The Anthropomorphic Appearance of God
In addition to the portrayal of God ‘sitting’
on a throne there are several other anthropomorphic details relating to the manifestation
of the Deity. Reference is made to God’s indescribable ‘apparel, which blazes
brighter than the sun of the splendour and glory of his ‘face’, and to his
white and pure ‘head’ (1 En. 14:20-21; 71:10; 2 En. 22:1-6). One
of the most elaborate attempts to describe the contours of the divine form,
however, comes from 2 Enoch. Having entered the seventh heaven, Enoch is
overcome with infinite terror at the sight of the Lord and declares him to be
so glorious that he defies description (22:2). Nevertheless, this does not
deter Enoch from attempting such a description when he relays his experience to
his children. Enoch tells his children that it is not from his own lips that
his words are derived, but from the fiery lips of the Lord, whose lips are a
furnace and whose words and flames and thunder, whose face is like burning iron
emitting sparks whose eyes are terrifying, like rays of the shining sun, and
whose right hand fills the heavens (39:2-8).
Although this kind of account would
not be out of place among the shi’ur qomah speculations of later Jewish
mysticism (e.g. Hekhalot Zutarti §419), 2 Enoch is exceptional among
the ancient Jewish apocalypses, which are more reserved with respect to God’s
form, no doubt inspired by the biblical injunction that no human can see God’s
face and live (Exod 33:20). The Apocalypse of Abraham, for instance,
though it afforms an opportunity for describing God, makes no such attempt.
Abraham is specifically told that he will not look at the Eternal One himself
(16:3-4), and although he sees God’s throne and angelic entourage, all he can
see dwelling upon the throne is consuming fire and indescribable light (17;1;
18:1-4, 12-14; cf. Jub. 1:3; cf. Deut 4:11-36). Similarly, there are no
descriptions of God’s form in the Astronomical Apocalypse, the Apocalypse
of Zephaniah, 3 Baruch and the Testament of Abraham, though
these works do not afford the same opportunity as the other ascent texts, since
there is no record of the seer approaching the divine throne room. The Astronomical
Apocalypse is preoccupied with the movements of the heavenly bodies and the
section of the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, which may have contained some
kind of theophany, has not survived. In 3 Baruch, Baruch is promised a
vision of the Glory of God (6:12; 7:2; 11:2), but his ascent is aborted at the
fifth heaven, so there is no climactic theophany. Similarly, the Testament
of Abraham, records Abraham’s return to earth before he has had a chance to
approach the Deity (15:1-2 [A]; 12:12-14 [B]).
Although it is noted that God is αορατος, ‘invisible’
(16:3-4; cf. Apoc. Mos. 35:3), this does not mean that the author of the
Testament of Abraham thought that there was nothing to see when God
manifests his presence. Despite 2 Enoch’s elaborate description of God,
it is still maintained that ‘he himself is invisible’ (48:5; 67:3 [J]; cf. Apoc.
Ab. 19:4)! Likewise the Book of the Watchers and the Similitudes suggest
that a vision of God is something that can only be endured momentarily, if at
all, before one’s sight fails (1 En. 14:19, 21; 39:14; 60:4). Thus,
those visionaries who peer into the divine throne room both see and do not see
God. There can be no doubt that these visions are supposed to be understood as
authentic visions of God, but it remains clear that there is no more to God
than what they see, for the fullness of God’s form is beyond the range of human
perception. Moreover, God’s essential form emits so much glorious light and
fire that he is effectively hidden from human gaze by the glory of his own
presence, a paradox which emerges in the biblical theophanies (e.g. Exod 33;
Isa 6) and later Jewish mysticism (e.g. Hekhalot Zutarti §§348-56). (Jody
A. Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish
Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews [Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 331; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012],
78-79)
