In this post, I would like to present some of the details of this ritual, as outlined by Bentzen.  While this ritual is, again, hypothetical, the arguments for its existence are quite persuasive, based on the comparison of certain psalms to the rituals of other Near Eastern cultures, for which we have more detailed textual evidence.  In the non-Israelite cultic poems, we see the inclusion of certain “rubrics,” or scoring tools useful for determining their cultic function. While the OT psalms include no such helps, a comparison to similar texts help us understand their possible use and how they fit into the overall ritual.  Bentzen, following other scholars, seems to work with the assumption that almost all of the psalms had a place in the royal rituals.

Victorious soldiers from stone relief at Assurnasirpal's Northwest Palace at Nimrud, c.865-860 BC (room B, panel 8, top register; BM ANE 124548). Photo by Eleanor Robson.

While a careful study of, for example, Psalms 2 and 110 could lead to a conclusion like that of Mowinckel, that these are “oracles belonging to the liturgy of the day of anointing the king,”² a comparison to known ANE rituals can provide much more specific details. For example, we know from the Assyrian liturgy that the Supreme Eunuchs must kiss the feet of the king twice–compare to Psalm 2:11–12, where someone is instructed to “kiss the Son (i.e. the king).” While I don’t believe that the Israelite ritual should necessarily contain all the elements of Assyrian, Babylonian, or Egyptian rites, a careful comparison can certainly be fruitful.

Bentzen cites Durr’s interpretation of Psalm 110 as a basic outline of the Israelite coronation ritual, an agenda for this ceremony. Durr finds in the psalm the following events:

1.  the Enthronement (v. 1)
2. the Investiture, especially with sceptre (v. 2)
3. the Acclamation (v. 3)
4. the Ordination as priest [after the order of Melchizedek] (v. 4)
5. the Promise of victory over enemies (v. 5-6)
6. the Sacramental drink of water from the Holy Well (v. 7)

Bentzen agrees with this reconstruction of the ritual, but adds that it should be seen as “connected with the New Year Festival and its Creation drama.”³ The central conflict of this drama is what Bentzen terms “the ritual combat.” This goes back to the tradition of Yahweh battling and overcoming the forces of Chaos which are attempting to impede the good work of the Creation. In the ritualized drama, this is represented as the victory of the king over his enemies. The ritual includes, according to Bentzen:

• the preparations for battle; 
• the battle itself; 
• the suffering of the king/god under the heavy attacks of the enemies; 
• the death of the king/god (which Bentzen wants to attribute only to the non-Israelite systems); 
• his salvation and return from the underworld; 
• his final seizing of power and his enthronement in the newly-built temple. 

'Investiture of Narseh' at Naqsh-e Rostam

According to this pattern, psalms like 2 and 110 would be recited and acted out before the representation of the cosmic battle.  Bentzen suggests that Psalm 110 “is an oracle promising the king what he needs before entering the battle against the enemies, whom he will be able to annihilate by the mighty help of his God.”⁴ The drink from the Holy Fountain (v. 7) must be meant to strengthen him before the great fight. He goes on to state that

we must take it that enthronement, investiture, proclamation of the divine sonship of the king and of his priesthood, as well as sacramental communion, are placed before the ritual combat, as a preparation for it.⁵

This is a very insightful concept for LDS readers who are familiar with the concept of receiving the temple endowment before being sent off on missions or before marriage, and of Brigham Young’s push for as many saints as possible to receive their temple blessings before the trek west.

Bentzen then goes on to describe how he sees a number of other psalms fitting into this proposed liturgy. I will briefly summarize some of his points:

• Psalms 20 and 21 should also be seen as part of the coronation before the great battle
• Psalms 3, 11, 12, 13 and 14 + the “royal psalms of lamentation” should be seen as being used during the ritual combat, and make reference to the suffering of the king
• Psalms 22, 69, 27 + “royal psalms” contain “adoption” theme (see Psalm 2) and king saved by being “taken up” (27:10)
• Also Psalms 42-43 describe the king’s plea for salvation as he is brought near to death 
• Psalm 88:2–9 possibly represents the symbolic death and descent to the underworld of the king
• Although Bentzen doesn’t fully agree, Psalms 35:23; 44:24; 59:5 seem to plead for Yahweh to “wake up”, while 18:46 declares that “Yahweh lives!” 

He cites Widengren as saying that this was likely a cultic phrase proclaiming the resurrection of the god. According to Widengren:

This is what we must expect, because the role of the king in the cult as suffering and being in the hands of the underworld, but also as victor and coming forht in living power, would be unexplained without this supposition.⁶

Bentzen singles out Psalm 89 as particularly noteworthy for this part of the ritual. The Lord gives the king great promises associated with the covenant God has made with him.  The greatness of the king is modeled after the greatness of Yahweh. However, the last part of the psalm records the king’s complaints that God has abandoned and forsaken him and gone back on his promise to protect him.  This is very interesting in light of Christ’s expression of being forsaken while on the cross.

Finally, he looks at the “great liturgy” of Psalm 132. He calls this psalm a “Liturgy of the Entry of the Ark of Yahweh.” Apparently, the events described in this psalm are “strongly reminiscent of the Babylonian New Year celebrations on the 5th Nisan.”⁷ This psalm should be read in conjunction with the “historified” accounts of 1 Sam 4-6 and 2 Sam 6.  Bentzen interprets the connection between these narratives and Psalm 132 thus:

Psalm 132 belongs to a ritual related to this “historified myth”. Yahweh returns from the “Hell” of the Land of the Philistines, where he has defeated his enemy Dagon.  In the last phase of the fight David has come to his help and has brought him into his sanctuary. David here plays the role of the forerunner preparing the way of Yahweh, just as the Messiah (anointed messenger) does in Malachi 3:1ff.  Psalm 132, therefore, must be the conclusion and the culmination of the ritual, parallel to Psalm 24, where Yahweh returns to his sanctuary as the “King of Glory”. ((Ibid., p. 32))

For some reason, Bentzen doesn’t see Yahweh’s descensus ad inferos (descent into hell) as a death, but affirms that it is a “victorious battle.” He then compares this theme to the expression used for Christ: “Death could not control him” (Acts 2:24).  I don’t know why, if Bentzen is willing to compare Yahweh’s “descent into hell” to Christ’s, that he doesn’t accept the symbolic death of Yahweh in the Israelite ritual.  The answer is probably the obvious–that he sees Yahweh as the Almighty God, whose death would be unthinkable.  If he were open to the idea that Yahweh was the Son of God and not God Most High⁸ — this would not be a predicament, as he would not be opposed, I imagine, to a representation of the Son of God dying.

Although Bentzen’s ideas are quite old now, and have certainly been discussed and rehashed numerous times, I have only recently obtained a copy of his book recently, and have found it to be very fruitful.  After this discussion of the ritual to be found in the psalms, he goes on to discuss the idea of the Israelite king as a “present messiah”, the notion of the Messiah as the “First Man”, a discussion of the identity of the Servant of Yahweh (is he a king or prophet?), and the “eschatalogizing” and renaissance of the ancient rituals in later, and especially Christian, literature.  While I probably won’t get to all of this great material, I hope to share at least some highlights in the near future.

1. See the comments on the previous post for Blake Ostler’s objection to this enthronement ritual being an annual event.
2. As cited in Bentzen, p. 22
3. Ibid., p. 23
4. Ibid., p. 24
5. Ibid.
6. As cited in Bentzen, p. 27
7. Ibid., p. 31
8. see Margaret Barker’s The Great Angel

Apparently baptism constituted a much larger role in ancient Israel than is readily apparent from the scriptures, although the form might have varied. 

The article from the Jewish Encyclopedia  [on baptism] is very interesting.

I pulled up Tvedtnes’ book on GospeLink, “The Church of the Old Testament,” and in it he said (pages 5-9):

Baptism, then, was nothing new in the time of Christ. In fact, this ancient ordinance was established in the days of Adam, as is evidenced in the Book of Moses, a revelation of great importance received by Joseph Smith in 1830:

“And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water. And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.” (Moses 6:64–65.)

We find a vague reference to this event in 1 Adam & Eve, a pseudepigraphal work that exists in part in the Koran, the Talmud, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and old Greek and Ethiopic texts. In chapter 1, verses 2-5, of this work we read:

And to the north of the garden there is a sea of water, clear and pure to the taste, like unto nothing else; so that, through the clearness thereof, one may look into the depths of the earth. And when a man washes himself in it, becomes clean of the cleanness thereof, and white of its whiteness-even if he were dark. And God created that sea of His own pleasure, for He knew what would come of the man He should make; so that after he had left the garden, on account of his transgression, men should be born in the earth, from among whom righteous ones should die, whose souls God would raise at the last day; when they should return to their flesh; should bathe in the water of that sea, and all of them repent of their sins. But when God made Adam go out of the garden, He did not place him on the border of it northward, lest he should draw near to the sea of water, and he and Eve wash themselves in it, be cleansed from their sins, forget the transgression they had committed, and be no longer reminded of it in the thought of their punishment. (Rutherford H. Platt, The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, pp. 4-5.)

In chapters 32 and 33 of 1 Adam & Eve, we find a long account of how Adam and Eve went to the waters and stood in them and prayed God to forgive them of their sins. They were separated by quite some distance. Satan appeared to Adam, telling him to come out of the water, for his sins had been forgiven him. But Adam recognized Satan, though he appeared in the form of an angel of light. (See D&C 128:20.) Adam knew that forgiveness of his sins could not come until he had been immersed in the water, and he rebuked Satan, who went henceforth to tempt Eve. For her part, she was deceived by his masquerade as an angel, and she left the water to find Adam and tell him that their sins had been forgiven. When she came to where Adam was standing in the water, her husband realized that she had once again given in to temptation, and “he saw her, and smote upon his breast; and from the bitterness of his grief, he sank into the water. But God looked upon him and upon his misery, and upon his being about to breathe his last. And the Word of God came from heaven, raised him out of the water, and said unto him, ‘Go up the high bank to Eve.’” (Platt, p. 23.) It is possible that we have here a reference to the baptism of Adam, which the Lord explained to him in these words:

If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you.

And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden. (Moses 6:52–53.)

The descendants of Adam also received the ordinance of baptism and were permitted to become sons of God. This practice existed in the postdiluvian era as well, even among the Israelites:

Israel was admitted into covenant by three things; namely, circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt…. Baptism was in the wilderness before the giving of the Law, for it is said: ‘Thou shalt sanctify them…and let them wash their garments….’ So, whenever a Gentile desires to enter the Covenant of Israel and place himself under the wings of the Divine Majesty, and take the yoke of the Law upon him, he must be circumcised and baptized, and bring a sacrifice. (Origin of Jewish-Christian Baptism -Maimonides.)

This passage bears directly upon the baptism of Gentile Christians [author's note: in other words, Christian baptism was practiced in the same manner as Jewish baptism]; but it casts light also on the genesis of Jewish Christian baptism; for, apart from circumcision, the cases were largely parallel. Sinful Israelites, too, needed to re-enter the covenant in a deeper sense…so placing themselves ‘under the wings of the Shekinah’ for Baptism was practised in ancient Judaism, first as a means of penitence, as is learned from the story of Adam and Eve, who, in order to atone for their sin, stood up to the neck in the water, fasting and doing penance. (Jewish Encyclopedia 2:499.)

To receive the spirit of God, or to be permitted to stand in the presence of God (His Shekinah), man must undergo Baptism. (Ibid.)

This is precisely what Jesus said:

“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5.)

He was speaking to Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, who had come to him by night to ask concerning salvation. His response to Jesus’ statement was one of surprise: “Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” (John 3:9–10.) Jesus was evidently amazed at Nicodemus’s ignorance concerning the important subject of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. These ordinances existed long before Jesus, and it was to be expected that any learned Jew knew of them. Even present-day authorities admit the use of the ordinance of baptism in ancient days:

“Modern researches have shown positively that Judaism sent forth apostles….Sincerity of motive in the proselyte was insisted upon….from the law that proselyte and native Israelite should be treated alike (Numbers XV: 14 et seq.) the inference was drawn that circumcision, the bath of purification, and sacrifice were prerequisites for conversion.” (Jewish Encyclopedia 10:222.)

 

Ablutions in the temple of Jerusalem were also important to the Israelite community. This is especially significant to Latter-day Saints, for our modern temples are equipped with baptismal fonts resembling that of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:23–26; Jeremiah 52:20), i.e., normally on the backs of twelve oxen. The font in Solomon’s temple was called the “brazen sea.” We read that “the sea was for the priests to wash in.” (2 Chronicles 4:6.)

The word wash often served in the Old Testament text in the same manner as did baptize (from a Greek word, baptizo, to immerse) in the New Testament. We have already seen that Jewish scholars sometimes refer to baptism as the “bath of purification.” It was not merely skin-deep purification; it referred to the overt sign of an inward repentance on the part of the proselyte: “To sum up: as baptism had in Judaism come to mean purificatory consecration, with twofold reference-from an old state and to a new-so was it in Christianity. It denoted…the convert’s attitude towards his past sinful state with its ‘dead works,’ or towards God as sinned against-repentance…. The practical effect was remission of past sins.” (Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 2:377.)

“Christian baptism is of uncertain origin,” wrote Vergilius Ferm. “Possibly the baptism of Jewish proselytes furnished the model followed by the early Christian missionaries.” (Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 53.) Other scholars also see a Jewish origin in this New Testament ordinance:

The exhortations of this respectable messenger (John the Baptist) were not without effect; and those who, moved by his solemn admonitions, had formed the resolution of correcting their evil dispositions, and amending their lives, were initiated into the kingdom of the Redeemer by the ceremony of immersion, or baptism. Christ himself, before he began his ministry, desired to be solemnly baptized by John in the waters of Jordan, that he might not, in any point, neglect to answer the demands of the Jewish law. (Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, Cent. I, p. 27.)

According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism. (Jewish Encyclopedia 2:499.)

The only conception of Baptism at variance with Jewish ideas is displayed in the declaration of John, that the one who would come after him would not baptize with water, but with the Holy Ghost (Mark 1:8; John 1:27). Yet a faint resemblance to the notion is displayed in the belief expressed in the Talmud that the Holy Spirit could be drawn upon as water is drawn from a well (based on Isaiah 12:3; Yer. Suk. v. 1, 55a of Joshua b. Levi). And there is a somewhat Jewish tinge even to the prophecy of the evangelists Matthew (3:11) and Luke (3:16), who declare that Jesus will baptize with fire as well as with the Holy Ghost; for, according to Abbahu, true Baptism is performed with fire (Sanh. 39a). Both the statement of Abbahu and of the Evangelists must of course be taken metaphorically. (Ibid.)

Circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice, then, were necessary in order to enter the covenant of Israel. Circumcision, as we know, was declared by the apostles at Jerusalem to be unnecessary to salvation (Acts 15), for it had not existed from the beginning, but was a special covenant-token beginning with Abraham. Baptism, however, began with Adam, as we have seen, and is to exist for all men at all times; it is thus necessary for salvation. Sacrifice also began with Adam. Early portions of the Old Testament demonstrate the practice of sacrifice by Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:3–7), Noah (Genesis 8:20–21), and Abraham (Genesis 22:1–14). After the Exodus, Moses, his father-in-law Jethro, and Aaron and his sons sacrificed (Exodus 17:15; 18:12). Many altars were built in the wilderness by the Israelites for the purpose of offering sacrifices unto the Lord (Exodus 20:24–26; 24:4-8).

I thank Bryce for the great research he did on this topic and also to John Tvedtnes for his great insights on gospel ordinances in the Old Testament that he has passed on.  I do not believe that Margaret Barker would agree with some of these conclusions, as it was her purpose to show that Christian baptism was a restoration of the priestly initiation (washing and anointing).  However, as Latter-day Saints we believe that baptism has existed as an ordinance since the time of Adam and that it has been a requirement for entering the Kingdom of God in all dispensations.  So I will leave it to you, the reader, to sort out in your mind how it all works!

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.