TEMPLE PRACTICES AMONG
OTHER ANE PEOPLES
Temple as Microcosm
A common thread among temple practices of
the ANE is their belief in the temple as a microcosm. The lack of distinction between politics and
religion in the ancient world contributed to an incomparable significance of
the role of the temples. Their role in
the divine interaction of every day life caused them to take center-stage in
the lives of the ancients. The temple of
the gods were small representations on earth for the sake of the gods and
everything they signified. John Walton
speaks of the temple, “It was considered the center of power, control, and
order from which deity brings order to the human world. Fertility, prosperity, peace, and justice
emanate from his (the god) presence there.”[1] An example is taken from the Akkadian god
Ningirsu who promises, “when you bring your hand to bear for me, I will cry out
to heaven for rain…with the founding of my temple, let abundance come!”[2] Walton concludes, “Therefore the temple is
not only the cosmic center, it is the economic and moral center of the cosmos.”[3] The means by which the local world will function
well is for the world of the gods to be happy and this could only occur through
temple rituals.
The centrality of focus upon the temple
and its other-worldly representation is clearly seen in Enuma Elish. The erection of Marduk’s shrine as cosmic
symbolism is believed to bring his heavenly achievements to earth, “A likeness
on earth of what he has wrought in heaven.”[4] The same microcosmic concepts can be seen in
Egypt with tributes to Amon. Greg Beale
notes, “Thutmose III restored a temple for the god Amon and made it ‘like the heavens’. And Ramses III affirmed about his god: ‘I
made for thee an august house in Nubia…the likeness of the heavens.”[5] This cosmic symbolism can be seen in temple
practices throughout the ANE. The temple
was viewed as a microcosm. It was a
small representation of the world of the gods upon the earth and thus served as
the central focus of most of ANE life.
The ANE was a world of two worlds in one. The ever-present call of man in his need for
God. The temples reflected this part of
the ANE which was the very heartbeat of culture. Nothing occurred without the gods and their
sanctuaries and there was no way to separate one from the other. Earthly ANE temples were thought to be the
houses of the gods with cosmic symbolism and their kings and priests were
divinely placed in the image of the gods to do his/her work. Claus Ambos summarizes, “A temple was
believed to be the house of a deity who lived there in the shape of his or her
cult statue and was taken care of and fed by humans. By their layout and architectural features,
the sanctuaries of the ANE expressed in many respects cosmic symbolism.”[6]
Image as Divine Symbol
Temples in the ANE were also considered
the earthly dwelling place of the gods with the kings and priests serving as
divinely placed ambassadors. It was
believed these ambassadors were placed there by the gods to rule the people and
to represent the gods on their behalf.
This divine symbol was considered a visible image of the invisible god. Hart explains, “In the ANE it was widely
believed that a god’s spirit lived in any statue or image of that god, with the
result that the image could function as a kind of representative of or substitute
for the god where it was placed. It was
also customary in the ANE to think of a king as a representative of a god;
obviously the king ruled, and the god was the ultimate ruler, so the king must
be ruling on the god’s behalf. It is
therefore not surprising that these two separate ideas became connected and a
king came to be described as an image of a god.”[7]
Greg Beale records multiple examples of
images of gods being placed in their temples throughout the ANE[8]
but here I will just mention a few.
Assyrian king Ashurbanipal II (883-859 B.C.) “created an icon of the
goddess Ishtar…and set up in (the temple) her throne platform.”[9] An Akkadian prayer describes Anu, Enlil, and
Ea devising a plan for “providing support for the gods” by building a dwelling
with the obvious presence of priests who collected this support “and the gods
were installed in this dwelling: their principal temple.”[10] The Enuma Elish records Marduk as the one who
holds the divine right of naming objects.
It is an exercise of dominion to hold such power over beings. Marduk was the patron god of the ancient
Babylonian world and kings used this to their advantage. Many of the inscriptions discovered in
ancient Mesopotamian temple sites have revealed a common name etched upon Marduk’s
temples. They were called “e.umus.a” or “house of command”[11]
which leads many to believe these temples were used as political and military
propaganda for the sake of the ones who bore the alleged divine image.
The temple practices of the ancient Hittites
dating to a period around 1600-1200 B.C. provide insight to similar views of
the king’s place in the temple.
Excavations among Hittite civilizations have provided archeological
remains including cuneiform tablets shedding light on the temple practices of
these northern Mesopotamian peoples. The
Hittites were influenced by their southern neighbors the Assyrians from whom
they most likely learned their cuneiform script. The Hittite texts also speak of temples as
“house of god” as well as “big house”.[12] Again there is the parallel in shared
expressions of a temple as the dwelling which belongs to God. The parallel to Eden is clearly seen in Adam
as the one granted authority by God to rule over the garden. We find a connection to the ancient Hittites
in the work of Susanne Gorke who states, “the religious ideology of the
Hittites…shows the king as the administrator appointed by the main gods of the
country.”[13] Just as Hittite kings were believed to be
“appointed by the gods” so Adam is appointed by God to administer His rule over
the creation. He serves in the house of
God in the image of God.
The Mosaic description of Adam is not
separated from his ANE counterparts. The
first man created by God is one who is granted authority to administer the rule
of God over His created order. Adam is
made from the dust of the earth and has the image of God placed upon and within
him in the process. Although the concept
“image of God” only appears five times in the scriptures (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1, 3;
9:6) it should not be overlooked. The
significance of the imago dei extends
well beyond a first look at these verses.
It may share further similarities with other ANE narratives regarding a
god establishing a divine representative in his or her dwelling. Kenneth Mathews states, “In the ANE royal
persons were considered the sons of the gods or representatives of the gods (2
Sam. 7:13-16; Ps. 2:7). Mankind is
appointed as God’s royal representatives (i.e. sonship) to rule the earth in
his place.”[14] Exponentially multiplied volumes have been
written on the imago dei so let me
just mention a few things in the context of this writing. The divine image is present in Adam and other
ANE narratives also set forth a similar idea although there are certain
differences. The divine image-bearer in
Genesis is culpable of damaging the very image of God he was so graciously given. Other ANE cultures do not seem to be much
concerned with that. Adam’s life is
still valuable and never to be neglected nor abused. The image of God is to be cherished and
protected in others. This type of value
placed upon human life is not common in other ANE narratives and the function
of the image seems to be quite different.
Other ANE gods wish to use man as their image to feed them and water
them whereas the God of Genesis creates and provides for every need of His
creation. The similarities exist but it
is the contrast of distinction between God’s garden-temple and the other ANE
temples that really gets us to what is most important.
The One True Temple
What
are we to do with these similarities?
How are we to understand the common practices of the ANE in light of the
revelation from the One who refers to Himself as the one and only God? Where do the commonalities begin and where do
they end? These are the types of
questions that have led many scholars to assert the author (or authors) of
Genesis borrowed from other ANE peoples and presented their own version of
events. There is at least one other
answer available to us. It is my thesis
that these shared characteristics are the result of multiplied reports of one
original narrative which is to be found in the biblical record. While I recognize many of these other narratives
predate the written copies we now possess of ANE events that does not mean that
they were the first to tell of the events.
It is entirely possible that there was one true garden-temple whose
details were passed through oral tradition and spread through various ANE
cultures. So what makes Israel’s account
the genuine article? The short answer is
the divine inspiration which guided the process from oral tradition to written
copy. The other ANE cultures were
outside of this truth except for rare occasions when some were responsive to
God’s grace and entered the one true narrative.
The chief example of this is Abraham who came out from Ur of the
Chaldees to become the focal point of the narrative through which God would
reveal His blessings to all families of the earth. I will now make my presentation for Eden as
the one true temple by which later ANE temples were based in two categories:
the temple as the house of God and kings/priests as His divinely placed image.
House
of God
The temples of the ANE were attempts to
duplicate what had been understood among the first of humanity as a temple
which was the garden of God. It was not
that Israel was projecting the temple practices of the other ANE peoples into
their culture. Rather it was that the
ANE peoples, including Israel, were striving to repeat the experience of Adam
and his immediate descendants. This
experience in the garden-temple had been transmitted orally through the
generations. The garden-sanctuary was
continually sought after by future generations no matter how distorted their
versions may have become compared to the original.
Divine dwelling in Egyptian culture
was seen in the deification of pharaohs.
Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian culture would have been the culture in which
Moses was raised. With his royal status
and education, he was well aware of the temple beliefs as they related to the
pharaohs. His choice of words is starkly
different to that of the Egyptians from which he came. Amenhotep I, whose reign extended from
1526-1506 B.C. and his partially co-regent mother, Ahmose-Nefertari were
venerated to the position of deity.
Thutmose II, who reigned from 1493-1479 B.C. was buried in a mortuary
temple that contained images of rituals relating to a royal statue on a shrine.[15] This discovery has contributed to scholarly
opinion that this is “the first proof that a royal statue was central to such a
temple’s cultus.”[16] These Egyptian kings along with others were
seen not only as kings to rule the people but they were understood as gods to
be worshipped. Byron Shafer describes
Egyptian temple beliefs, “They were spaces for performing the rituals and
erecting the symbolic architecture that transformed the king into a divine
being.”[17] The Egyptians made men to be gods. Moses recorded the story of the God who made
men. History preaches the difference of
the two. When man is made to be god or
uses religion for his own purposes kingdoms are built on the carcasses of
others. When God makes men He uses
gracious redemption to build a kingdom whose citizens love and serve others.
The Mesopotamian cultures outside of
Israel used their temples in deviant ways.
Many of them believed humans were the result of divine intercourse and
that blessings (especially fertility) came to the people through humans having
intercourse with the priests/priestesses of the gods in the temples. Sex was prominent to say the least. The garden-temple was a place for Adam and
Eve to enjoy each other in the blessing of their physical union. There is instruction for how a man and woman
should treat each other in marital fidelity and how they should interact with
their extended family. The cultures that
have been built on these Edenic principles have brought world history the most
generous and flourishing societies.
Edmund Clowney reinforces the genuine authority of Genesis 1, “All the
mythology of the nations is swept side.
Mankind does not originate in a process of divine copulation or from the
blood of a slaughtered god. A man is not
a piece of a god, nor a piecing together of god and beast. Rather, Adam and Eve are God’s creatures, but
creatures who bear His likeness.” The
people who continue to live according to His original account of how things
“ought to be” are the ones who continue to live in His likeness.
Israel was not exempt from
perverting the true use of the temple. Their
temple usage extended beyond the ANE time period. It developed from the Tabernacle to the First
Temple and then to the Second Temple which was active in the days of
Jesus. Another unfortunate shared
characteristic with other peoples is that the temple became a place for
personal financial gain. In Matthew 21
when Jesus came to the temple He found people “buying and selling” in the
temple. He overturned the tables of the
money changers drove the profiteers out and referred to them as “thieves”
(Matthew 21:12-13). Many possibilities
have been offered for why Jesus did such a thing. I would like to add to the list. Adam’s responsibility in the garden of God
was to tend it and to keep out any evil thing.
He failed by allowing the serpent to deceive his wife and took of the
forbidden fruit. It could be that Jesus
was acting as the proper Second Adam.
The temple was the house of God and He was driving out the evil from the
garden of God. Jesus succeeded where
Adam failed.
Image of God
Kings and priests in the ANE were
considered divine symbols placed in the temple as the image of god. The God of Genesis had a much more meaningful
idea. He placed His image in not only a
select few but upon every male and female He created. Waltke illuminates, “The Hebrew perspective
bears a distinct difference. In ANE
texts only the king is in the image of God.
But in the Hebrew perspective this is democratized to all humanity.”[18] The divine image operates more like a power
play by ANE kings to build support and bolster their dominion. It turns humans into slaves to serve the gods
under the guidance of kings. The imago dei placed by God upon each human
being exalts individual life and gives them dominion over creation. It turns humans into the crowning work of
creation while empowering them with divinely placed value on each life.
Temples in the ANE were the central point
of human effort to please the gods.
Blessings of fertility relied upon religious faithfulness on the part of
man. Familial and financial blessings
were dependent upon worshippers participating in temple rituals. The entire religious system was a perpetual
work of humanity reaching out to the gods.
This was not unique to Egypt and Mesopotamia but developed thoroughly in
first and second temple Judaism as well.
How different this is from the God of the first garden-temple. When Adam and Eve sin it is God who pursues
them. It is God who provides a gracious
covering for the shame they had brought upon themselves in the nakedness. There is even a strong hint of atonement
offered by God Himself in the animal that was sacrificed for the covering. The God of Genesis is the Rescuer of His
people and He is the initiator of the necessary action. He does not need man to work to please
Him. He is pleased in Himself and is
pleased with man who receives His redemptive work.
The
theology of Mesopotamian cultures included the ability for a man to rob another
man of the blessings of his god by stealing the images of that god. The theft of the image of a king also could
mean the removal of blessing for his people.
The image idea was mistakenly considered something that could be taken
away by another man. Walton explains,
“The images of deities of enemies were not smashed but only carried away in
order to deprive the enemies of the support of their gods.”[19] It is quite likely that this is part of what
is happening after the killing of Saul.
The Philistines cut off his head and stripped off his armor and sent
word to all the Philistine temples that Saul was defeated (1 Sam. 31:9). Verse 10 continues, “Then they put his armor
in the temple of the Ashtoreths, and they fastened his body to the wall of Beth
Shan.” Saul was a king who served as the
divine symbol of his God and after his defeat the Philistines stole the image
therefore proclaiming supposed victory over his God to all their people. But the image of God cannot be stolen. It is irremovably placed upon man and even
when Adam himself rebels the image cannot be robbed. And when the image is damaged by sin it is
God who intercedes to restore divine likeness by conforming His people to the
perfect image of His Son Jesus (Rom. 8:29).
We are thinking comparatively of the
truth of religious practices and what that means in the life of a man. It’s not just about temples. Temples are one expression of core beliefs in
the lives of those in the ANE but they are also an object for us to
examine. To examine carefully and see if
there is ancient and abiding truth by which we should live today. In the midst of so many beliefs there is one
God who operates differently than all the others. There is one book that reveals Him in unique
opposition to the others. There is one
temple where He dwells and His image is divinely placed distinct from other
accounts. There is one presentation of
man that is dignified and eternally meaningful.
Kirk Spencer differentiates, “In Genesis, man is created from clay by a
holy God to rule over the creation. In
Enuma Elish, man is created from the blood of a traitorous god to be slaves of
the gods.”[20] Which would you want to be?
Answering Objections
Much of ANE scholarship embraces the idea
that Israel borrowed from their neighbors in developing their religious
expression. While the Babylonians
presented the Enuma Elish as an alleged creation myth of Marduk so also Israel
presented their creation story according to their God. Just as the Akkadians recorded Gilgamesh and
his experience with a flood so also Israel borrowed the idea and named him
Noah. Hammurabi’s code is assumed by
some to be the basis for the Mosaic law.
The list continues even to the use of temples. Georges Barrois repeats a view widely
held. He proposes that temple scribes
during the time of Israel’s monarchy into the period of Babylonian exile
accumulated Mosaic traditions and struggled to piece them all together to make
the writings of Genesis. In their
struggle for it all to make sense Barrois says, “They drew largely on the
literary records of their Middle East neighbors, a mixture of fact and
fiction. The first part of Genesis, the
‘Book of Origins’, is rich in episodes reflecting these common traditions.”[21] Barrois goes on to describe the
demythologizing the scribes must have utilized in their attempts to fit all the
pieces together with their peculiar monotheism.
John Bright also reports the widespread acceptance of such ideas, “The
patriarchal religion as depicted in Genesis was held to be a back-projection of
later beliefs.” He describes how
nineteenth century biblical criticism triumphed with “presuppositions that forbade
appeal to a doctrine of Scripture as a guarantee of factual accuracy.”[22]
Why should we accept such
conclusions? This thinking is common and
appears to contain at least 2 fallacies.
First, that Israel borrowed from their Middle East neighbors. Is this
based on archeological discovery of ANE texts that predate the earliest texts
of the Old Testament? If so, it should
be considered that any day another discovery could change that. Especially considering how little of
antiquity has actually been uncovered.
Also, it could just as easily be stated that the neighbors of Israel
borrowed from them. The differences are
exponentially greater than the largest list of similarities. Second, the demythologizing effort employed
by the scribes would surely not have resulted in such a coherent set of manuscripts. Literary criticism seeks to overlook the
consistency of the biblical witness. The
coherence of biblical authorship becomes especially clear when one begins to
read other ANE texts. Enuma Elish reads
more like a soap opera of divine confusion used for political propaganda than
divine revelation. Genesis is filled
with historical details and narratives that actually make sense while stories
of Anu, Ea, Enlil, Enkidu, Gilgamesh, Si-huhe, Baal, and Mot all read like
mythology. To ignore these differences
is to ignore the basic marks of literary genre.
Walter Brueggeman dates the writing of Genesis during the Exilic period
and is certainly not coming from many of the presuppositions as this writer. He wrestles with the ubiquitous nature of
such views while trying to take seriously the message of Genesis. He speaks of “an old tradition” to which Genesis
relates and that there are many parallels to other ANE texts. Brueggeman writes, “The theologians of
Israel, in these texts…appropriate materials from the common traditions of the
Near East. But they handle and utilize
them in a peculiarly theological way…they break with the mythological.”[23] He elaborates upon the theology of these
Israelites and further clarifies, “This theology of blessing is not derived
from ANE texts. It has emerged out of
the faith of Israel.”[24]
Later Brueggeman stresses his “exposition has no more stake in stressing the uniqueness of the material than in
showing the parallels.”[25]
While emphasizing Israel’s departure
from the mythology of their neighbors he also refuses to press upon their
uniqueness. There are common traditions
and there are parallels but the question at stake is origin. It is my view that ANE practices began in the
same place and that place is the garden-temple of Eden as recorded in Genesis.
John Bright also reports the widespread
acceptance of Israel’s scriptures being the result of later interjections from
other ANE texts, “The patriarchal religion as depicted in Genesis was held to
be a back-projection of later beliefs.”
He describes how nineteenth century biblical criticism triumphed with
“presuppositions that forbade appeal to a doctrine of Scripture as a guarantee
of factual accuracy.”[26] It is of course quite illogical to begin with
such presuppositions. Why should we
dismiss the prominence of such a massive amount of textual data? Undoubtedly the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
has helped deafen some of the voices of such criticism. Moreover, it makes much more sense to begin
with such an enormous amount of manuscripts as the Old Testament and under the
authority they claim. When one considers
the overwhelming amounts of data and the coherence of it all it would seem much
less of an emotionally driven decision to assume a common narrative and
practice from which all the ANE stories and practices derived. While size and coherence do not guarantee
triumph they should at least tip researchers in favor of the evidence. The temples of the ANE were attempts to
duplicate what had been understood among the first of humanity as a temple
which was the garden of God. It was not
that Israel was projecting the temple practices of the other ANE peoples into their
culture. Rather it was that ANE peoples,
including Israel, were striving to repeat the experience of Adam and his
immediate descendants which had been transmitted orally through the
generations.
Conclusion
Much more should be said about the
foreshadowing of the garden-temple and Jesus.
He is the true temple of God.
This is why He said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up.” Adam was supposed to keep
and tend the garden in such a way that he prevented any evil from infiltrating
it. As the second Adam He drove the
moneychangers from the temple because it was His and He is it. 1 Corinthians 3:16 and 6:19 both portray the
followers of Jesus as the “temple of God” and the “temple of the Holy
Spirit”. 2 Corinthians 6:16 says, “You
are the temple of God.” Jesus and His
bride are the presence of God upon the earth.
The Incarnation reveals to us “the express image of God’s person” and
even now God is conforming His people on the earth into “the image of His Son”.
(Rom. 8:29) Once God is complete with
His restoration of it all there will be the glorious descending of His temple
as described in Revelation 21 to exercise true dominion for all eternity. Greg Beale provides tremendous thoughts of
clarity regarding the role of temples in the ANE. He says, “it should not be surprising to find
some parallels to biblical ideas in the literature of ancient cultures
surrounding Israel. The biblical writers
were sometimes aware of the ideas reflected in this literature and sometimes
intentionally presented their versions as the true ones in contrast and even
contradiction to the others.”[27] Again from Beale for conclusion, “(ANE)
temples were imperfect echoes of the original commission to the first human
priest-king…Genesis 1-2 also stands as a polemic against all imperfect attempts
to fulfill this commission apart from faithful service to the true God.”[28] This faithful service to the one true God is
the role of the temple.
[1] Walton, pg. 127.
[2] Ibid, pg. 128.
[3] Ibid, pg. 128.
[4] Pritchard, pg. 36.
[5] Beale, Temple, pg. 51-52.
[6] Ragavan, Deena, ed.,
Ambos, Claus, Heaven on Earth, (Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago, 2013), pg. 245.
[7] Hart, I., Genesis 1:1-2:3 As a Prologue to the Books
of Genesis, (TynBul 46, 1995), pgs. 315-316.
[8] Beale, Temple, pgs. 87-93.
[9] Ibid, pg. 88.
[10] Ibid, pg. 90.
[11] George, A.R., House Most High, (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbraun’s, 1993), pg. 156.
[12] Ragavan, Deena, ed.,
Gorke, Susanne, Heaven on Earth, (Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago, 2013), pg. 41.
[13] Ibid, pg. 42.
[14] Mathews, Kenneth, New American Commentary: Genesis,
(Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1996), pg. 164.
[15] Shafer, Byron, ed.,
Haeny, Gerald, Temples of Ancient Egypt,
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997), pg. 93.
[16] Ibid, pg. 93.
[17] Shafer, pg. 2.
[18] Waltke, pg. 66.
[19] Walton, pg. 112.
[20] Spencer, Kirk, Ancient of Days, (Self-published, 2003),
pg. 59.
[21] Barrois, George, Jesus Christ and the Temple, (Crestwood,
NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), pg. 11.
[22] Bright, John, A History of Israel, (Philadelphia, PA:
Westminster Press, 1981), pg. 68.
[23] Brueggemann, Walter, Genesis, (Louisville, KY: John Knox
Press, 1982), pg. 12.
[24] Ibid, pg. 37.
[25] Ibid, pg. 14.
[26] Bright, John, A History of Israel, (Philadelphia, PA:
Westminster Press, 1981), pg. 68.
[27] Beale, Temple, pg. 87.
[28] Ibid, pg. 93.
