xxii-xxiv; A. Vaillant, 'Un apocryphe pseudo-bogomile: la Vision
d'Isaie', Revue des Etudes slaves xlii (1963), 111 f.
[81 ] C. H. Talbert, The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity',
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, The Place of Christ in Liturgical 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 de philosophic xxxvii
(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, Justin Martyr: his life and thought
(Cambridge, 1967), p. 105, who rules out attempts to read the passage differently.
[88] In the preparation of this article I have been helped by valuable comments on my argument
from Prof. C. F. D. Moule, Dr P. S. Alexander, and Dr J. P. Kane.
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 189.235.125.24