Representing the Heavenly on Earth: The Temple
We now look at the Temple, the place where Heaven is represented on Earth. Eusebius knew that Moses had built the Tabernacle as an imitation of the visions he had be given on Sinai (Exod 25:8, 40):
And Moses himself, having first been thought worthy to view the divine realities in secret, and the mysteries concerning the first and only Anointed High Priest of God, which were celebrated before him in his theophanies, is ordered to establish figures and symbols on earth of what he had seen in his mind in visions (Proof IV:15)(p. 83).
Later, the Temple built by Solomon would follow the same pattern. What went on in the Tabernacle and Temple was to be an imitation of what went on in Heaven. This is an interesting insight for LDS attenders of the modern Temples. Barker has some great insight on the relationship between the earthly and heavenly:
Yahweh was represented in the temple by the high priest. The temple itself represented the whole creation, visible and invisible, the great hall being the material world and the holy of holies the invisible creation. Philo explained: “The highest, and in the truest sense the holy, temple of God is, as we must believe, the whole universe, having for its sanctuary the most sacred part of all existence, even heaven, for its votive ornaments the stars, and for its priests the angels (Special Laws, 1:66). Since the angels were priests in the temple of creation, the priests in the Jerusalem temple represented the angels…The high priest was the chief of the priests and also the chief of the angels, the LORD of the hosts: “For there are, as is evident, two temples of God: one of them this universe, in which there is also as High Priest His First-born, the divine Logos and the other the rational soul, whose Priest is the real man” (On Dreams1:215). The high priest was the only person permitted to enter the holy of holies, and so he was the link between the visible and invisible worlds, between earth and heaven (pp. 92-93).
The high priests and kings were anointed in ceremonies that involved the Temple in imitation of Christ’s anointing. Eusebius recalled:
Among the Hebrews [the high priests] were called Christs who long ago symbolically represented a copy of the first Christ (Proof IV.10).
Philo also knew this tradition concerning the original Anointed One:
The [heavenly] High Priest is not a man but a Divine Logos…his father being God who is likewise Father of all, and his mother Wisdom, through whom the universe came into existence. Moreover, his head has been anointed with oil, and by this I mean that his ruling faculty is illumined with a brilliant light, in such wise that he is deemed worthy to “put on the garments” (On Flight 108-110).
In the temple, the multi-colored veil represented the material creation. The same fabric was used for the outer vestment of the high priest, threaded through with gold (Exod 28:5-6). According to Barker, the high priest only wore this garment when he was in “the world”; when he was in heaven, the holy of holies, he wore a white linen robe in imitation of celestial beings. This was indicative of his two roles: divine and human (see p. 94).
The coloured vestment worn over the white linen indicated the angel robed in transformed matter: incarnation (p. 94).
In the Book of Revelation, John sees Jesus as a fiery high priestly figure, and Barker makes a connection between this description and the figure that Ezekiel saw atop the merkabah throne he saw. According to Barker, it would seem that this is Christ’s usual mode of appearance, whether pre-mortal or post. He is wearing the vestments of the High Priest. She uses as a further example the Apocalypse of Abraham , a Jewish document believed to have been written towards the end of the first century AD. In this document, Abraham meets a Great Angel named Yahweh-el, who is described both as an angel and the True Prophet. This account is linked to Genesis 15, and we should probably understand that this angelic figure is meant to be Yahweh himself who met with Abraham. Again his appearance is that of a High Priest:
The text is not entirely clear, but it seems that the lower part of his body was like sapphire and his hair was white like snow. He wore the high priestly turban that looked like a rainbow (kidaris, Exod 39:28, Zech 3:5) and purple robes, and he carried a golden staff or sceptre. The heavenly figure had human form, and he came to consecrate and strengthen Abraham…Yahweh-el had been appointed as the guardian angel of Abraham and his descendants (Ap. Abr. 10:16), and he appeared as the High Priest…It was the Lord Yahweh who appeared to Abraham and became the high priestly angel in the Apocalypse of Abraham (pp. 96-97).
The Throne-Sharer
A couple of months ago, Dr. Bill Hamblin wrote a great post on his blog, Things Unutterable, about a model temple from biblical Moab, that demonstrates the synthronos, or dual throne.
William Dever, archeologist, discussed the discovery of this model in Biblical Archaeology Review (34/2, Mar/Apr 2008). It is Dever’s opinion that the dual throne represented the joint rule of Yahweh and Asherah, God and Goddess, from the Temple. Although there is significant evidence for Asherah as an ancient Hebrew goddess, Dr. Hamblin did not agree that the dual throne was necessarily occupied by the divine Father and Mother. He notes that there are other possible combinations, including father (or mother) and son (or king or perhaps high priest as son).
I found an interesting picture on the internet that depicts a related scene:
I think this picture was supposed to depict an earthly representation of Father, Son and Holy Ghost in ancient Israel, but I think they possibly got the order wrong. It should probably be the King on the main throne, with the High Priest seated to his right. Anyways, this is an interesting depiction. It is possibly based on Psalm 110:1, where, as Hamblin notes, the king is invited to sit down at the right hand of God. The high priest, however, should not be representing the Father.
The high priest did represent Yahweh (the Son) according to tradition. It would be correct to imagine the high priest as occupying the throne of or with God, as Yahweh the Great High Priest would share the throne of, and represent, God Most High. We must note, however, that the Davidic king also represented Yahweh, as I explained in the first of this two-part post. I would argue that in ancient Israel, the King was likely more of a high priest than the Aaronic chief priest, but that argument will have to wait for another time. I cite again here, the remarkable verses from 1 Chron 29:23 and also 29:20:
23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.
20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and the king.
So the image becomes one of the king sitting on the throne of/with Yahweh, which we can imagine is in imitation of Yahweh sitting on the throne of/with the Father. Hamblin gives some great insight into how Jews and Christians saw the shared throne:
Later Jews likewise saw synthronos between God and his son, king, angel, or deified human (Dan 7:9-14), most prominently describing Christ (Mt 26:64; Mk 14:62; Acts 7:55-56; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1, 12:2). Metatron (the deified Enoch) is likewise a Jewish synthronos figure (3 Enoch). Given this biblical context, Israelite synthronos is just as likely to be father-son/king as father-mother.
Joseph Smith described his modern vision of the Heavenly Throne in an amazingly similar manner:
(I saw) Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.
Margaret Barker sees this throne-sharing as a key to understanding Christian “monotheism” (see pp. 89-92). She explains that “there can be no division within the divine state” (p. 89). In Heaven, there exists a perfect divine unity–it is only on Earth that we are separate. This idea is expressed in Jesus’ intercessory prayer in John 17, where Jesus prays:
That they may be one even as we are one, I in them and Thou in me, so that they may become perfectly One, so that the world may know that Thou hast sent me…
She notes the use in the book of Revelation of a singular verb for the two Gods–the pairing of God-and-the-Lamb or God-and-the-Christ (Rev 5:13; 7:10-11; 11:15; 20:6). In these scriptures it refers to two figures, God and Christ, but then seems to consider them as one, applying a singular verb. For example the throne of God and the Lamb is seen (in Rev 22:3-4), and his servants shall worship him and see his face. But whose throne is it? God’s or the Lamb’s? Who will be worshipped, and whose face will be seen? According to Barker, this is not an issue.
In each case they are one, because in each case it is a human figure who has become divine…The Lamb is, therefore, a human being taken up to the throne and, as he is enthroned, he becomes divine, united with “him who sits upon the throne”. The Lamb is worshipped after he has stood in the midst of the throne (Rev 5:6). When Solomon was made king, there was an exactly similar sequence; it must have been the ancient temple ritual. Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king (1 Chron 29:23)…At his enthronement, the human king became the LORD. Whether this was imagined as the incarnation of the LORD, or as the adoption of the king as the divine son is not known (p. 91).
Theosis (deification or becoming divine), according to Barker, is an essential part of understanding the temple worship of both ancient Israel and the early Christians. It is also essential to understanding how Christians could believe in a God who became human and a human who became God. This was standard fare in the religion of the First Temple. In conclusion, I quote Barker:
Returned to its temple context, and interpreted within temple norms, early Christian worship was binitarian (they worshipped both Father and Son) because all temple worship was binitarian. The human king was the presence or face of the LORD, Immanuel, and so Christain devotion to Jesus the Anointed One as Yahweh the LORD was no innovation. Far from there being no parallel to this Clhristian practice in Hebrew tradition, it was in fact the restoration of the original temple cult.
4 Comments
This is a great post! I don’t even know what to say. I think I’d have to read it several times to take it all in. You packed it in there.
Doesn’t the Old Testament also use a singular verb for the plural noun “Elohim” in Hebrew?
Thanks, Bryce. We can thank Margaret Barker for packing it in her book!
You’re right about the plural-form Elohim usually having a singular verb associated with it. It’s what scholars often call the “majestic plural”, inferring that the word is not really to be understood as plural in number. But if you look at a scripture like Psalm 82, you see “elohim” used twice–in a way that one must be translated as singular and the other as plural:
(verse 1) Elohim stands in the Council of El; He judges among the elohim.
The way you differentiate between the two is by looking at the grammar and context. As you were saying, because of the singular verb, it would seem that the first Elohim is singular.
However, it would seem to me that, according to Barker, this is not such a sure conclusion. Perhaps our “majestic plural” is plural because, in reality, the being referred to is represented other beings. Just like God-and-the-Lamb is the one Lamb sitting on the throne, He is representing God as well.
Just a thought…
Fantastic post!
I would add these to the mix:
” [At the resurrection of the dead] …they shall come forth—yea, even the dead which died in me, to receive a crown of righteousness, and to be clothed upon, even as I am, to be with me, that we may be one.” (Doctrine and Covenants 29:13)
““The culmination of all initiation is coronation… every individual person may experience his own coronation… [t]here is a fusion of personalities in the coronation situation, he who assumes the crown being identified with whoever else wears it.” (Hugh Nibley, The Message of The Joseph Smith Papyri, Deseret Book, Pg. 353.)
-David
Thanks for sharing those great insights, David! It is interesting how this idea of oneness is tied into crown/coronation. According to Scripture, both chief priest and king (2 Sam 1:10; 2 Kgs 11:12) wore an item called “nezer” which is often translated as “crown”. It appears to have been (or included) a gold plate on front which, according to Margaret Barker (see The Great High Priest, p. 46), had written on it the four letters of the Sacred Name (YHWH). Whoever wore this item was seen as representing Yahweh. As I noted in both parts I and II of this post, there is evidence for both high priest and king being “worshipped” as they represented Yahweh in cultic functions.