Hannah of Cherubimandthe Divine Throne NTS49

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/231961738
Of Cherubim and the Divine Throne: Rev 5.6 in Context
Article in New Testament Studies · October 2003

DOI: 10.1017/S0028688503000286
CITATIONS READS
2 1,179
1 author:
Darrell Hannah
9 PUBLICATIONS 44 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Darrell Hannah on 10 March 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Test. Stud. , pp. –. Printed in the United Kingdom ©  Cambridge University Press
DOI:10.1017/S0028688503000286
Of Cherubim and the Divine Throne: Rev 5.6

in Context
DAR R E LL D . HAN NAH
126 Edith Road, Smethwick, West Midlands B66 4QZ, England
This article seeks to establish that Rev 5.6, despite its imprecise language, situates
Christ on the divine throne and not merely next to it or alongside it. That Christ
shares the divine throne is clearly asserted elsewhere in the book of Revelation
(3.21; 7.17; 22.1, 3). Since this is the case, and as the other ways in which John’s lan-
guage at 5.6 can be understood introduces a number of difficulties, it is probable
that John also intended 5.6 to be another affirmation of Christ’s enthronement on
the one divine throne. This conclusion is confirmed when it is noticed that John
envisioned the living creatures which surround the throne to be living, constituent
parts of the divine throne itself. Christ is thus in the midst of the throne and in the
midst of the living creatures because they, as components of the throne, are both a
part of it and surround it. This has been argued by at least one earlier interpreter.
It has not, however, been noted just how widespread or how early is the evidence
for the living creatures or cherubim as both living and constituent parts of the
heavenly divine throne. Archaeological evidence, as well as passages from 1 Enoch,
the Song of the Three Young Men, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, Josephus, 2
Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham and On the Origin of the World are examined
and shown to support such a conception of the divine throne and of the cherubim.
The Revelation of John often depicts the exalted Christ as sharing the very
throne of God. This is accepted by most commentators.1 The dominical saying in
3.21, the angelic pronouncement of 7.17 and the phrase oJ qrovno~ tou` qeou` kai; tou`
ajrnivou (22.1, 3) can have no other possible meaning: Christ, after his heavenly
exaltation, occupies the very throne of God. However, that 5.6–7 bears the same
meaning has been disputed, most recently by David Aune in his exhaustive
1 In addition to the standard commentaries, see M. Hengel, ‘ “Sit at My Right Hand!” The
Enthronement of Christ at the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110:1’, Studies in Early
Christology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995) 119–225; R. Bauckham, ‘The Throne of God and
the Worship of Jesus’, The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St.
Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (ed. C. C. Newman, J. R.
Davila, & G. S. Lewis; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 43–69; D. M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110
in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1973); and D. D. Hannah, ‘The
Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the
 Similitudes of Enoch’, ZNW 94 (2003) 68–96.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Cambridge University Press, on 10 Feb 2017 at 08:00:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688503000286
Of Cherubim and the Divine Throne: Rev 5.6 in Context 529
commentary.2 In the present article, I seek to demonstrate that the most accept-
able interpretation of Rev 5.6–7 is that which locates Christ on the divine throne
and thus accords with the passages listed above.
Kai; ei\don ejn mevsw/ tou` qrovnou kai; tw`n tessavrwn zwv/wn kai; ejn mevsw/ tw`n
presbutevrwn ajrnivon eJsthko;~ wJ~ ejsfagmevnon e[cwn kevrata eJpta; kai;
ojfqalmou;~ eJpta; oi{ eijs in ta; ªeJpta;º pneuvmata tou` qeou` ajpestalmevnoi eij~
pa`san th;n gh`n. kai; h\lqen kai; ei[lhfen ejk th`~ dexia`~ tou` kaqhmevnou ejpi;
tou` qrovnou. (5.6–7)
That John sees the Lamb ‘in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures
and in the midst of the (twenty-four) elders’ is, as is often remarked, awkward.
Aune lists three possible meanings for ejn mevsw/. First, ‘in the middle’ or ‘in the
midst’. Thus the translation suggested by Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich/Danker: ‘on the
center of the throne and among the four living creatures’.3 As this is the option
which I think correct I will return to it momentarily. Second, in ‘the interval
between two things’ – in this case between the throne and the four living creatures
on the one hand and the 24 elders on the other. This would reflect the Hebrew
idiom ˜ybw . . . ˜yb, just as in, for example, Lev 27.12 ˜ybw . . . ˜yb is rendered ajna;
mevson . . . kai; ajna; mevson.4 However, although there are a large number of
Semitisms in John’s apocalypse,5 if in this case we were dealing with the Hebrew
idiom ˜ybw . . . ˜yb one would expect John to have used the phrase ajna; mevson
rather than ejn mevsw/. For while ˜ybw . . . ˜yb is often rendered in the LXX with ajna;
mevson . . . kai; ajna; mevson, it is never translated by ejn mevsw/. The closest thing to an
exception to this in the LXX appears in Ezek 10.7, where ˜yb but not ˜ybw . . . ˜yb, is
rendered by ejn mevsw/. This is the only such occurrence in the whole of the LXX.
The solitary ˜yb in the sense of ‘between’ or ‘among’ is often rendered by ejk
mevsou (e.g. Hos 2.4; Zech 6.1; 9.7), but not by ejn mvesw/, except in Ezek 10.7 as noted
above. On the other hand, ajna; mevson as a rendering for both ˜ybw . . . ˜yb and the
solitary ˜yb is ubiquitous throughout the LXX. Third, ejn mevsw/ could be rendered
with the less precise meaning of ‘among, with’.6 This would produce a rendering
2 D. Aune, Revelation (WBC 52ABC; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1997–8) 1. 351–2. So also G. B. Caird,
A Commentary on the Revelation of St John the Divine (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1966)
75–6.
3 BAGD3, 635.
4 R. H. Charles, in his commentary A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Revelation of
St. John (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) 1.140, argues for this understanding.
5 On the semitisms in Revelation, see Charles, Revelation, 1.cxlii–clii, and Aune, Revelation,
1.cxcix–cciii.
6 Aune, Revelation, 1.351–2.
530  . 
like ‘I saw beside the throne a lamb . . .’ or ‘I saw amongst the throne complex a
lamb . . .’. Aune opts for this latter alternative. He admits that Christ elsewhere in
Revelation sits on the divine throne, but he points to v. 7, in which the Lamb h\lqen
kai; ei[lhfen ªto; biblivonº ejk th`~ dexia`~ tou` kaqhmevnou ejpi; tou` qrovnou. Aune
feels that this suggests that the Lamb must be at some remove from him who sits
on the throne, and so cannot be on the throne itself.7 This, at first sight, seems rea-
sonable enough. It does not, however, explain why John would use two very simi-
lar constructions, ajna; mevson at 7.17 and ejn mevsw/ here, in very similar contexts and
referring to the same reality (oJ qrovno~), but intending to convey two rather differ-
ent meanings. Moreover, given the nature of John’s Greek, for him to write h\lqen
kai; ei[lhfen when he meant something like ejxevteinen th;n cei`ra aujtou` kai;
ei[lhfen is not at all impossible. Consider, for example, his use of divdwmi at 3.8 and
3.9 when one would have expected tivqhmi and poievw, respectively;8 his use of
divdwmi at 8.3 in place of the more expected ajnafevrw; the odd ajph`lqa in 10.9 when
a simple h\lqon would have better communicated his intended meaning; the
equally odd ejkbavllw for ‘neglect’ or ‘reject’ in 11.2; and his very fluid use of the
verb poievw (e.g. 12.15; 13.5; 12, 15; 17.17; 21.27). All this means that we must expect
John’s Greek to be rough in places and not to read too much into it when it is.
Finally, of these three possible meanings of ejn mevsw/ tou` qrovnou, that which
accords best with the clear sense of similar passages in the Revelation (3.21, 7.17
and 22.1, 3) is obviously the first. As the others, for the reasons just stated, do not
commend themselves, it is the one which should therefore be chosen unless a
strong reason against it can be presented.
II
It can, I think, be shown that this meaning, that the Lamb is situated at the
centre of the throne itself, accords best with John’s overall portrait of the heavenly
throne-room. It has been suggested by Robert G. Hall that the four living creatures
should be understood as living, constituent components of the throne.9 Late
midrashic evidence (CantR 3.10.4; PRE 4) shows that such an understanding was
at least current in the early medieval period.10 Hall argues that John has
7 This same reasoning has moved Caird (Revelation, 75–6) to opt for the second option listed
above.
8 According to Charles (Revelation, 1.87–8) and Aune (Revelation, 1.229–230) both these
examples are semitisms.
9 R. G. Hall, ‘Living Creatures in the Midst of the Throne: another Look at Revelation 4:6’, NTS
36 (1990) 609–13.
10 PRE dates from the eighth or ninth centuries, CantR from the middle of the sixth. See H. L.
Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1991) 342–3, 356–7.
constructed his depiction of the divine throne on the basis of the description of
the cover of the ark of the covenant in Exod 25.17–22 and 37.6–9, as well as the
usually mentioned theophanies of Isa 6, Ezek 1, 1 Enoch 14, etc. The ark of the
covenant was already understood to be God’s throne in OT times (Jer 3.16–17; cf.
also 1 Sam 4.4; 2 Sam 6.2; 2 Kings 19.15; Pss 80.1; 99.1). On the basis of the apoca-
lyptic assumption that earthly realities reflect and parallel heavenly ones, it would
be a natural move for an apocalyptic seer such as John to conclude from the OT
passages just cited that the heavenly throne had living, animate cherubim, or in
John’s terminology ‘living creatures’ (zw`a / ), engraved or sculpted onto it, just as
the ark-cover/throne in the Jerusalem temple had had images of cherubim
sculpted on it. This was certainly the line of reasoning that led to the description
of the divine throne in the midrashic passages cited by Hall. If Hall is right, and I
believe he is, then this produces a more than plausible explanation for John’s lan-
guage in Rev 5.6. The Lamb is in the midst both of the throne and of the living
creatures, because the latter are engraved or sculpted onto the throne itself. Since
the thrones of the 24 elders are situated around the central divine throne (4.4), the
Lamb is not only ejn mevsw/ of it, he is also ejn mevsw/ of the elders. This also clarifies
what John means in 4.6 when he says that the four living creatures are both ejn
mevsw/ tou` qrovnou kai; kuvklw/ tou` qrovnou.
However, there is one glaring weakness with this proposal. Hall can offer no
evidence contemporary to, or earlier than, John for such a conception of the heav-
enly throne, in which animated cherubim are attached to and function as living
components of the throne. In Ezekiel the cherubim are beneath the throne, not,
at least not explicitly, a part of it. In Isaiah the seraphim hover around the throne.
Hall does point to a passage in Josephus (Ant. 3.137) in which the latter asserts that
‘Moses says that he saw [the cherubim] sculptured upon the throne of God’.11
There is, of course, no statement to this effect in the Pentateuch and Josephus
either had in mind a tradition such as we find later in the Midrashim or he inferred
it from Exod 25.8–9, 40; 26.30; 27.8, where Moses is commanded to construct the
tabernacle according to the plan he had been shown on the mountain.12 Either
way, it is not clear that Josephus or his contemporaries made the leap and con-
cluded that the heavenly throne was constructed of animate, living cherubim.
There is nothing in Josephus’s language which requires anything more than inan-
imate figures or sculptures.
11 Mwush`~ dev fhsi tw`/ qrovnw`/ tou` qeou` prostupei`~ eJwrakevnai. Translation from H. St. J.
Thackeray (trans.), Josephus (LCL; London: Harvard University, 1930).
12 Thackeray, following Weill, in a note in his Loeb edition suggests that Josephus inferred this
from Ezek 10.1. This seems to me less likely. If Josephus derived this insight from the text of
Ezekiel, why attribute it to Moses?
532  . 
III
There is, nonetheless, varied evidence neglected by Hall which suggests

that such a conception of the heavenly throne does indeed reach back into the
Second Temple period. There is, first, some archaeological evidence which
demonstrates that thrones, of both heavenly gods and earthly monarchs,13 could
at times be constructed out of images of animals, whether real or mythological.
Second, there are a number of texts which seem to assert or assume that Yahweh’s
heavenly throne was made of cherubim or other classes of angelic beings. The
former category of evidence, by its very nature, is of limited value: for the throne
of an earthly monarch could never have been constructed with actual cherubim
or sphinxes and we will never know whether the image carved on stone of a heav-
enly throne was intended to portray living, animate cherubim, lions or sphinxes,
or merely their images. This being the case, I will only survey briefly the archaeo-
logical evidence and then focus on the textual evidence.
In two of the clearest examples of ancient Near Eastern thrones with images,
both from Syria-Palestine, a complete image of a sphinx constitutes virtually the
entire side of a throne. In a Late Bronze or Early Iron Age ivory from Megiddo a
king or prince sits on such a sphinx-throne and drinks wine from a bowl while cel-
ebrating a military victory.14 In addition, the sarcophagus of King Ahiram of Byblos
includes on one side an image of Ahiram sitting on a throne remarkably like the
one pictured on the Megiddo ivory.15 In both the carving on the ivory and the
bas-relief on the sarcophagus only one side to the throne is visible, but it is prob-
able that a similar image appeared on the other side of the throne. A number of
other ancient Near Eastern carvings, and in one case an actual throne itself,16 have
been preserved in which heads of lions,17 heads of bulls,18 lions’ feet,19 whole
13 Although it should be remembered that ancient Near Eastern kings were often thought to be
in some sense divine.
14 See J. B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, 2nd edn
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1969) fig. 332 (hereafter ANEP). According to Pritchard,
the ivory was dated by its excavator to 1350–1150 .
15 Pritchard, ANEP, figs. 456–459, esp. 458. According to Pritchard, this sarcophagus has been
dated to the thirteenth century .
16 Tut-ankh-Amon’s throne, which has feet which resemble the feet of lions, two lions’ heads at
the two front corners of the seat and arms made out of winged serpents. See Pritchard, ANEP,
figs. 415–417. Tut-ankh-Amon’s dates are 1361–1352 .
17 Cf. the poorly preserved stella which pictures Gudea of Lagash being led into the presence of
an enthroned deity, on whose throne a clearly visible lion’s head appears just below the arm
rest; Pritchard, ANEP, fig. 513. According to Pritchard, the stella is from the ‘beginning of the
twenty-first century’.
18 Cf. the bas-relief of King Bar Rakab, from the second half of the eighth century; Pritchard,
ANEP, fig. 460.
19 Cf. the carving of an enthroned deity, perhaps El, from thirteenth-century Ras Shamra;
Pritchard, ANEP, fig. 493.
lions,20 human figures21 or various mythological creatures22 appear as constituent

parts of the thrones. A number of these recall the description of Solomon’s throne
in 1 Kgs 10.18–20 (cf. also 2 Chr 9.17–19), the original text of which included men-
tion not only of 14 lions but also of the head of a calf.23 There may well be other
examples of ancient thrones constructed of images of animals or mythological
creatures unknown to me. Those just noted, however, are sufficient to establish
that such a conception of a throne was very ancient and could have been known
to John. The one scriptural example, in fact, guarantees this. We cannot, however,
determine whether any of these creatures were ever thought of as living or ani-
mate.
I turn now to the textual evidence, which, as stated above, holds more prom-
ise for my search for cherubim which are both constituent components of a heav-
enly throne and animate. The earliest such text occurs in Enoch’s vision of God
enthroned in a heavenly sanctuary (1 Enoch 14.18). The Ethiopic is corrupt here
and the Greek is difficult, but both clearly mention cherubim in connection with
the divine throne.24
Ethiopic
And I looked and saw in that place a lofty throne; and its appearance was
like ice and its wheel like the shining sun, and (there was) a voice of
cherubim (wa-qāla kirubēn).25
Greek
∆Eqewvroun de; kai; ei\don qrovnon uJyhlovn, kai; to; ei\do~ aujtou` wJsei;
krustavllinon, kai; troco;~ wJ~ hJlivou lavmponto~ kai; oro~ ceroubivn.
Now, the Greek manuscript is from the sixth century and, as most Greek texts of
that age, does not have accent or breathing marks. It reads oro~ ceroubin, which
20 Cf. the cylinder seal of Ishtar enthroned, from c. 2360–2180 ; Pritchard, ANEP, fig. 525.
21 Cf. Sennacherib’s throne as it appears in the bas-relief which recounts the siege and con-
quest of Lachish, seventh century ; Pritchard, ANEP, fig. 371.
22 Cf. the carving of Shamash enthroned, mid-ninth century  (Pritchard, ANEP, fig. 529); and
the relief in living rock at Maltaya which includes an enthroned goddess, variously identified
as Ninlil or Ishtar of Nineveh, possibly carved under Sennacherib (Pritchard, ANEP, fig. 537).
Cf. also the fourth century  Jewish coin in which a bearded figure (Yahweh?) sits upon a
winged wheel and holds a falcon in one hand (Pritchard, ANEP, fig. 226).
23 Cf. LXX; and Josephus, Ant. 8.140. Cf. also the comments of J. A. Montgomery and H. S.
Gehman, The Books of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951) and J. Gray, I & II Kings, 2nd
edn (OTL; London: SCM, 1970) 263, n.g.
24 Little, if any, of the Aramaic of this verse has been preserved. Milik (J. T. Milik [with the col-
laboration of M. Black], The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 [Oxford:
Clarendon, 1976] 199–200) finds on a very tiny fragment, fragment k of 4Q204 (4QEnc), the
central letters of the word ‘Cherubim’: ˜¿y_bwr_?k. The decipherment and placing of this frag-
ment, however, is far from certain.
25 Unless stated otherwise, the rather literal translations of Ethiopic in this article are my own.
534  . 
is usually taken to be o[ro~ ceroubivn (a mountain of cherubim), which is clearly

impossible and so is often emended.26 Milik, however, has proposed an under-
standing of the Greek which would support Hall’s hypothesis. He suggests the
intention of the Greek translator was o{roi ceroubivn in the sense of ‘boundaries or
sides (made of) cherubim’.27 For this to be correct, Milik must posit a scribal cor-
rection of the plural oroi into the singular oro~. Milik suggests that the ‘Greek
copyist . . . was probably thinking of the back of the throne (as) almost circular or
at the very least curved’28 and thus felt that the singular was more correct than the
plural. This is not as unlikely as it may at first seem, for the same kind of scribal
improvement appears to have taken place earlier in the same verse. The parallel
in Dan 7.9, to say nothing of Ezek 1.15–21, suggests that the original text spoke of
the throne’s wheels,29 but this has been changed to the singular troco~ in the
Greek manuscript, a reading which was then also carried over into the Ethiopic
translation. Apparently, the Greek scribe did not know of the ancient tradition
that the divine throne was mobile, and thus needed wheels (Ezek 1; Dan 7.9), and
so mistook the meaning to be ‘the circle of the throne was like the shining sun’.
If this emendation, or something like it, is correct then we must conclude that
in Enoch’s vision the divine throne was in all probability constructed of living,
animate cherubim. For the only other reference to cherubim in this vision, 14.11,
implies that they are constituent parts of the ceiling of the first room Enoch passes
through on his way to the throne-room:
Ethiopic
The ceiling was as a path of stars and lightning and in their midst were fiery
cherubim and their heaven was water.
Greek
kai; aiJ stevgai wJ~ diadromai; ajstevrwn kai; ajstrapaiv, kai; metaxu; aujtw`n
ceroubi;n puvrina, kai; oujrano;~ aujtw`n u{dwr.
This notice seems to indicate that the ceiling of the ‘first house’, or outer sanctu-
ary of the heavenly temple, was constructed of something like shooting stars and
flashes of lightning and that in the midst of these heavenly luminaries there were
cherubim. The description of the cherubim as puvrina (Eth: za-’esāt), especially
26 R. H. Charles, for example, suggests o{rasi~, ‘a vision of cherubim’. See his The Book of Enoch
or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912) 34; and idem, The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1906) 39.
27 Milik, Books of Enoch, 199–200. Cf. also M. Black’s discussion in his The Book of Enoch or 1
Enoch: A New English Edition (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 149. Black first considers and then
rejects Milik’s suggestion. Cf. the Megiddo ivory and Ahiram’s sarcophagus described above!
Milik does not mention these, but they fit his suggestion perfectly.
28 Cf. the Massoretic pointing of 1 Kgs 10.19.
29 So also Milik, Books of Enoch, 199–200, and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 258.
when it is remembered that the heavenly temple is entirely constructed of fire and
ice and does not merely look like fire and ice (14.9–10, 12, 15, 17), strongly suggests
that we must conclude that these ceiling cherubim are living, animated beings. If
the ceiling of one part of the heavenly sanctuary is constructed of living cherubim,
it would not be incredible to find living cherubim elsewhere among the temple’s
furniture. Indeed, the most likely inspiration for this detail concerning the outer
sanctuary’s ceiling is certainly to be found in 1 Kgs 6.29, where we read that
Solomon had the walls of both the inner and the outer sanctuaries carved with
‘engravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers’. Of course, the same is
true of the cherubim in the second house: they correspond either to the cherubim
which Solomon had made for the inner sanctuary (1 Kgs 6.23–8), or to the cheru-
bim which are constituent parts of the cover of the ark of the covenant (Exod
25.17–22; 37.6–9), or – and this is the most likely explanation – to a harmonisation
of the two. In other words, the same biblical text or texts which later inspired the
Midrashim also stand behind Enoch’s vision in the Book of Watchers.
To be sure, Milik’s emendation is not without its difficulties; until or unless
more textual evidence emerges, certainty will not be possible. Nonetheless, the
logic which suggests that the ceiling cherubim and the throne cherubim share the
same nature makes it, I think, very likely that the latter are to be regarded as living
and animated. Their precise relationship to the throne is, admittedly, less certain.
The problematic Greek text, and the original Aramaic text that lay behind it, may
admit other solutions.30 Moreover the author of this vision may – although I think
this less likely – have had in mind only the cherubim of 1 Kgs 6.23–8, which were
not attached to the throne, and not those of Exod 25.17–22; 37.6–9. At the very least,
the author of this vision understood some living, animate cherubim to be closely
associated with the divine throne, while other living, animate cherubim were part
of the fabric of the ceiling of the outer sanctuary. If we cannot be certain that the
throne cherubim were also part of the throne’s fabric, it would seem to be more
probable than not. If this is correct, then we have in 1 Enoch 14.18 evidence in the
Jewish apocalyptic tradition, centuries before John, that God’s heavenly throne
was constructed of living cherubim.
Moving on to further textual evidence from the Second Temple period, it is
generally accepted that the fragmentary Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice conceived
of a heavenly sanctuary constructed of angelic beings. I cite two of the clearest
passages.
30 E.g. Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 258 n. 18c) thinks the Greek original may have been ou\roi,
‘guardians’, and that this was translated into Ethiopic as ‘uqābē, which was subsequently
misunderstood as waqāla, ‘through the confusion of the letters b and l’. However, Knibb
(‘Interpreting the Book of Enoch: Reflections on a Recently Published Commentary’, JSJ 33
[2202] 437–50, esp. 445) points out that ‘ ‘uqābē is fulakhv not fuvlax’ and that while the con-
fusion of b and l are plausible, ‘the loss of the ‘ayin is much harder to explain’.
536  . 
And from the likeness [of gods (comes) a so]und of blessing for the king of
those who exalt, and their wonderful praise is for the God of the divinities
[. . .] their multi-colouredness. And they sing [. . .] the vestibules of their
entrances, spirits of the inner sanctum of the holy of holies [. . .] eternal.
[The likene]ss of the living gods is engraved in the vestibules (through
which) the king enters, figures of radiant spirits . . . (4Q405 14–15 i.2–5).31
Al[l] their [constructions are] of holy things wonderfully embroidered [. . .]
multi-coloured [. . .fi]gures of effigies of gods, engraved around their
[gl]orious brickwork, glorious effigies of the br[ick]work of splendour and
maje[sty]. Living gods are all their construction, and the images of their
figures are holy angels. Beneath the wonderful in[ner shrines] is the calm
sound of murmur of go[d]s blessing [. . .] the king [. . . (4Q405 19 5–8 11Q17
vi.5–7).32
In these two texts, even though both are rather fragmentary, it appears that the
various engraved likenesses ‘of the living gods’ and ‘figures of radiant spirits’
actively praise the King, ‘the God of the divinities’. Later, in 4Q405 23 i.9, the gates
of the temple ‘declare the glory of the King’. Carol Newsom, the editor of the Shirot
fragments, comments: ‘The heavenly temple, being of an animate, spiritual, fiery
substance . . . is adorned with spirits who praise when the King enters.’33 Although
no portion of the extant text of the Shirot describes the constituent components of
the throne itself, if the author of the Shirot thought the rest of the heavenly temple
was constructed of angelic beings, it is plausible he would have held the same for
the throne as well. There are significant hints, elsewhere in the Shirot, which sup-
port such a conclusion. First, the frequently mentioned ‘wonderful vault’ ([yqr
alp; 4Q405 19 3) or ‘vault of the cherubim’ (µybwrkh [yqr; 405 20 ii–21–22.8) are
probably to be regarded as the firmament on which, according to Ezek 1.26, the
divine throne is situated.34 Second, two very fragmentary passages, one from near
the end of the eleventh song (4Q405 20 ii–21–22.3–4 11Q17 vii.5–6) and the other
from near the beginning of the twelfth (4Q405 20 ii–21–22.7–10 11Q17 vii.10–13),
closely associate cherubim with the divine throne. In the former, a lacuna of
approximately 8–12 letters separate ‘his glorious chariots’ (wdwbk twbkrm) from the
31 µtwmqwr µ[. . .]µyla lal µhyalp llhw µymmwrm ˚lml ˚rb lw?q µyhwla¿ twmdmw
µyhwla t?wmdw¿ µymlw[ [. . .]b µyçdwq çdwq brwq yjwr µhyawbm ymlwa .[. . .] wnnrw
. . .µyrwa jwr yndb ˚lm yawbm ymlab jtwpm µyyj. Text and translation of Qumran texts
are cited from F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition
(Leiden: Brill, 1997–8).
32 bybs yqqwjm µyhwla twrwx ynd?b ¿h{tw}mqwr[. . .]alp yqbd yç?dw¿q µh?yç[m ¿l?w¿k
twrwxw µhyç[m lwk µyyh µyhwla ?r¿dhw dwh y?nb¿l yç[ml dwkk twrwx µdwb?k¿ ynbll
. . .[. . .] µykrbm µ?yhw¿la fqç tmmd lwq alph ?yryb¿dl tjtm çdwq ykalm µhyndb
. . . ˚lmh≥
33 C. Newson, ‘Shirot ‘Olat HaShabbat’, in Qumran Cave 4 VI (DJD XI; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998)
333.
34 Cf. ibid., 340.
‘holy cherubim, shining ophanim’ ( rwa ynpwa çdwq ybwrk). Too little of the con-
text has remained to hazard a guess as to how the sentence originally ran, but the
close proximity of the cherubim to the merkavah is noteworthy. The latter text is
better preserved and consequently more revealing. It records that
the [cheru]bim fall down before him, and bl[es]s. When they rise the
murmuring sound of gods [is heard,] and there is an uproar of exultation
when they lift their wings, the [murmur]ing sound of gods. They bless the
image of the throne chariot (which is) above the vault of the cherubim,
[and] they sing [the splen]dour of the shining vault (which is) beneath the
seat of his glory. And when the ophanim move forward, the holy angels
return; <they emerge from between> its glorious [wh]eels with the likeness
of fire, the spirits of the holy of holies.35
Here the author, dependent on the opening vision of Ezekiel, clearly envisions the
cherubim as animate, for they ‘fall down’ in worship and bless the One who sits
upon the throne, as well as the throne itself.36 They are also situated under the
throne, for they are under the ‘shining vault’ which is ‘beneath the seat of his
glory’.37 It is not explicitly stated that they are also constituent parts of the throne,
but that would seem to be a valid inference from the mention of the ophanim. The
‘ophanim’, of course, are the wheels of the throne-chariot or merkavah of
Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek 1.15–21). In the Shirot they have become a class of angelic
beings, the animate or living wheels of the divine throne. While it is possible to
read the text just quoted as if the ophanim (µynpwa) and ‘the glorious wheels’
(wdwbk ylglg) represented different beings,38 given their identification in Ezek
35 µwrb hnr ˜wmhw ?[mçn¿ µyhwla tmmd lwq µmwrhb wk?r¿bw µyb?wrk¿h wnpl ?w¿lwpy
d?whw¿ µybwrkh [yqrl l[mm µykrbm hbkrm ask tynbt µyhwla t?mmd ¿lwq µhypnk
(˜ybm waxy) çdwq ykalm wbwçy µynpwah tklbw wdwbk bçwm tjtm{m} wnnry rwah [yqr
µyçdwq çdwq twjwr ça yarmk wdwbk ylgl?g¿. The words in parentheses represent a cor-
rection by the editors. Apparently both 4Q405 and 11Q17 read here ˜ybmw axy, although the
latter Ms is lacunose and only part of the two words has been preserved.
36 Interestingly, in Rev 5.8, 7.11 and 19.4 the four living creatures fall down in worship either
before the Lamb or ‘the One who sits on the throne’ or both. Cf. also 5.11, 14; 6.1, 3, 5, 7; 15.7.
37 J. R. Davila (Liturgical Works [ECDSS; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000] 151), taking ‘the vault of
the cherubim’ as different from ‘the shining vault’, suggests that ‘perhaps . . . the cherubim
dwell beneath the throne and on top of the firmament’. It is more natural to suggest that both
vaults stand for the same reality and to locate the throne above the vault and the vault above
the cherubim.
38 So P. Alexander, ‘3 Enoch’, OTP 1.249. Davila, Liturgical Works, 151–2, entertains such a possi-
bility without, however, committing himself. Both point to parallels in hekhalot literature
(e.g. 3 Enoch 6.2 §9; 19.2, 7 §30; 25.5–7 §40) where the ophanim and galalim are distinguished.
Nonetheless, even when the later hekhalot literature understands the two terms to refer to
two different classes of angels, it continues to identify both with wheels of the heavenly char-
iot (so galalim; 3 Enoch 19.7 §30) or wheel-like phenomena (so ophanim; 3 Enoch 25.5; §40).
See Alexander, ‘3 Enoch’, OTP 1.276 n. 19c for the different uses and understandings of galgal
in hekhalot literature.
538  . 
10.6, 9–13 it is not improbable that they are to be identified here as well. If the
author of the Shirot envisioned the heavenly temple as constructed out of living,
animate angelic beings, and if the wheels of the throne also constituted a class of
angelic beings, it is not at all likely that he viewed the throne itself as inanimate.
Moreover, it should not be overlooked that the transformation of the divine
throne’s wheels into a class of angels was not unique to the Songs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice. We encounter the same phenomenon in the Similitudes of Enoch and 2
Enoch. In the former, the ophanim are listed among the various classes of angels:
cherubim, seraphim, ophanim, angels of power, angels of principalities,39 and the
various other powers which are over the created phenomena in earth and the sea
(61.10). The concluding vision of the Similitudes again mentions the ophanim in
connection with the cherubim and seraphim. Moreover, this last text posits a
close relationship between the ophanim and the divine throne: ‘And around (the
heavenly temple) were the seraphim and the cherubim and the ophanim, these
are they who sleep not and who guard the throne of His glory’ (71.7). The text does
not specifically state that any of these three classes of angels are actually part of
the fabric of the throne, and, in the mind of the author, they may not be. In other
words, we may have here a development towards understanding the ophanim,
like the seraphim in Isa 6, as nothing more than a class of angels who while closely
related to the throne are no longer considered to be a part of it, their origin as the
wheels of the throne no longer remembered. Nonetheless, even if this were true,
their origin as wheels and their transformation into angelic beings testifies to the
pattern of thought I am here investigating, that which considered the various
parts of the heavenly temple and especially the divine throne as being made up of
living, animate beings.40 Similarly, in 2 Enoch we seem to have a vague remem-
brance of the ophanim. 2 or Slavonic Enoch is admittedly a text which is extremely
difficult to date and could be quite late, but it certainly contains early material.41
Although their texts differ, at 20.1 both the long and the short recensions mention
‘the shining otanim (one Ms: ofanim) stations’, which recalls the rwa ynpwa of
4Q405 20ii–21–22.3. In addition, like 1 Enoch 61.10, the ophanim are included in a
list of the various classes of angels: archangels, incorporeal forces, dominions, ori-
gins ( ajrcaiv), authorities, cherubim, seraphim, many-eyed thrones, and shining
ophanim (2 Enoch 20.1).42 Thus, we have varied evidence that in the Second
39 The Ethiopic ’agā’zet renders kuriovthte~ at both Eph 1.21 and Col 1.16.
40 I do not consider chapter 71 to be original to the Similitudes, but a later addition.
Nevertheless, it still, in all probability, stems from the Second Temple period and should,
consequently, be considered as evidence. Indeed, if I am right it perhaps counts as evidence
independent of the Similitudes.
41 So F. I. Andersen, ‘2 Enoch’, OTP 1.94–7; idem, ‘Enoch, Second Book of’, ABD 2.517–22.
42 So the long recension. The short recension lists only incorporeal ones, archangels, angels
and shining ophanim.
Temple period the wheels of the divine throne had developed into a class of
angels. If the wheels of the chariot which bears the throne could be thought of as
animate, then it is not at all unlikely that other portions of the throne could be so
conceived.
IV
All the evidence considered thus far, with the possible exception of the
Similitudes of Enoch and 2 Enoch, are earlier than the Revelation of John.43 There
is good reason, however, to suppose that the conception of a throne constructed
of living, animate angelic beings continued to have a certain currency in Jewish
and Christian circles contemporary with and after the composition of John’s
apocalypse. For example, it could well be assumed by a passage in the Apocalypse
of Abraham. When the Patriarch stands before the divine throne, he sees under
it the four living creatures or cherubim of Ezekiel’s vision singing praise to the
Deity (18.1–3). Curiously, when their song is ended ‘they would look at one
another and threaten one another’ (18.8).44 This causes the archangel Yahoel to
run forward to the cherubim, to turn ‘the face of each living creature from the
face which was opposite it so that they could not see each other’s faces threaten-
ing each other. And he taught them the song of peace which the Eternal One has
in himself’ (18.9–11; cf. 10.9). The presupposed stationary, indeed immovable,
stance of the cherubim here would be difficult to explain except for our
tradition.45
An interesting, if very late, bit of evidence shows up in the Nag Hammadi trac-
tate On the Origin of the World. It records that Sabaoth
created a throne, which was huge and was upon a four-faced chariot called
‘Cherubin.’ Now the Cherubin has eight shapes per each of the four
corners, lion forms and calf forms and human forms and eagle forms, so
that all the forms amount to sixty-four forms – and (he created) seven
archangels that stand before it; he is the eighth, and has authority. All the
forms amount to seventy-two. Furthermore from this chariot the seventy-
two gods took shape; they took shape so that they might rule over the
43 However, both the Similitudes and 2 Enoch could be earlier than John. I believe the former
probably belongs to the first century ; the latter is much more difficult to date and could
be substantially later than John.
44 R. Rubinkiewicz’s translation from OTP, 1.681–705.
45 The Apocalypse of Abraham probably dates from the last decades of the first or opening
decades of the second century. So e.g. Rubinkiewicz, OTP 1.683; G. H. Box (with J. I.
Landsman), The Apocalypse of Abraham (London: SPCK, 1918) xv–xvi. Cf. also J. J. Collins, The
Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd edn
(Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998) 225–32, and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the
Bible and the Mishnah (London: SCM, 1981) 294–9.
540  . 
seventy-two languages of the peoples. And by that throne he created other,

serpent-like angels, called ‘Saraphin’, which praise him at all times.
(104.35–105.19).46
This Gnostic treatise may be as late as the early fourth century, but it presupposes
knowledge of Jewish apocalyptic literature.47 Our tradition concerning the divine
throne has been made to serve Gnostic cosmological speculation, but its original
form is still discernible. The throne-chariot is constructed of ‘Cherubin’, and their
animate, living nature is betrayed in the fact that the 72 gods of the nations ‘took
shape’ from the chariot itself.
A final text supplies uncertain but, I think, probable evidence for our tra-
dition. In the Song of the Three Young Men, preserved in the Greek versions of the
book of Daniel, Azariah and his companions sing the following to God while in the
fiery furnace:
Blessed art thou in the temple of thy holy glory
and to be extolled and highly glorified for ever.
Blessed art thou, who sittest upon the cherubim and lookest upon the deeps
and to be praised and highly exalted for ever.
Blessed art thou upon the throne of thy kingdom
and to be extolled and highly exalted for ever.
Blessed art thou in the firmament of heaven
and to be sung and glorified for ever. (Dan 3.53–6 LXX)48
This liturgical piece, of uncertain date,49 is clearly dependent upon similar lan-
guage found in the Psalter. It is often remarked that the second section, vv. 57–90
in the LXX, in which various orders of creation are called upon to praise Yahweh,
recalls Ps 148, and that the repeated refrains in both sections recall Ps 136.50 The
phrase ‘thou who sittest upon the cherubim’ echoes similar expressions else-
where in the Psalter:
46 Translation from J. M. Robinson (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library, rev. edn (Leiden: Brill,
1988).
47 So H.-G. Bethge, in Robinson, Nag Hammadi, 170–1.
48 The translation is the RSV. For the text, Theodotion reads: eujloghmevno~ ei\ ejn tw`/ naw`/ th`~
aJgiva~ dovxh~ sou kai; uJperumnhto;~ kai; uJperevndoxo~ eij~ tou;~ aijw`na~. eujloghmevno~ ei\ oJ
ejpiblevpwn ajbuvssou~ kaqhvmeno~ ejpi; ceroubin, kai; aijneto;~ kai; uJperuyouvmeno~ eij~ tou;~
aijw`na~. eujloghmevno~ ei\ ejpi; qrovnou th`~ basileiva~ sou kai; uJperumnhto;~ kai;
uJperuyouvmeno~ eij~ tou;~ aijw`na~. eujloghmevno~ ei\ ejn tw`/ sterewvmati tou` oujranou` kai;
uJmnhto;~ kai; dedoxasmevno~ eij~ tou;~ aijw`na~. The Old Greek version is very similar.
49 See J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 207 for a discussion of date.
50 So e.g. Collins, Daniel, 207; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 29; and B. M. Metzger, An
Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University, 1957) 103.
Thou who art enthroned upon the cherubim, shine forth! (80.2)
The LORD reigns; let the peoples tremble! He sits enthroned upon the
cherubim; let the earth quake! (99.1).51
Moreover, the possible influence of Ps 29.9–10 on these verses is not to be missed.

The detail that in God’s temple all are crying ‘Glory!’ (Ps 29.9b) parallels v. 53,
while the notice that Yahweh sits enthroned over the flood (Ps 29.10a), even if the
original reference was to the primeval deluge at the time of Noah, recalls v. 54:
‘who . . . lookest upon the deeps’.52
The language of these verses from the Song of the Three Young Men leaves
little doubt that a heavenly setting is in view. The collocation of references to
Yahweh’s temple, to the cherubim, to the abysses or deeps, to the throne and to
the firmament of heaven points to such a conclusion. An interpretation which
finds here an allusion to the sanctuary in Jerusalem must ignore ‘the abysses’ and
‘the firmament of heaven’, while all are explicable if the heavenly temple is
intended.53 Consequently, the cherubim on which the Deity is enthroned must be
a part of the heavenly throne. It is not clear that they are animate, but such is not
an improbable supposition. Given what we have discovered in 1 Enoch 14.11–18, the
Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, the Similitudes of Enoch, 2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of
Abraham and On the Origin of the World, it would seem more likely that the men-
tion of cherubim in a heavenly setting would have been regarded as a reference to
animate and living cherubim, rather than to inanimate and lifeless ones.
VI
The cumulative effect of the archaeological evidence for ancient Near

Eastern thrones, 1 Enoch 14.18, the Sabbath Shirot, the ophanim in the Similitudes,
the Shirot and 2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham 18, Dan 3.53–6 LXX and
Josephus’s statement cited by Hall, strongly suggests a widespread tradition,
already established when John wrote, that the heavenly throne contained as living
components cherubim, which were ‘engraved or sculpted’ into the very fabric of
the throne itself. If this is accepted, then the peculiar language of Rev 4.6b and 5.6
strongly suggests that John was aware of this tradition. The conclusion would
51 I cite the RSV translation.

52 Cf. also 1 Clement 59.3. The reference to ‘all waters above the heavens’ (3.60 LXX) suggests
that ‘the deeps’ at least included the heavenly ocean.
53 So C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions (AB 44; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1977) 69–70; and, hesitantly, W. H. Bennet, ‘The Prayer of Azariah and the Song
of the Three Children’, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (ed. R. H.
Charles; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 1.635; and R. J. Hammer, ‘The Apocryphal Additions to
Daniel’, The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha (J. C. Dancy et al.; CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1972) 221. Contra Collins, Daniel, 205.
542  . 
appear to be inescapable: Rev 5.6 can only mean that the Lamb stands on the
centre of the throne surrounded by the cherubim, who constitute the sides of the
throne, and by the 24 elders, whose thrones surround the central divine throne.
Thus, I would contend that Rev 5.6 is best understood as another instance in
which John situates Christ on the throne of God.
View publication stats

Hannah of Cherubimandthe Divine Throne NTS49

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hannah of Cherubimandthe Divine Throne NTS49

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Of Cherubim and the Divine Throne: Rev 5.6 in Context

Article in New Testament Studies · October 2003

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Of Cherubim and the Divine Throne: Rev 5.6

There is, nonetheless, varied evidence neglected by Hall which suggests

lions,20 human figures21 or various mythological creatures22 appear as constituent

is usually taken to be o[ro~ ceroubivn (a mountain of cherubim), which is clearly

seventy-two languages of the peoples. And by that throne he created other,

Moreover, the possible influence of Ps 29.9–10 on these verses is not to be missed.

The cumulative effect of the archaeological evidence for ancient Near

51 I cite the RSV translation.

You might also like