Insights from Margaret Barkers Temple Themes in Christian Worship1

By David Larsen
The Secret Temple Tradition
In this article, I hope to share some of the most exciting insights provided by biblical scholar
Margaret Barker in her most recent book, Temple Themes in Christian Worship (T&T Clark
International, 2007). Margaret Barker has become well known and well respected in LDS circles
because of her research into the Temple, the use of temple imagery and rituals among the early
Christians, and other topics of great interest to LDS readers. I had the great privilege of meeting
her at the 2007 Society of Biblical Literature conference in San Diego, where she spoke on the
topic of Melchizedek at the Latter-day Saints and the Bible session. LDS readers will find
many of her ideas similar to their own beliefs.
You really should read this book, but until you have the opportunity, I hope to share with
you some of the points I found most inspiring. To begin her study of temple themes in Christian
worship, Barker begins by giving evidence that there was, in fact, a secret tradition of
beliefs/practices that had its roots in the ancient Temple of Solomon. Many of the early Church
Fathers knew of authentic Christian traditions not recorded in the Bible (p. 1). She cites St.
Basil the Great, one of the influential Cappadocian Fathers, as saying:
Of the dogma and kerygma which are preserved in the Church, we have some from
teachings in writing, and the others we have received from the tradition of the
apostles, handed down in a mystery (On the Holy Spirit 66) (1, emphasis mine).
and also:
The apostles and fathers who prescribed from the beginning the matters that concerned
the Church, guarded in secret and unspoken, the holy things of the mysteriesA whole
day would not be long enough from me to go through all the unwritten mysteries of the
Church (On the Holy Spirit 67) (1-2).
The Apostles had passed on teachings that Jesus shared with them in private -- the mysteries
(Greek mysterion) or secrets of the Kingdom of God (Mark 4:11). For Barker, the Kingdom of
God is the place of Gods Throne, the Holy of Holies. When Jesus spoke of the Kingdom, he was
speaking of the Temple. Jesus had passed on to select disciples the true practices of the ancient
Temple; practices not recorded in the Scriptures, nor written down by Jesus disciples. This
Temple knowledge was to be passed on unwritten -- in secret.
She notes that Josephus recorded a similar practice (of passing on secret traditions) among the
Essenes. Entry into their community was very strict, and new members had to swear an oath
invoking the living God and calling to witness his almighty right hand, and the Spirit of God,
the incomprehensible, and the Seraphim and Cherubim, who have insight into all, and the whole

1 Originally published as a series of posts on my blog, www.heavenlyascents.com in June, 2008.

heavenly host (Jewish War 2:138 ) (5). The Essene swore that he would reveal none of the sects
secrets, even under torture.
For the earliest Christians, knowledge of this secret Temple tradition was an important factor in
distinguishing true believers from heretics (although this perspective seems to have been
reversed later on). Clement of Alexandria identified heretics as those who did not have
knowledge of the secret truths: They do not enter in as we enter in, through the tradition of
the Lord, by drawing aside the curtain (Miscellanies7:17) (15).
Barker astutely interprets the reference to the curtain as an allusion to the Temple veil, and that
knowledge gained beyond the curtain must have been the sacred truths of the Holy of Holies,
reserved for the high priests. This knowledge concerned the vision of God, she says, and had
been transmitted by a few having been imparted unwritten by the apostles (Miscellanies 6:7)
(15).
The Old Testament portrays the Holy of Holies as having been restricted to the high priests
alone. For Christians, Jesus was the great High Priest who had brought them the secrets of the
Heavenly Holy of Holies. Besides the knowledge, it appears that Christ also passed on his high
priesthood. The early Christians knew John the Beloved to be both a prophet and a high
priest (Eusebius, Church History 3:31). Likewise, James was a high priest of the Jerusalem
church, and is known to have shared a secret teaching that was revealed to him and Peter by
the Lord (13).
Furthermore, the Christians, as a group, were the new royal high priesthood, according to
Origen, and thus worthy to see the Word of God and receive the mysteries of the Temple
(Homily 5, On Numbers) (12). Elsewhere in the book, Barker specifically refers to this
priesthood as a restoration of the older priesthood of Melchizedek (57, emphasis in original).
Jesus brought a restoration of the ancient temple practices that had existed in the First Temple.
Temple themes and practices pervaded early Christian beliefs and rituals. Although the original
forms and meanings were obscured over time, many themes from these Temple roots can be
found in early Christian writings, liturgies, rituals, and architecture. While the early Christians
were preserving the ancient Temple tradition, the contemporary Jews were establishing an
identity that emphasized a tradition that had no place for the temple and priesthood (14).
Margaret Barkers research in temple traditions gives ample evidence that there was a tradition in
early Christianity of a secret teaching that was handed down unwritten from the time of Jesus
and the Apostles. It was believed to be the authentic ancient temple tradition, along with its
priesthood, restored.
Christians: Heirs of the True Temple
This next section of my analysis of Margaret Barkers Temple Themes in Christian Worship is
taken from both chapters 2 and 3: Temple and Synagogue, and Sons and Heirs. In these
chapters, Barker continues with her theme of the secret temple tradition and its importance to
Christianity. She looks at the importance of temple themes for the study of Christian origins,
what this tradition meant for Israels Messianic expectations, and also what it meant for the

Christian understanding of their own identity. There is so much great information in these
chapters that I can only present a brief overview here. I highly encourage you to get a copy of
this book and read it for yourself. There are many details I couldnt mention here that are of
interest to Latter-day Saints.
First of all, Barker further establishes the need to look to the First Temple (Solomons) when
attempting a study of the origin of Christian worship. She notes, with dismay, how most
scholars try to locate these origins in the tradition of the synagogue rather than the temple.
Because details regarding temple worship in this formative period are hard to come by, scholars
have a tendency to seek similarities between Christian worship and the worship that took place in
the synagogue. According to Barker, however, Christian self-identification sounds more like the
Temple than the synagogue.
Any investigation of the origin of Christian worship must take into account the fact
that Jesus was proclaimed as the Great High Priest (e.g. Heb. 4.14), and the high
priest did not function in a synagogue; that the central message of Christianity was
the atonement, a ritual at the heart of temple worship; that the hope for the Messiah
was grounded in the royal high priesthood of the original temple; and that the
Christians thought of themselves as a kingdom of priests (1 Pet. 2.9). The great high
priest and his royal priests would have been out of place in a synagogue, and a large
number of priests joined the church in Jerusalem (Acts 6.7) (p. 20).
Jesus, and his disciples after him, went to the Temple frequently, and its themes pervaded their
language and traditions. The Book of Revelation, that apocalyptic expression of Christian
worship, has as its setting the Heavenly Temple and is replete with temple imagery. Barker does
an excellent job of presenting the temple themes present in Christian tradition that clearly did not
have their roots in the worship of the synagogue.
Although the temple was so important to the early Christians, Barker explains how, ironically, it
is possible that Christians were soon barred from visiting the Temple. Although Christ and the
Apostles were quite at home in the Temple, there came a time when Christians were no longer
welcome. Barker cites evidence that besides being expelled from the synagogues, they were
also cut off from the Templedeclared anathema or cursed (see pgs. 36-37).
How, then, did Christian worship involve the Temple if they had no access to it? This is the topic
that occupies much of the last part of chapter 2 and then chapter 3. The first obvious answer is
that they carried on the temple tradition without the temple walls. Christians claimed to be the
true heirs to the temple tradition (p. 38). They did not necessarily need to be in the Temple to
carry on its rituals, beliefs, and doctrines. They were the living stones of the spiritual temple (1
Pet 2:5), built on the foundation of prophets and apostles (Eph 2:1922). Like the authors of
The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice at Qumran, Christians could carry on a living temple
liturgy without having a literal temple building to perform it in (see pg. 39). Latter-day Saints

can perhaps compare this to Joseph Smith performing endowments and other ordinances before
the Nauvoo Temple was built.
Although the idea of the spiritual and heavenly reality of the Temple was important for
Christians, they did expect that they would one day have a true, physical temple to worship in.
Justin, in his debates with Trypho, assured him that:
I and every other completely orthodox Christian feel certain that there will be a
resurrection of the flesh, followed by a thousand years in the rebuilt, embellished
and enlarged city of Jerusalem, as announced by the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and
the others (Trypho 80) (p. 60).
Barker reasons that because Ezekiel had given detailed instructions for the building of a new
temple, we can assume that Justin was looking forward to a literal rebuilding. The Christians,
similar to the Jews (as expressed in 2 Baruch 32 and elsewhere), believed that, in the
future, Jerusalem would be restored to glory and perfected into eternity (see pp. 60-61). This
included either a new temple, or that Jerusalem itself would be one huge temple. In any case,
Barker notes, Being a spiritual temple did not mean that they did not hope for a great
temple building too (p. 61).
The hope for a restored temple was part of the millennial hope and messianic expectation. How
could a restored Temple be part of the messianic expectation if, at that point, the Temple still
stood? Barker reminds us that Jesus cleansed the temple (p. 45). This was because the temple
of Jesus time, the Second Temple, was corrupt. Ever since the Jews rebuilt the Temple in
Jerusalem, after their return from exile, many had felt it was corrupt-a false temple with a false
priesthood, and looked for a restoration of the ancient true temple. This idea is expressed in
much of the intertestamental literature, including 1 Enoch, Qumrans Temple Scroll, 2 Esdras,
and others. The Messiah was expected to come and destroy the existing temple and build another.
Barker notes that this implies two things: that there was something seriously wrong with
the second temple: and that the messianic hope was rooted in another, earlier temple (p.
53). She takes Johns vision of the great harlot in Rev 17 to be a description of the corruption of
the Second Temple.
[The Temple was,] as the great harlot (Rev. 17.1), dressed in the vestments of the
high priesthood purple and scarlet, gold jewels and pearls -and she had a name
on her forehead: Babylon the great (Rev. 17.5), a parody of the Name worn on
the forehead by the high priest (Exod. 28.36). The harlot would be burned, a
punishment reserved for harlots of the house of Aaron, the high priestly family (Lev.
21.9). There is little doubt who she was. And as she burned, the saints in heaven
rejoiced and sang praises to God (Rev. 19.1-3).

Although we see this as a prophecy for the last days, it is likely that John was drawing on images
from his own time as a type of what would happen eschatologically.
After detailing why the temple and priesthood were considered corrupt, she goes on to say:
The Christian claim is unmistakeable: the corruption of the priesthood had brought
the downfall of the temple, and Jesus was the new high priest[The] former faith,
superseded after the exile, was the faith of the first temple, and the evidence is
consistent that the priests of the second temple had very different ways. They were
an apostate generation whose works were evil (1 Enoch 93.9). The Christians
claimed for Jesus the older priesthood of Melchizedek (pp. 56-57, emphasis in
original).
Lord and Christ
In this section, I will look at chapter 4, LORD AND CHRIST. This is a powerful chapter
which looks at just who the Christians believed they were worshipping and what relationship
Jesus had with Yahweh (the LORD), and with the Temple.

Worshipping Jesus
How could a group of Jews worship Jesus when the God of Israel was Yahweh? It is obvious
from Christian tradition, art, and literature that Jesus was certainly considered worthy of
worship. Barker cites the Epistle to the Hebrews as an example:
And let all the angels of God worship him (Heb 1:6).
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more
excellent name than they (1:4).
Barker notes that the angels were not the object of worship. They themselves worshipped the Son
because he was greater than they, due to the Name which he had inherited. What was the name
that Jesus inherited? It was the sacred name Yahweh (Jehovah). This explains why Christians
worshipped Jesus.
In Greek, the New Testament calls Jesus Kyrios Iesous, meaning Jesus is LORD. The early
Christians confessed that Jesus is Kyrios (Rom 10:9). The significance of this confession is that
in the Greek Old Testament texts, which the early Christians would have used, Yahweh is always
referred to as Kyrios (LORD). The Hebrew phrase Yahweh Elohim becomes Kyrios the God
(Gen 2:4). When Moses has his vision of the Lord in the Burning Bush, it would say in the
Greek:

2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Kyrios:
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God
Almighty, but by my name Kyrios was I not known to them. (Exo 6:2-3).
Barker explains:
The earliest Christian proclamation of faith was Jesus is Kyrios, Jesus is Yahweh (p.
74).
Barker gives a number of evidences of Christ being worshipped as Yahweh, the God of Israel,
including the fact that Christians saw the Psalms as praising Jesus and foretelling events of his
life. She emphasizes that this should not be seen as an attempt to re-interpret the Psalms, but that
Christians understood them in their original sense, as praise to Yahweh, who was Jesus.
Worship of a Human Being?
On page 76, Barker ponders the complicated question of how a group of Jews could have
worshipped a human being as God? When the Emperor Caligula had tried to set up a statue of
himself in the Temple in Jerusalem, according to Josephus (Jewish War 2:184-5), the Jewish
nation met his army with fierce resistance. This can be seen as strong rejection on the part of the
Jews to the worship of a human being as God.
We must remember, however, that Jesus was not seen as any ordinary human beingJesus was
Yahweh incarnate. Christ also represented the Father on Earth. There was precedence for this
type of worship in Jewish tradition. In ancient times, Yahweh was represented in the temple by
the high priest, who wore the four letters of the Name on his forehead (Exod 28:36, but notice
that in the current text it says Holiness to the Lord, not YHWH).
Barker cites Hecataeus, a Greek writer, as describing Jewish temple tradition:
The high priestis an angel to them of Gods commandments and when he spoke,
the Jews immediately fall to the ground and worship the high priest as he explains
the commandments to them (in Diodorus Siculus XI 3:5-6).
She compares this observation to the Jewish description of Simon the high priest, written in
Jerusalem in about 200 BC:
When he emerged from the holy of holies he was like the morning star, like the sun
shining on the temple; his very presence made the court of the temple glorious. When he
had poured the libation, the trumpest sounded and all the people togetherfell to the
ground upon their faces to worship (proskunein) their LORD (Kyrios) (ben Sira
50:17). The most natural way to read this is that they were worshipping the high priest,
or rather, Yahweh whom he represented (p. 77).

Besides the high priest, it is likely that Israels kings were also recognized as representing
Yahweh. As evidence for this, she cites 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.

God, But Not Most High

It is quite clear that humans could represent God on earth and even were worthy of some sort of
worship or reverence as if they were God (representing him). But how could Jesus represent God
if he was God? And why do we have Christians making statements to the effect that no one had
seen the Father (John 6:46), and that the Jews had never heard the Fathers voice nor seen his
form (John 5:37)? According to Barker:
John was emphatic that the One who appeared in the Old Testament was not God
the Father but Jesus, before his incarnation (p. 79).
Barker then launches into a wonderful discussion of what she calls the binitarian nature of
early Christian worship, referring to the fact that Christians worshipped both Jesus/Yahweh and
the Father/God Most High. The root of this worship is the understanding that in Old Testament
times, both deities were worshipped. This is the way in which the Christians read the Old
Testament: as a record of God Most High and his Son Yahweh (see p. 79). She cites Philo, a
Jewish contemporary of Jesus, as he expounded on Gen 31:13:
For just as those who are unable to see the sun itself see the gleam of the parhelion and
take it for the sun, and take the halo round the moon for that luminary itself, so some
regard the Image of God, the Angel His Logos, as His very Self (On Dreams 1:239)
(p. 79).
Philo was correcting some who had mistakenly identified the Logos as God Most High. For
Philo, the Logos could be called God, but was the Second God (for much more on Philo, see
related chapter in Margaret Barkers The Great Angel: A Study of Israels Second
God (Louisville: W/KJP, 1992), which is an excellent book and was my introduction to M.
Barker).
Barker explains how our current version of Deut 32:8 has been altered in a way that it no longer
reflects the original belief concerning the sons of God. Our current version tells of how God
Most High divided up the nations according to the number of the children (sons) of Israel.
According to a Hebrew text found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (The Song of Moses),

the nations were divided up according to the sons of Elohim. This agrees more fully with the
Greek Old Testament (LXX) version which has the angels of God. Barker notes:
When God Most High assigned the nations to the sons of God, he gave Jacob into the care
of Yahweh. This implies that Yahweh was the Son of God most High. (p. 89, emphasis in
original).
Eusebius, a Christian historian writing in the fourth century, understood this verse in the same
way:
In these words (Moses) names first God Most High, the Supreme God of the universe,
and then as LORD, his Word, Whom we call LORD in the second degree after the
God of the universe (Proof of the Gospel IV:9)(p. 80).
In Clementine Recognitions II:42, Peter explains the role of the sons of God:
For every nation has an angel to whom God has committed the government of that
nation; and when one of these appears, although he be thought and called God by those
over whom he presides, yet being asked he does not give such a testimony to himself.
For the Most High God, who alone holds the power of all things, has divided the
nations of the earth inot seventy two parts and over thse he has appointed angels as
princes. But to the one among the archangels who is the greatest, was committed the
government of those who, before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the
Most High (p. 80).
Christ was seen as the greatest of the angels, who was given Israel as his jurisdiction by God.
This Angel was known as both Yahweh and the Angel of Yahweh in the Old Testament. This is
the Being who had appeared to the patriarchs and prophets of ancient Israel. Justin explained:
Then neither Abraham nor Isaac nor Jacob nor any other man ever saw the Father and
Ineffable LORD of all things and of Christ Himself; but (they saw) Him who according
to his will, is both God his Son, and his Angel from ministering to his
will (Trypho 127) (p. 81).
Origen knew that Christ, the Son, was not simply an angel, but the Angel of Great Counsel
(Celsus 5:53). This was no Christian innovationthe Jews also knew this figure, and, according
to Eusebius, knew that the Angel of Great Counsel was the Messiah (Preparation VII:14-5).
In Isaiah 9:6, where the promised child is called in the Hebrew Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty
God, etc., the Greek version simply calls him the Angel of Great Counsel.
Barker notes:
There is no doubt that Jesus was recognized and proclaimed as Yahweh, the LORD,
the Son of God Most HighAccording to Eusebius, the Hebrews had believed that
the Angel of Great Counsel was the Messiah; the difference between Jews and
Christians was that the Jews did not accept that Jesus had been the Messiah, that

the Angel had already come. This implies that belief in the Second Person was not
unique to Christian; the problem was the identity of the Second Person.
This understanding was prevalent in early Christianity, and Barker gives many more examples of
how Christ was seen as the God of the Old Testament, but separate and subordinate to the Most
High God, His Father. Again, she goes into great depth on this topic in her earlier book, The
Great Angel: A Study of Israels Second God.

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 angelsThe 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 Christs 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 Logoshis 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 Christs 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 Yahwehel, 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
AbrahamYahweh-el had been appointed as the guardian angel of Abraham and his
descendants (Ap. Abr. 10:16), and he appeared as the High PriestIt 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
Dr. Bill Hamblin recently alerted me to a small model temple that was dug up from an
archaeological dig in 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 Devers 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 cite again here the remarkable verses from 1 Chronicles 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 7:914), most prominently describing Christ (Mt 26:64; Mk
14:62; Acts 7:5556; 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.
(D&C 137:3)
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? Gods or the Lambs? 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
divineThe 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 Christian devotion to Jesus the Anointed One as Yahweh
the LORD was no innovation. Far from there being no parallel to this Christian
practice in Hebrew tradition, it was in fact the restoration of the original temple
cult.