Jesus as Merkabah Mystic

2003 by Charles L. Quarles

Introduction
According to Bruce Chilton in Rabbi Jesus, Jesus was a merkabah mystic who
mastered the technique of envisioning Gods chariot throne. He frequently enjoyed a
visionary ascent to the seventh heaven in which he beheld the divine glory and
participated in angelic praise of God by his practiced recitation of and meditation upon
the text of Ezekiel 1. For Chilton, this meditative practice explains the theophany that
accompanied Jesus baptism as well as many of Jesus so-called miracles including
healings, the stilling of the storm, and Jesus own spiritual resurrection.
The theory that Jesus was a merkabah mystic, however, faces several difficulties.
First, Chilton seems overconfident that the practice of the ascent was current during
Jesus lifetime. Second, the clues to which Chilton appeals in the Gospels as evidence of
Jesus mystical practice often involve idiosyncratic interpretations of the Gospels and of
ancient Jewish texts. This article will review Chiltons description of Jesus spirituality,
briefly explore the origins of merkabah mysticism, and examine the evidence for Jesus
practice of heavenly ascent.
A Brief Review of the Portrayal of Jesus Spirituality in Rabbi Jesus
Jesus journey toward Jewish mysticism began in his early youth when he visited
the temple with his mother soon after Joseph's death.
1
Jesus discovered that the presence
of his Abba was more palpable at the temple than any other place on earth.
2
He decided

1
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 23-32.
2
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 32.
2
that he could not return to his home in Nazareth and disappeared into the crowd hoping to
remain in the shadow of the temple where he felt included and accepted.
3
Jesus
temporarily lived as a street child in Jerusalem, begging for alms from merchants in the
Lower City.
4
At the height of winter, hunger and the cold drove Jesus to despair.
Rather than return to Nazareth in disgrace, he determined to seek out a renowned
rabbi named John the Baptist and to become John's talmid. This would allow him to
remain in Judea close to the temple and spare him from starvation.
5
John's teachings had
an esoteric side. John trained his young disciple in the practice of merkabah mysticism
which involved meditation on the divine chariot described in Ezekiel 1. John was a guru
who taught Jesus to alter his consciousness and enter the world of the chariot and the
Spirit.
6
As Jesus combined this meditation with repeated immersions for purification, he
came to have an increasingly vivid vision of the heavens splitting open and God's Spirit
descending on him in the form of a dove. He began to hear a divine voice affirming his
divine sonship. Jesus did not interpret his divine sonship in the metaphysical terms of the
creeds of the Christian church. Instead, Jesus saw himself as belonging to a long line of
visionaries who meditated on the chariot and were endowed with the Spirit.
7

When Jesus eventually returned to his home in Nazareth, many who encountered
him, including his own family members, feared that he was insane due to his obsession

3
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 32-34.
4
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 35.
5
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 41-50. In an interesting departure from Synoptic chronology, Chilton suggests that
Jesus was twelve and John was twenty-seven when they first met.
6
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 53.
7
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 50-58.
3
with meditative practice. This suspicion of insanity brought an end to the initially warm
welcome that the prodigal Jesus had enjoyed in Nazareth. Jesus confronted the elders in
Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30) and claimed to be the Lord's anointed, the bearer of Abba's
spirit. This was not a messianic claim but a claim that he was endowed with a prophetic
spirit so that God spoke to him through his meditation on the Chariot.
8

Jesus left Galilee and traveled to Jerusalem spurred on by his brothers' challenge
to "take his show to Jerusalem or to close it permanently" (John 7:3-4). This challenge
marked a transition in Jesus' life after which he sought to act as a chasid, a faith healer.
Jesus' first act as a chasid was the healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethesda in
which Jesus "was able to channel the energy of God" by drawing the crippled man into
his own meditation on the divine Throne. Chilton admits that no single explanation
accounts for shamanic power but implies that this particular miracle has a psychological
explanation.
9

After the healing of Simon's mother-in-law, Jesus' fame spread. Throngs of people
seeking healing or exorcism drove Jesus into wilderness solitude. In this solitude, Jesus
began using the Danielic vision of "one like a person" in his meditations. This "one like a
person" was an angelic personage who escorted Jesus closer to his Abba in the divine
court of heaven.
10

According the Chilton, Jesus' meditation on the chariot is the key to
understanding Jesus' response to the storm on the sea of Galilee. Jesus seemed to his

8
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 95-102.
9
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 103-11.
10
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 130-33.

4
disciples to be asleep during the dangerous storm when, in fact, his sleep was "a
meditation, a deep dreamlike trance." Jesus was so focused on the chariot that he was
oblivious to his surroundings. The disciples' belief that Jesus delivered them from the
storm "came mostly from the discipline of the Throne that he had mediated to them."
Thus the event "had more to do with the inner workings of Jesus' visionary practice than
with a miraculous event."
11

By 29 C.E. Jesus' visionary experiences were moving him in an unexpected
direction. Jesus' intimacy with the "one like a person" grew to the point that it bordered
on full identification. Jesus' demand that his disciples have the same kind of faith in him
that they had in his Abba is an expression of his identification with the Danielic son of
man.
12
Misunderstanding about the angelic center of Jesus' spirituality would eventually
lead to the doctrine of the Trinity.
On several occasions, Jesus appeared to resurrect the dead. Jesus was very adept
at recognizing the last vestiges of life in the nearly deceased. Jesus' disciples carefully
observed his actions and learned his kabbalah so that they would later perform similar
acts.
The transfiguration was a product of communal meditation by which Jesus drew
his disciples into his own visions so that they had a vivid experience of what Jesus saw
and heard in his meditation.
13
This contagious vision led to the sighting of Jesus on the
waters of Galilee. In Chilton's words, "The whole group was now functioning on an astral

11
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 154-57.
12
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 171-72.
13
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 190-195.
5
plane, flipping back and forth between the practical demands of piloting their craft and
the visionary conviction that their master would never abandon them."
14

The one like a person was Jesus' companion throughout the tortures that preceded
the crucifixion and during the crucifixion itself. This angelic personage beckoned Jesus to
his final transformation that climaxed his "progression from mamzer to talmid, to rabbi,
to messianic exorcist, to chasid, to prophet, and now to angel."
15
For Chilton, the
resurrection was "an angelic, nonmaterial event." Jesus' alleged post-resurrection
appearances were visionary experiences of the disciples who continued to practice Jesus'
kabbalah after his death.
16
Chilton explained:
Jesus' understanding was that human beings, in the course of their lives, could
shape their innermost breath--the pulse of their being as well as their cognitive
awareness of the Chariot--to correspond to the overpowering creativity of divine
Spirit. They became angelic, and that was the substance of their resurrection.
Jesus focuses us on the essence of our humanity, and allows us into his parallel
universe, imbued with the justice and glory of God.
17


Problems in Chiltons Portrayal of Jesus as Merkabah Mystic
Lack of a Consensus among Scholars regarding
the Origins of Merkabah Mysticism
Despite Chiltons confidence at this point, scholars have not yet demonstrated that
a developed merkabah mysticism that included the practice of the ascent existed during
the time of Christ. While some scholars suggest that the practice of the ascent originated

14
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 195.
15
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 281.
16
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 285. Chilton appealed to the Gospel According to the Hebrews to support this.
17
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 288.
6
in the first century of the common era or earlier, specialists in Jewish mysticism have not
yet reached a consensus on this.
Many scholars trace the origin of merkabah mysticism to the first century A.D. or
earlier though they qualify that the classical period of merkabah mysticism ran from the
fourth to sixth centuries. In most cases, this dating can be traced to dependency on the
works of Gershom Scholem (1897-1982), formerly Professor of Jewish Mysticism at
Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
18
Scholem identified merkabah mysticism as the first
phase of Jewish mysticism and suggested that this period extended from the first century
B.C. to the tenth A.D.
19
Scholem argued that the first text to use the terms maaseh
merkavah to refer to merkabah mysticism was Ben Sira 49:8, Ezekiel saw a vision, and
described the different orders of the chariot. Furthermore, b. Hagigah 13a told the story
of a child who was reading the book of Ezekiel at his teachers house when he came to
understand what the hashmal was. A fire immediately flashed from the hashmal and
consumed him. The Talmud traced the account to a source from the first century A.D., R.
Judah.
20
The evidence to which Scholem appealed to support the theory that the ascent
was practiced during the Second Temple period falls short of proving the theory. Neither
the reference in Sirach nor the tradition ascribed to Judah describe a voluntary practice of
ascent by contemporaries. While one observes increasing interest in the account of the

18
G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Shocken, 1941); idem, Jewish Gnosticism,
Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
1960).
19
Scholem, Major Trends, 40.
20
G. Scholem, Merkabah Mysticism Encyclopedia Judaica 11:1386.

7
chariot or Maaseh Merkabah in the first century, it is unclear whether such fascination
had yet led to the mystical practices such as the ascent to the divine throne that
characterized true merkabah mysticism.
J.H. Laenen argues persuasively that while esoteric speculation on the chariot
may be traced to the end of the Second Temple period, these esoteric traditions
themselves may not be equated with true merkabah mysticism. Laenen dates the origin of
true merkabah mysticism to the second century of the common era. He states:
It was long assumed that one can speak of Jewish mysticism already in the
Second Temple period, from the second century BCE. Although some may still be
inclined to this view, many are now of the opinion that at this early stage it is not
a matter of real mystical activity in the sense of the ascent through the palaces to
the divine throne.
21


He also states:

The first tangible evidence of the existence of Jewish mysticism is not
found until the second century of the common era. The precise date of this
beginning is a matter of debate; estimates range from the second to the sixth
century.
22


He later adds:
At a certain stage, however, it seems that a transition took place to a new phase
which can indeed be called mysticism in the true sense. The question of how this
transition took place, from closed groups with their esoteric traditions to the
mystical activities of ascent through the heavenly palaces to Gods throne, cannot
be easily answered, since we have no knowledge of many of the relevant
historical details. Despite these objections it has been possible to arrive at a
feasible reconstruction of this change on the basis of other facts.
The early traditional literature from the time of the Tannaim, the rabbinic
teachers of the Mishnah, seems at one point to contain two new elements. First, an
entirely new approach is added to the traditional allegorical exegesis of the Song
of Songs, suggesting that God had given a description of himself in the Song.

21
J. H. Laenen, Jewish Mysticism: An Introduction (trans. David Orton; Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2001), 22.
22
Laenen, Jewish Mysticism, 18.
8
Second, esoteric speculation on the vision of the prophet Ezekiel, which contains
a description of the seven heavens, was inclined to develop into an active ascent
through the heavenly realms to the throne of glory. These changes seem to occur
in and around the school of R. Akiva, in the second century CE.
23


Given the lack of a consensus among scholars of Jewish mysticism regarding the
date of the origin of merkabah mysticism, Chiltons portrayal of Jesus as a merkabah
mystic must be regarded as tenuous. Chilton assumes that developed merkabah
mysticism that involved the practice of the ascent existed in the early first century but
offers no conclusive evidence to support this early existence.

Examination of Second Temple and Tannaitic Literature with
Possible Relationship to Merkabah Mysticism
Scholars who affirm that the practice of the ascent was current in the early first
century commonly refer to texts from the Pseudepigrapha, Philo, and the Dead Sea
Scrolls for support. Pre-Christian Pseudepigrapha refer to various Old Testament figures
who are caught up into heaven or ascend to heaven. 1 Enoch describes the ascent of
Enoch to heaven. However, the text offers no evidence of the practice of the ascent by the
author or his contemporaries since the narrative is based on speculation about Genesis
5:24. Testament of Levi 2-3, the text which most closely parallels the ascent of the
merkabah mystics, describes a dream of Levi in which he stepped from the top of a high
mountain into the heavens. The ascent of Levi is designed to portray Levis unique access
to Yahweh in support of the levitical priesthood which is given special honor in the
testaments of the other patriarchs. The theological motive behind the description of
Levis ascent best fulfills its purpose if the readers recognized Levis ascent as an event

23
Laenen, Jewish Mysticism, 26-27.
9
paralleled only by the ascent of other highly regarded biblical characters. The account
and others like it may be composed merely from the imagination of the author and with
an eye to the OT narratives. Though it is clear that Jews speculated about heavenly ascent
in the pre-Christian era, no evidence demonstrates that they actually sought to participate
in such an ascent.
J. M. Scott followed P. Borgen in suggesting that Philo of Alexandria practiced
the ascent. Both claimed that De Specialibus Legibus 3.1-2 was an autobiographical
account of Philos mystical practice.
24
Philo does refer to an experience in which I
appeared to be raised on high and borne aloft by a certain inspiration of the soul, and to
dwell in the regions of the sun and moon, and to associate with the whole heaven, and the
whole universal world. But close examination of the text within the broader context
shows that the language is purely figurative. Readers are not expected to take the
reference to ascent literally anymore than the following verse, which refers to Philo being
cast into a vast sea of public politics in which he struggles to stay afloat, should be read
literally.
Horton Smith has argued that 4Q491 is an autobiographical description of a
heavenly ascent.
25
Smiths interpretation of the Qumran document fail to persuade the
present researcher. However, even if his interpretation is correct, Smith acknowledges

24
J. M. Scott, Heavenly Ascent in Jewish and Pagan Traditions DNTB:449; P. Borgen, Heavenly Ascent
in Philo: An Examination of Selected Passages, in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation
(ed. J. J. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans; JSPSup 14; JSOT, 1993), 246-68.
25
Horton Smith, Two Ascended to HeavenJesus and the Author of 4Q491, in Jesus and the Dead Sea
Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 290-301.
10
that the claim of ascent could be completely false, a tale spun by an egomaniac.
26

Furthermore, the exalted being of 4Q491 claims none shall be exalted save me,
indicating that the exaltation was purely idiosyncratic and precluding theories that the
author represents a movement of mystics practicing the ascent.
The Angelic Liturgy of Qumran (particularly 4Q405 20 ii 21-22) contains ancient
speculation about this chariot throne:
The [cheru]bim prostrate themselves before him and bless. As they rise, a
whispered divine voice [is heard], and there is a roar of praise. When they drop
their wings, there is a [whispere]d divine voice. The cherubim bless the image of
the throne-chariot above the firmament, [and] they praise [the majes]ty of the
luminous firmament beneath his seat of glory. When the wheels advance, angels
of holiness come and go. From between his glorious wheels there is as it were a
fiery vision of most holy spirits. About them, the appearance of rivulets of fire in
the likeness of gleaming brass, and a work of . . . radiance in many-coloured
glory, marvelous pigments, clearly mingled. The spirits of the living "gods" move
perpetually with the glory of the marvellous chariot(s).
27


However, such texts do not confirm the existence of developed merkabah mysticism that
included the practice of the ascent. It is helpful to maintain Laenens distinction between
merkabah speculation and merkabah mysticism. Speculation about the appearance of the
chariot throne based on the descriptions of Ezekiel does not imply the mystical practice
of later merkabah mysticism. J. D. Tabor explained:
The fair number of Jewish (and Jewish-Christian) texts which make use
of the ascent to heaven as a means of legitimating rival claims of revelation and
authority is likely due to the polemics and party politics that characterized the
Second Temple period. It became a characteristic way, in the Hellenistic period,
of claiming archaic authority of the highest order, equal to a Enoch or Moses,
for ones vision of things.
28



26
Smith, Two Ascended, 300.
27
Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (3rd ed.; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 228.
28
James D. Tabor, Ascent to Heaven, ABD 3:92.
11
Furthermore, J. Laansma has pointed out that the Angelic Liturgy is significantly
different from the practices of the merkabah mystics since a) the experience described in
the Qumran literature is communal rather than individual b) the goal of the composition
is not the vision of the chariot throne but the description of the heavenly sacrificial
system and c) the document lacks reference to co-participation in the heavenly cult.
29

The earliest probable references to this mystical practice appear in the Mishnah.
M. Meg. 4:10 prohibits use of the chapter on the Chariot (Ezek. 1) in the public reading
from the Prophets in the context of synagogue worship. Other texts prohibited by this
mishnah were banned because of their explicit sexual content.
30
The rabbis wished to
avoid the moral dangers that might arise by focusing upon these texts. Since Ezekiel 1
lacks any sexual content, scholars have suspected that the rabbis hoped to avoid
promotion of the practice of the ascent which was so closely attached to this text. M.
Hag. 2:1 forbids a rabbi to expound the Chapter on the Chariot even before a single
student in fear that curiosity and speculation on the subject might harm him. This implies
that merkabah mysticism existed by the date of the final composition of the Mishnah (c.

29
Jon Laansma, Mysticism (DNTB; Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 2000), 732.
30
R. Eliezer also excluded the chapter "Cause Jerusalem to Know" from the public reading (Ezek. 16:1ff)
apparently because of the sexual imagery used in this description of Jerusalems relationship with God and
idolatry. Some other passages were read but not publicly interpreted--Reuben's incest and adultery with
Jacob's concubine Bilhah (Gen. 35:22) and the second text on the golden calf that depicts Aaron as lying to
Moses (Ex. 32:21-35), blessing of the Priests from Num. 6:24-26, the story of David (2 Sam. 11:2-17)
[David's adultery and murder] and the story of Amnon (2 Sam. 13) [rape and incest].
12
AD 200) and that the practices associated with it were generally discouraged by the
rabbis.
31

The first clear reference to the mystical practice of voluntary ascent to heaven
appears in the Tosefta (c. A.D. 250). T. Hagigah 2.3-4 relates the entrance of four
rabbinic scholars into the garden and describes the consequences of the experience on
each. R. Akiba is said to have ascended and descended. This language, together with
the appeal to Song of Songs 1.4 which was an important text to later merkabah mystics,
has led many scholars to conclude that the Tosefta is referring to the ascent to the chariot
throne. Some scholars argue that it is improper to identify the garden (pardes) of this text
with the chariot throne of the merkabah mystics and thus date the practice of the ascent
later.
32
However, J. T. Milik published fragments of an Aramaic text from Qumran in
which the heavenly paradise of righteousness was called af?wq sdrp.
33
This suggests

31
Some scholars have argued that the prohibition regarding the account of the Chariot related only to
biblical-exegetical traditions and were unrelated at this time to the supposedly later practice of the heavenly
ascent. For this view, see Johann Maier, Vom Kultus zur Gnosis: Studien zur Vor- und Frhgeschichte der
Jdischen Gnosis (Salzburg: Mller, 1964), 128-46; Ephraim E. Urbach, lu twrwsmh <yanth
tpwqtb dwsh trwt, in idem, R. J. Zvi Werblowsky and C. Wirszubski, eds. Studies in Mysticism and
Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem on his Seventieth Birthday by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 1-28; Peter Schfer, New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey
into Heaven in Paul and in Merkabah Mysticism, JJS 14 (1984): 19-35; David J. Halperin, The Merkabah
in Rabbinic Literature (AOS 62: New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1980), 179-85; Joseph
Dan, The Ancient Jewish Mysticism (Tel-Aviv: MOD, 1993), 7-41; idem, Heart and Fountain, 15-23.
32
Laenen, Jewish Mysticism, 28
33
J. T. Milik, Hnoch au Pays des Aromates: ch. 27 32, Fragments Aramens de la Grotte 4 de
Qumran, Revue Biblique 65 (1958): 71 and 76. Scholem notes that 2 Cor. 12:2-4 constitutes another
13
that the garden mentioned in the Tosefta is heaven rather than a literal orchard.
Consequently, most scholars recognize this reference as the terminus ad quem for dating
the origin of a developed merkabah mysticism that involved the practice of the heavenly
ascent.
34

A saying attributed to R. Akiba in b. Hag. 14b indisputably refers to the ascent.
The text warns students not to confuse the pure marble stones with water since this would
prohibit entrance into Gods house. The importance of the ability of distinguishing
marble and water in order to gain access into the seventh heaven is a marked
characteristic of later hekhalot literature. Consequently, the reference demands that one
date the origin of merkabah mysticism before the final composition of the Babylonian
Talmud (A.D. 600).
The clearest description of the origin of merkabah mysticism in merkabah texts
points to the time just prior to the fall of Jerusalem (Hekalot Rabbati 13:1). Jewish
thought recognized an intrinsic connection between the authority for a practice and the
antiquity of that practice as is evidenced by the Tannaitic insistence that the oral law
could be traced to the Mosaic era. Therefore, one must suspect that, while a strong

parallel to this usage in Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York:
Jewish Theological Seminary, 1960), 17.
34
Some scholars suggest that the original form of the story contained no clear reference to merkabah
mysticism. For a discussion of this debate with recent bibliography, see James R. Davila, The Hodayot
Hymnist and the Four Who Entered Paradise, RevQ 17 (1996):457-78. B. M. Lewin shows that the debate
over the meaning of this text dates at least to the eleventh century in Otzar ha-Geonim: Thesaurus of the
Gaonic Responsa and Commentaries, vol. 4: Tractate Jom-Tow, Chagiga and Maschkin (Jerusalem:
Hebrew University, 1931), 13-15.
14
possibility exists that Jewish mystics would point to an excessively early date for the
origin of merkabah mysticism, they would probably not suggest a later than actual date.
Perhaps the strongest evidence for the practice of the ascent during the first
century appears in Colossians. Pauls descriptions of the Colossian error share many
correspondences with Jewish mysticism and particularly, with descriptions of the ascent
to the chariot throne.
35
In light of these parallels, several scholars have suggested that the
Colossian error was influenced by a form of Jewish mysticism with tendencies of the
later merkabah movement. Of the prevailing theories regarding the Colossian error, this
reconstruction seems to best satisfy the data of the epistle. However, many questions
regarding this possible influence still remain. Was the mysticism of the Colossian
errorists influenced by a phenomenon already in existence in Palestine or was the
mysticism a product of syncretism of Judaism and pagan mysticism already thriving in
Phrygia? Does the Colossian error of the early 60s necessitate existence of a similar
strictly Jewish phenomenon in Palestine over thirty years earlier?
36
Until these questions
can be answered, the data of Colossians will offer little help in understanding the
spirituality of Jesus of Nazareth.
The plausibility of Chiltons reconstruction of the life of Jesus which portrays him
as a merkabah mystic is weakened by both the historical data and the scholarly debates

35
A. J. Bandstra, Did the Colossian Errorists Need a Mediator? New Dimensions in New Testament Study
(eds. R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 329-43; C. A. Evans, The
Colossian Mystics, Biblica 63 (1982): 188-205; F. O. Francis, Humility and Angelic Worship in Col.
2:18, Conflict at Colossae (ed. F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks; 2
nd
ed.; SBLSBS 4; Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press, 1975), 163-95.

15
concerning the origin of the chariot ascent. If Chilton has uncovered new evidence about
the origin of this mystical practice of which the specialists in Jewish mysticism are
unaware, he should present this evidence and defend his conclusions. Otherwise,
Chiltons reconstruction of Jesus' life seems to rest on a rather shaky historical
foundation.
The Evidence for Jesus Mystical Practice in the Gospel Accounts
Chilton finds hints of Jesus mystical practice scattered throughout the Gospels.
First, Chilton claims that Mark 4:24 (which he translates, Look at what you listen to!)
expresses Jesus use of the rhythmical chant of the text of Ezekiel 1 with the cadence,
intonation and concentration necessary to envision the chariot throne. Thus the command
challenges the talmid to envision the heavenly scene that his chant describes . In order to
arrive at this interpretation, Chilton must read Mark 4:24 as an isolated logion bearing no
real connection to the surrounding context which refers to oral teaching without any
association with Ezekiel 1 or visionary experiences. Other scholars have recognized that
this immediate context is the best guide for a proper interpretation of the logion. C. S.
Mann states, "The significance of the Markan saying is very uncertain. From the context
it would appear to mean 'What attention you give to the teaching is also the measure of
the profit you will derive from it."
37
Joel Marcus states, "Mark, though, following in the
footsteps of some Qumran texts (e.g. 1QS 8:4; 1QH 14:18-19), reapplies the metaphor of
the measure to epistemology: people will receive insight according to the measure of
their attentiveness."
38
William Lane labeled all of Mark 4:21-25 as an Exhortation to

37
C. S. Mann, Mark (AB; vol 27; New York: Doubleday, 1986), 268.
38
Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8 (AB; vol. 27; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 320.
16
True Hearing and regarded the words take heed what you hear as the key to
interpreting the parable of the measure which constituted an appeal for spiritual
perception and appropriation of the word which Jesus proclaims.
39
Chilton's
interpretation is idiosyncratic and unsupported by the context in which it appears in
Mark's Gospel.
Chilton must also define blevpw in terms of a visionary experience, a meaning for
the verb which is unsubstantiated elsewhere in this gospel or in the New Testament. Mark
uses the word blevpw in warnings to Watch out or beware, (Mark 8:15; 12:38; 13:5,9),
in the sense Pay attention or Be alert (Mark 13:23,33), in reference to spiritual
insight (Mark 8:18), in reference to ordinary physical sight (Mark 4:12; 5:31; 8:23,24;
13:2), and as part of a Semitic idiom meaning to show favoritism (Mark 12:14).
Several linguistic features of Marks Gospel make Chiltons interpretation of Mark 4:24
particularly doubtful. First, Mark uses the verb in Mark 4:12 in a quotation of Isaiah 6:9-
10 (LXX) to refer to looking and not seeing in which blevpw refers to mere looking and
oJravw refers to true spiritual perception. Thus one would expect oJravw in a context that

39
William Lane, The Gospel of Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 164, 167. Robert Guelich
noted that the construction blevpete tiv ajkouvete in Mark 4:24 is similar to the double imperative ajkouvete,
ijdouv that precedes the Parable of the Sower in 4:3 and both constructions emphasize the importance of the
parables to the evangelists audience. He suggested that these constructions, together with a similar
exhortation in Mark 7:3 constitute an introductory formula of exhortation. See Guelich, Mark 1-8:26 (WBC
34A; Dallas: Word, 1989), 232. For a more detailed discussion of the syntax and meaning of the blevpete
tiv ajkouvete construction, see R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002),
210.
17
referred to an authentic vision of God that was hidden from all but a few.
40
Furthermore,
in Mark 13:33 blevpw is synonymous with ajgrupnevw which seems contrary to entrance
into the self-hypnotic sleep that Chilton equates with the ascent. The Lukan parallel,
blevpete ou\n pw'" ajkouvete (Luke 8:18), shows that the Evangelist did not understand
Jesus to be referring to attempts to envision what one was reciting. Luke evidently
believed that Jesus was commanding disciples to pay careful attention to the manner in
which they listened to his teaching. Finally, the verb blevpw normally means direct
ones attention to something, consider, note when followed by an indirect question (Mk.
4:24; Lk 8:18; 1 Cor. 3:10; Eph. 5:15).
41
Analysis of the grammar, vocabulary and
literary context of Mark 4:24 does not support a visionary interpretation of the command.
Second, Chilton believes that the divine manifestation that accompanied the
baptism of Jesus as recorded in the Synoptics (Mark 1:8; Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16) was
actually a visionary experience that Jesus attained by altering his consciousness. Chilton
wrote:
Jesus repetitive, committed practice, his sometimes inadequate diet, and
his exposure to the elements contributed to the intensity of his vision of Gods
Chariot. Under Johns tutelage, he altered his consciousness and entered the world
of the Chariot and the Spirit. As he repeatedly immersed for purification, he came
to have an increasingly vivid vision of the heavens splitting open and Gods Spirit
descending upon him as a dove.
42


Chilton equates this experience with the "vision of God's chariot" sought by the
merkabah mystics. However, ancient records of the mystics' vision of the divine chariot

40
Interestingly, Paul uses the verb oJravw when referring to the apparent visionary experiences of the
Colossian errorists which so closely paralleled merkabah mysticism.
41
See Blevpw, BDAG 179.
42
Chilton, 55.
18
are quite different from the manifestation that the synoptic writers describe. The
Synoptics describe the heavens splitting open for this divine manifestation. Merkabah
mysticism saw the heavens as locked up tightly. The mystic could look upon God only if
he possessed certain spiritual and physical characteristics. He had to pass through each of
the seven heavens and the gate of each heaven could be entered only by knowledge of
secret passwords that would coerce the hostile angels who guarded each gate to permit
the mystic to enter.
43
The mystic had to pass other tests such as distinguishing marble
from water and those who failed such tests were overwhelmed with a rushing flood of
water or incinerated by heavenly fire.
44

Furthermore, merkabah mysticism focused not upon divine descent but upon
human ascent. Merkabah mystics taught that God was actually too great to reside in the
seventh heaven and that He daily descended to his heavenly throne from some realm
above. Attempting to coerce a divine descent to earth through mystical practices would
have likely been deemed strange, at best, and blasphemous, at worst, from the mystic's
perspective.
Finally, the merkabah mystics did not seek a vision of some symbolic
manifestation of Yahweh. Rather they sought to behold God in all of his splendor and

43
The passwords are called the nomina barbara. On the preparation for and requirements of the ascent, see
James R. Davila, Descenders to the Chariot: The People Behind the Hekhalot Literature (vol. 70 of
Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism; Boston: Brill, 2001), 93-125, 169-189;
44
On the dangers of the ascent, see Davila, Descenders, 136-155. For a thorough treatment of the test of
water in hekholot literature, see C. R. A. Morray-Jones, A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of
Water in Hekhalot Mysticism. A Source-Critical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry (vol. 59 of Supplements
to the Journal for the Study of Judaism; Boston: Brill, 2002).
19
glory exalted upon his heavenly throne. Chilton recognized this inconsistency between
the baptismal theophany and the vision of the mystics and attempted to find a parallel in
Jewish literature in which a mystic sought a vision of God as dove. Chilton stated:
The bird that hovered over the face of the waters in Genesis 1:2 was
identified as a dove in the Rabbinic tradition of the Babylonian Talmud written in
the fifth century C.E. It speaks of a rabbi of the second century, Simon Ben Zoma,
who saw the holy spirit as a dove in the midst of the primeval waters in his vision
of the heavenly firmament during a trance (Chagigah 15a). Obviously, a direct
connection with the scene of Jesus' immersion in the Gospels can't be made on the
basis of such a late reference, but a fragment from Qumran that is undoubtedly
pre-Christian also attests the association of spirit and dove.
45


However, Chilton's appeal to the Talmud is weakened by several considerations.
The Babylonian Talmud does mention the Spirit brooding like a dove over the waters in
connection with the meditation of Ben Zoma on the creation account.
46
However, the
dove does not appear to be the focus of a mystical vision by Ben Zoma. Ben Zoma was
meditating upon the "works of creation" and was attempting to measure the distance
between the upper firmament and the lower firmament. He concluded on the basis of
midrashic exegesis, not a visionary experience, that the distance is less than a
handbreadth. He appealed to two texts, Genesis 1:2 and Deuteronomy 32:11-12, as
verification for his conclusion. The former passage refers to a divine "brooding" and the
later passage helped define the nature of that brooding. The Talmud seems to describe

45
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 297. Chilton appealed to Dale C. Allison, "The Baptist of Jesus and a New Dead
Sea Scroll," Biblical Archaeology Review 18.2 (1992) 58-60 to confirm the pre-Christian association of the
spirit and dove. Allison did not argue, however, that the reference to the dove portrayed Jesus as a
merkabah mystic who envisioned the brooding Spirit of the maaseh bereshit. He suggested that the dove
signaled that Jesus was the bringer of a new creation and that when Jesus came into the world, a new
age commenced and God, through his Holy Spirit, renewed his great work of creation.
46
b. Hag. 15a.
20
Ben Zomas exegetical labors rather than a trance. Furthermore, the Tosefta account of
Ben Zoma's meditation, which predates the Babylonian Talmud by approximately 250
years, makes no mention of a dove.
47
The Tosefta associates the creative brooding with
the brooding of the eagle which serves as a simile for God's care for his people in
Deuteronomy 32.
Chilton is probably correct that the heavenly vision of Jesus during the baptism is
to be understood against the backdrop of Genesis 1:2. However, the goal of the merkabah
mystics during the ascent was not a vision of a descending dove or even a vision of the
Spirit brooding over the primordial waters, but the glorious vision of Ezekiel 1.
48
The
coveted vision was that of the heavenly King enthroned in glory.
Chilton also claims that the statement "You are my beloved son" constitutes Jesus'
personal claim "that he is of the spiritual lineage of Israel's seers, the visionaries who
meditated on the Chariot and were blessed with the Spirit which pours out from the
Throne of the heavenly father."
49
However, Chilton offers no evidence that references to
merkabah mystics as "sons" are prominent in texts related to the ascent. Furthermore, the

47
For a good introduction to the Tosefta and Talmuds, see J. Neusner,
Rabbinic Literature: Mishnah and Tosefta, DNTB:893-97 and H. Maccoby, Rabbinic Literature:
Talmud, DNTB:897-902.
48
That is not to say that the descenders of the chariot were unconcerned about the creation account. The
creation account (Maaseh Bereshit) was one of the major foci of the mystics study. However, their
speculation concentrated upon questions of how God created the universe by 32 mysterious paths
consisting of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the 10 sefirot. For a brief but helpful survey of
creation mysticism in ancient Judaism, see Dan and Lavinia Cohn-Sherbok, Jewish and Christian
Mysticism: An Introduction (New York: Continuum, 1994), 30-33.
21
scholarly consensus is that the divine utterance at Jesus' baptism alludes to Psalm 2:7
rather than esoteric texts.
50
A close comparison of the divine manifestation that occurred
at Jesus' baptism with the vision sought by the merkabah mystics demonstrates that the
two phenomena are far more different than similar. Chilton has failed to present
convincing evidence of a link between the baptismal theophany of the Synoptics and the
visionary experience of the descenders of the chariot.
Chilton also asserts that the charge that Jesus was mentally deranged confirms
Jesus' practice of the ascent:
The Gospels downplay this part of Jesus' activity. The term "deranged"
(existemi in Greek) strictly means "to be beside oneself," and corresponds to the
usage of michutz in the Talmid to describe the distracted state of a sage engrossed
in the Chariot (Chagigah 15a, in reference to Simon ben Zoma). Those around
Jesus feared that he was insane ("deranged") as a result of his obsession with
meditative practice.
51


However, the account of Ben Zoma's ascent in b. Hagigah 15a (y. Hagigah 77a-b)
does not unequivocally describe the trance by which one sought the ascent as "insanity."
The typical English translation of Joshua's statement to his disciples is "See, Ben Zoma is
outside." Both the translation of the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud by

49
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 58.
50
Rudolph Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 35; W. D. Davies
and Dale C. Allison, Jr. Matthew I-VII (ICC; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1988), 338-39; Donald Hagner,
Matthew 1-13 (vol. 33A of WBC; Dallas: Word, 1993), 58-59.
51
Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 95.
22
Jacob Neusner render the text in this fashion.
52
The older translation of the Babylonian
Talmud by I. Epstein also renders the Hebrew term "outside."
Epstein's translation notes that R. Hai Gaon interpreted the term as a reference to
insanity but that the Genesis Rabbah contained the reading "is gone."
53
If the
interpretation of Genesis Rabbah is correct, the word may be a reference to Ben Zomas
untimely death. The next line of the Tosefta adds, It was only a few days before Ben
Zoma died. The paragraph that follows the account in the Talmud seems to imply that
Ben Zoma's death was the consequence of his seeing the Chariot throne. The well-known
passage refers to four who entered paradise and warns of the disastrous effects that the
vision of the chariot had on all but one. Twice the account states that Ben Zoma cast a
look and died. This suggests that "outside" or "gone" may have been regarded by the final
editors of the Talmud as a reference to Ben Zoma's death. The Talmud comments on this

52
Jacob Neusner, trans., Hagigah and Moed Qatan (vol. 20 of Talmud of the Land of Israel: A
Preliminary Translation and Explanation; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1986), 44; Jacob Neuser, trans.,
Hagigah (vol. 12 of The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993),
60.
53
I. Epstein, ed., Seder Mo'ed (vol. 4 of The Babylonian Talmud; London: Soncino Press, 1938), 92. The
Genesis Rabbah was probably redacted at approximately the same time as the Palestinian Talmud, probably
in the first half of the fifth century. See Moshe David Herr, Genesis Rabbah Encyclopedia Judaica
7:399-401; G. G. Porton, Rabbinic Literature: Midrashim, DNTB:892; and J. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah:
The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, A New American Translation (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1985). R. Hai Gaon (Hai ben Sherira) was gaon of Pumbedita from 998-1038. His commentary on several
tractates of the Babylonian Talmud, several fragments of which have been preserved, postdates the Genesis
Rabbah by five hundred years. He was a mystic who personally practiced the ascent. See Jacob S.
Levinger, Hai ben Sherira, Encyclopedia Judaica 7:1130-32.
23
death with the words "Of him Scripture says: "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the
death of his saints" (Psa. 116:15). It appears that "sight of the Lord" was taken as
referring to Ben Zoma's vision of the Lord and that this vision was regarded as the cause
of his death. The Babylonian Talmud confirms this suspicion 2.1 IV.30 D states "Ben
Zoma peeked and was smitten, and of him Scripture says, "You have found honey? Eat
so much as is enough for you, lest you be filled up with it and vomit it out" (Prov.
25:16).
Jacob Neusners translation of the Tosefta text presents a more contextually
appropriate interpretation of the obscure reference to Ben Zoma being outside. He
translated the text: Said R. Joshua to his disciples: Ben Zoma is already on the outside
[among the sectarians].
54
In the preceding context of the Tosefta, Ben Zoma was deep in
thought concerning the works of creation. In particular, he attempted to discover the
distance between the upper waters and nether waters. He used midrashic technique to
interpret Genesis 1:2 in light of Deuteronomy 32:11-12 to argue that the distance
amounted only to a few inches. At this, R. Joshua replied that Ben Zoma was already
outside. Immediately after this scene, the Tosefta proceeds with a discussion of
Deuteronomy 4:32 which concluded that one should not seek to expound matters that
preceded Gods creation of humankind and argued in light of m. Hagigah 2:1 that those
who did so would be better off if they had not been born. This discussion clearly portrays
Ben Zomas exposition as heretical and thus clarifies the meaning of R. Joshuas
judgment that Ben Zoma was outside. Ben Zoma was outside of the parameters of

54
Jacob Neusner, trans., The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew. Second Division: Moed (Atlanta:
Scholars, 1981), 313-14.
24
Jewish orthodoxy and to be recognized as a heretic. No compelling reason exists for
regarding the references to Ben Zoma in the Tosefta or Talmuds as parallel to the charge
of insanity against Jesus.
Chilton explained some of the apparent miracles of Jesus by appealing to his
ability to draw his disciples into his visionary experiences. However, descriptions of
corporate experiences of the ascent are lacking in the Hekhalot literature. R. Davila has
argued that the ascent did serve a corporate function. However, rather than the mystic
drawing disciples into his own ascent, he acted on behalf of the community in the ascent.
The representative function of the descender of the chariot is common in all forms of
shamanism in which the shaman functions as an intermediary in order to create a rapport
between this group and the supramundane world.
55

Chilton has failed to offer convincing evidence from the canonical Gospels to
support the hypothesis that Jesus was a merkabah mystic. Chilton might discover that
other sources, such as the Gospel of Thomas, provide more promising evidence of early
connections between Jesus teaching and merkabah mysticism.
56
However, evidence
suggests that the canonical Gospels are closer to the historical Jesus both chronologically
and theologically than the Gospel of Thomas and this must cast some doubt on a
reconstruction of Jesus life which depends exclusively or heavily on clues in Thomas.
57


55
See James R. Davila, The Hekhalot Literature and Shamanism, (SPSBL 33 1994), 767-89, esp. 784-86.
56
See the groundbreaking study of merkabah mysticism in Thomas, April D. De Conick, Seek to See Him:
Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (vol. 33 of Supplements to Vigilae Christianae;
Leiden: Brill, 1996).
57
C. A. Evans, Gospel of Thomas (DLNTD; Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1997), 1175-77; R. J.
Bauckham and S. E. Porter, Apocryphal Gospels (DNTB; Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 2000), 72-
25
CONCLUSION
Chilton is to be commended for attempting to write a biography of Christ that
shows appreciation for Jesus identity as an authentic Jew in Palestine. Chilton also calls
attention to the importance of descriptions of Jesus as rabbi which are often overlooked
by contemporary scholars searching for categories for classifying Jesus actions and
teachings. However, Chiltons portrayal of Jesus as a merkabah mystic contributes little
to the quest for the historical Jesus. The portrayal depends upon the use of late sources
which may not accurately describe spiritual phenomena current in first-century Palestine.
Furthermore, the alleged parallels between Jesus spiritual practice and that of the later
merkabah mystics to which Chilton points fail to withstand close scrutiny. Although the
parallels initially appear to be convincing, careful comparison between the words and
activities of Jesus and those of the descenders of the chariot shows that the differences
are far more numerous than the similarities. Consequently, Chiltons biography of Rabbi
Jesus fails to establish the plausibility of his new explanations for the miracles of Jesus,
his self-designation as Son of Man, and the accounts of his resurrection.

74; C. L. Blomberg, Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas, in Gospel
Perspectives 5: The Jesus Tradition Outside of the Gospels, ed. D. Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 177-
205; C. A. Evans, Jesus in the Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels in Studying the Historical Jesus:
Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. B. D. Chilton and C. A. Evans, (NTTS 19; Leiden: E. J. B
Brill, 1994), 499-502. See especially B. D. Chilton, The Gospel according to Thomas as a Source of
Jesus Teaching in Gospel Perspectives 5: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, ed. D. Wenham
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 155-75.