After a rather long tangent looking at the suppression of ancient doctrines and ordinances, I now return to my commentary on Margaret Barker’s work on the themes of the First Temple that show up in later Christian beliefs. This post will focus on Chapter 6 of Temple Themes, entitled Transformation and Transfiguration. Interestingly, the chapter focuses not so much on these two ideas, but on the First Temple belief that God could be seen, especially in the temple. Transformation and transfiguration were the effect caused on the persons who had the privilege of seeing God. This First Temple expectation (that worshippers could see God therein) was also one of the principle hopes of the early Christians, as expressed in Revelation 22:4: “And they shall see his face.”

Barker gives us some great insights into the nature of this expectation in ancient times. For the early Christians:

“Seeing the face of the Lord” must have been the most important part of Christian worship, but what did it mean? (p. 135)

The setting for the Book of Revelation is in the (heavenly) temple, and Barker reasons that this type of vision was likely central to the worship in the Temple of Solomon.  While it is difficult to ascertain due to lack of sufficient evidence, the belief that Yahweh would appear in his temple is expressed in many Old Testament texts. Barker also points out that many of the Hebrew texts appear to have undergone minor changes that alter the meaning of certain passages related to the temple that obscure the idea that God could be seen there. She says:

The changes as the texts were transmitted show that they were controversial, and so ”seeing the face of the Lord” may have been one of the differences between the first and second temples, one of the elements of the older cult that were restore in Christianity (p. 135).

As discussed in previous posts, there is evidence that the Deuteronomist reform was emphatic about declaring that God could not be seen, and that all contact with Deity involved hearing God’s voice alone (see Deut 4:12, a very clear example of this).  While the Deuteronomistic theology would not have Moses see God’s form, other passages declare that he did:

With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude (Heb. t’munah, “form”) of the Lord shall he behold. 

In what is possibly a more ancient version of the Sinai account, Moses, Aaron, Aaron’s sons, and the elders of Israel

saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink (Exod 24:10).

Barker reasons that because they saw His feet, God must have had a human form (p. 136). In similar manner, Ezekiel sees God on his chariot-throne in the likeness of the appearance of a human (Ezek 1:26).

From the Old Testament, Barker explains, we receive a mixed message. Can God be seen or not? Exodus 33 is a good example. In verse 12, God speaks with Moses face to face, but then in verse 20, we are presented with God saying to Moses: “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” There seem to be two contradicting traditions at play here. Barker comments on the existence of these opposing traditions:

In the Old Testament the issue is confused.  There are two positions: the Lord could be seen — the temple tradition — or could not be seen, the later Deuteronomists’ position. The New Testament is emphatic that the Lord was seen…John opens his Gospel with the words: “We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14), thus rooting Christian tradition firmly in one particular strand of the Old Testament. “Man shall not see me and live” (Exod 33:20) is exactly opposite to John’s teaching that seeing the Lord brings eternal life…(pp. 136-137).

Barker tells of the pilgrimage that the men of Israel were required to make three times a year–at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks and at the Feast of Booths–”to appear before the Lord” (Exod 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16). “To appear before the Lord” is the usual translation, but, according to Barker, the Hebrew actually says: three times a year shall all your men see the face of the LORD (p. 146). She explains:

Under the influence of the Duteronomists and their spiritual heirs, it became the custom to read the letter differently, even though the Psalms show clearly what the original meaning must have been.

She then goes through and points out a large number of scriptures which she believes the Deuteronomists modified, not by changing the original Hebrew consonants, but just in the way the words were pronounced. Because the consonants were not pointed (the words had only consonants and no vowels), the meaning could easily be changed by altering the tradition of how the words were prounounced (just changing the vowel sounds). For those who are familiar with the Hebrew verb system, Barker is suggesting that the Deuteronomists began reading these select words in Niph’al, when the were originally Qal. What this means is that instead of reading a phrase actively (Qal)–”see the face”–they were reading passively (Niph’al)–”be seen/appear before the face.” By switching them back to Qal, we get different meanings for the following passages:

• In Exodus 23:15 and 34:20, the text should read “none shall see my face” instead of “none shall appear before me.”
• The same reading applies for Exod 23:17; 34:23, 24; and Deut 16:16 – all should be “see the face of the LORD” instead of “appear before the LORD.”
• Deut 31:11 should be “When all Israel comes to see the face of the LORD your God” instead of “When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God.”
• In 1 Sam 1:22, Hannah planned to take her son “to see the face of the LORD.” 
• In Isaiah 1:12, the meaning of what the Lord says should be “When you come to see my face.”
• Psalm 42:2 should say: “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and see the face of God?”

For each of these examples, Barker says, the Hebrew Lexicon indicates that the Qal (active) form should be read. Citing Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: “The verbs in all these passage were originally Qal, afterwards pointed Niph’al, to avoid the expression ‘see the face of Yahweh’ (1962 Edition, pp. 816, 908).  Barker goes on to muse about what this could possibly mean or how this appearance occurred.

How the Lord was seen or how the glory shone forth we do not know. The king or high priest in golden vestments perhaps? What was literal? What was poetic? How did they organize and choreograph temple ceremonial? What heavenly reality were they expressing in their liturgy? Were the four living creatures around the throne — the lion, the ox, the eagle and the man –in fact masked priests, like those of Egypt and Assyria? We can only read what is there or, given the sensitive nature of this subject, try to recover what was once there.

Egyptian High Priest

  These are interesting questions for Latter-day Saints, in light of our own temple ceremonies. It would not be hard for us to picture, for example, a mortal priesthood officiator representing the Lord in the temple. We know that this happened in many ancient temples, including in Egypt–that a high priest would dress in costume, representing the god. Although these scriptures may be referring to the literal appearance of Yahweh in his temple, which could certainly be possible, they are more likely referring to temple rituals involving humans. Either way, the real point here is that the belief that those who went to the temple expected to see Yahweh was deliberately obscured by later editors who did not want to pass on this ancient belief.  Notwithstanding these changes, many passages still portray the older view.  Many of the clearest examples are found in the Psalms.

“The Psalms were the hymn book of the temple, and in them we glimpse something of the ancient liturgy” (p. 137). Although we can’t get a complete picture from them, and they don’t include dates and authors, we see many recurring themes. One of these, as Barker points out, is: “the Lord was seen, his glory shone forth from the temple” (p. 138).

In my next post, I will comment further on this chapter of Temple Themes, beginning with the vision of Yahweh as expressed in the Psalms.