The Vision of the Glory of God in The Apocalypse of Baruch ( 3 Baruch )

Recent Scholarship

3 Baruch has received little scholarly attention until recent decades. This is most likely due to its relatively late discovery ⁶ and the fact that it is difficult to comprehend and classify. ⁷ Until recently, apocalypses like 3 Baruch have been ‘relegated to the periphery of scholarly inquiry’ and ‘treated as the stepchildren of more popular historical apocalypses'. ⁸ Thus, it does not have an extensive history of research. However, in what work has been done, a fair amount of scholarly energy has been spent investigating the concept of the glory of God in the text. Among five recent scholars that have dealt with this issue—Harry Gaylord, ⁹ Mary Dean-Otting, ¹⁰ Daniel Harlow, Leif Carlsson, ¹¹ and Alexander Kulik—there is only modest consensus.

For Gaylord, the story describes not one but three ‘glories’ that Baruch observes in the heavens: the sun, Michael the archangel, and the righteous in their resting place. ¹² It appears, according to his view, that the angel's promise to Baruch is fulfilled after he has encountered each episode upon the completion of his journey. Taking a somewhat different approach, Dean-Otting recognizes only one divine glory, but posits a distinction between the ‘manifestation’ of God's glory and the glory of God. She asserts that ‘everything which Baruch has seen in the heavens is a manifestation of God's glory (doxa), but these visions are not to be confused with the glory of the Deity'. ¹³ In other words, whatever Baruch witnesses during his celestial journey is a reflection or ‘measure’ of God's glory, but not the fullness. ¹⁴ To experience the fullness rather than a manifestation (i.e. measure) of the glory of God, one must have a visual encounter with God as is the case in other apocalyptic accounts of heavenly ascents. To put it another way, to witness a ‘manifestation of God's glory’ requires intermediaries. In Baruch's case the intermediaries include everything he sees along his journey. By contrast, to witness the ‘glory of the Deity’ implies direct access to God by means of an unadulterated theophanic experience. Moreover, for Dean-Otting the question of whether Baruch does in fact ‘see’ the glory of God is both yes and no. While he does not encounter the divine glory directly through a theophanic experience as in other apocalypses, he nevertheless witnesses God's glory in a mediated sense as it is displayed through the beauty of creation and the order of the heavens.

On the other end of the spectrum, Harlow does not believe Baruch sees the glory of God and that angel's repeated promises go unfulfilled. Because of what Harlow believes is the author's/authors’ intentions and doctrinal presuppositions, Baruch is never meant to have access to the glory of God, which Harlow believes is God himself. ¹⁵ In his view, the author(s) of the text ends the narrative as an aborted ascent to affirm divine–human distance. Carlsson too identifies the promise of a vision of the glory of God with a theophany. However, he believes Baruch does not enter into the gates of the heavenly temple because the vision of God is reserved for the Day of Judgment. ¹⁶ Baruch will see God, but only in the context of final eschatological fulfillment.

Most recently, Kulik has submitted more than one proposal concerning the meaning of the glory of God and whether the angel's promises to Baruch go unfulfilled. On the one hand, he observes that in many biblical and apocalyptic texts, the ‘glory of God’ (doxa theou) designates a vision of God, often enthroned. If this is the working concept in 3 Baruch, then the promise of the angel is obviously not fulfilled. ¹⁷ On the other hand, Kulik suggests that ‘glory of God’ may have an alternative meaning. Similar to Dean-Otting, he proposes that ‘glory’ may be something produced by God that is nevertheless distinct from him. In this case, ‘glory of God’ would not refer to a physical vision of God, but to his works such as the Serpent, Hades, the phoenix, celestial waters, Michael, and other heavenly visions. This is substantiated by Baruch's testimony upon seeing the sun and the phoenix bird: ‘Seeing such great glory, I became overwhelmed with a great fear’ (7.5[G]). But, Kulik warns, if this is the case, it becomes difficult to distinguish between ‘glory’ and ‘mysteries'—another important concept in the text. ¹⁸ Kulik observes the precedent to distinguish between ‘glory’ and ‘mystery’ in other apocalyptic texts, arguing that in 3 Baruch ‘glory’ is associated with the climax of the heavenly ascent with God in the highest heavens as its object, while ‘mystery’ refers to ordinary heavenly sights. ¹⁹ Kulik's proposals concerning the meaning of ‘glory of God’ in 3 Baruch are quite distinct from one another and represent different scholarly perspectives. Each proposal has textual and historical credibility, but neither is free from difficulties. On their own grounds, both options are credible but not conclusive.

This brief summary shows the diversity of opinion among scholars not only as to whether or not Baruch sees God's glory, but the very concept of the glory of God itself as depicted in 3 Baruch. In what follows I will build upon the basic premise put forth by Dean-Otting and one of the alternatives suggested by Kulik; namely, that in 3 Baruch the concept of divine glory is dependent on, yet distinct from, God. However, I do not share the view that Baruch sees the glory of God when he witnesses the created works of God and the order in the heavens. Rather (as I stated above), Baruch sees the glory of God when he witnesses God's salvific interaction with humanity.

Presuppositions in the Text

At first glance, it is difficult to know with any precision what the author(s) of 3 Baruch meant by the expression ‘glory of God'. The concept has wide-ranging connotations in biblical and apocalyptic literature. ²⁰ Of these connotations, the most pertinent to our study is one that depicts God in an anthropomorphic image or form. Ezekiel 1.26–28 is an important example of this tradition, which depicts the divine glory as a figure on a throne. Alongside of this, ‘glory’ may also serve as an interchangeable term for Yhwh. ²¹ This is the basic assumption in apocalyptic texts such as 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, and The Ascension of Isaiah. In these works, to see God's glory is to have a physical, visual encounter with God. God and divine glory are one and the same. But this is not the case in 3 Baruch. Here, the concept of the ‘glory of God’ may be understood more broadly. If indeed Baruch is meant to see the glory of God without a theophanic experience, this indicates something important and perhaps unique concerning the underlying theological presuppositions and purposes within the text.

First, from an examination of the narrative details, it is clear that 3 Baruch is written from a largely Adamic perspective and most likely serves as a polemic against the Enochic traditions. For instance, the author(s) choose(s) Baruch over Enoch as the heavenly sojourner, locate(s) the origin of the Fall in the Garden of Eden while alluding to the tree which ‘deceived Adam', and substitute(s) the builders and planners of the great tower for the Watchers in the Enochic tradition. ²²

The emphasis on the story of the tower builders is especially helpful in the attempt to tease out further theological presuppositions in the text. Although Baruch refers to Adam's deception in the Garden and the vine which ‘became the cause of such evil’ (4.8–9), he seems to ascribe the ‘paradigmatic sin of humanity’ to those who planned and built the ‘tower of the war against God’ (2.7). ²³ This reference is to the tower of Babel recorded in Genesis 11. The story of the tower builders stands in apposition to the myth of the Watchers in 1 Enoch, and further confirms the Adamic perspective of 3 Baruch. The details within the story of the tower builders in 3 Baruch gives further clues to the theological premises at work, namely, the divine–human boundary. It is interesting that while the Enochic tradition emphasizes the descent of the angels as the beginning of wickedness on the earth, 3 Baruch stresses the ascent of human beings to heaven as humankind's principal sin. In both stories, the divine–human boundary is crossed, but the theological conviction in 3 Baruch is that the boundary is not to be crossed by humans. Put simply, the heavenly realm is off-limits. The idea of an impassible boundary between the divine and human finds roots in the ancient Zadokite tradition which dominated Judaism in opposition to Enochic streams of thought prior to the Second Temple period. It is likely that 3 Baruch is influenced by this tradition, not only because of the polemical stance toward Enochic motifs, but also because it is generally consonant with the doctrines of divine–human separation found in much of the Old Testament. While there are some accounts of direct divine–human encounters, ²⁴ the opening narratives of the Old Testament establish the overarching theological conviction of divine–human distance. Since Adam lost his glory and was expelled from the Garden, ²⁵ humans are sealed off from direct interaction with God; God's place is in heaven, humans inhabit the earth. In that 3 Baruch draws influence from the Zadokite tradition and is consonant with much of the Old Testament, it goes squarely against a great deal of the apocalyptic tradition (mostly influenced by Enochic motifs) where humans are allowed to peer into the divine realm. In 3 Baruch ‘the idea that a human should enter into the presence of God is unthinkable'. ²⁶

Another indication of the theological (and polemical) purposes in 3 Baruch is the fact that there is no mention of apotheosis—the process that elevates a human to divine status, often endowing that person with divine characteristics. Baruch is not transformed into a divine being. This too is connected to the idea of divine–human separation that underlies the text. While it is common for seers to be changed supernaturally in other apocalyptic accounts, Baruch remains completely human without any mention of divine transmutation. Foundational to 3 Baruch is the assumption that such an ontological assimilation with celestial beings is impossible because it would fail to take human fallenness into account. Adam lost his glory in the Fall with the result that humankind now stands at a distance from God, bereft of divine glory, and barred from direct access to God. A divine or angelic transformation would suggest that a reversal of the Fall and unlimited access to God stands within reach. ²⁷ While this human–divine reversal takes place often in Enochic literature, the idea is theologically unacceptable in 3 Baruch.

A final indication that helps us discover the author's (or authors’) interpretation of the glory of God is found in the attitude toward the Temple in Jerusalem. 3 Baruch may have been written, in part, as a response to the destruction of the Temple in 70 ce. In the wake of the destruction of such a sacred symbol, Jewish cultural and religious life experienced profound change. While numerous groups had various ways of coping with the disaster, 3 Baruch's contribution lies in its denial that the loss of the Temple is tragic. ²⁸ In the prologue of the book, the attitude expressed toward both the Temple and Baruch, who is found lamenting over its destruction, ²⁹ suggests a polemic against the insistent mourning over the Temple common in other apocalyptic traditions. ³⁰ The overall disposition within the text toward the Temple remains ambivalent up to the end of the narrative. Further, while there may be hints of the existence of a heavenly temple during Baruch's celestial visit, there is no explicit reference. It is possible that the author(s) intentionally left out a clear description of the heavenly temple to express a lack of enthusiasm for the earthly Temple. This apathetic view of the Temple is crucial in determining an important purpose of the text; namely, showing that the Temple is dispensable. The lesson communicated here is that while the earthly Temple is gone and the heavenly temple, if it exists, is out of reach, God is still sovereign and his people will continue to live under his care. This lesson carries profound implications for understanding the glory of God in 3 Baruch. If the glory of God is to be seen, the experience will be outside the Temple. ³¹

The Glory of God

While the majority of texts in the apocalyptic corpus equate seeing the glory of God with a theophanic experience, the author(s) of 3 Baruch envision(s) divine glory in terms of God's sovereign, salvific interaction with humanity. This is the picture Baruch observes in chs. 11–17. In these chapters Baruch is taken to the gate of the fifth heaven where God dwells. He is met by the angel Michael who, acting as a type of high priest, receives a multitude of angels coming to him. Some carry bowls of flowers which represent the virtues of the righteous. Other angels bear no flowers and appear blackened and mournful. These have charge over the wicked and godless people of the earth. Michael brings the virtues before God where, apparently, an exchange takes place. When Michael returns to the angelic retinue, he no longer possesses the flowers (i.e. virtues), but oil. He then instructs the oil to be given to the righteous. Conversely, he commands the blackened angels to punish the wicked. It is in this event of exchange and interaction between the angels, Michael, and God (and the humans directly affected) that Baruch ‘sees’ the glory of God because it conveys God's role as sovereign judge and savior. Of special significance in this section of the narrative is the oil. It may be a key to understanding how it is that Baruch sees the glory of God without an actual vision of God.

Oil has a rich history in biblical and apocalyptic literature. In some apocalyptic texts it is given divine properties and has the ability to administer supernatural effects. Two important works that connect oil with supernatural purposes include the Apocalypse of Moses and 2 Enoch. When we examine these works, it is likely that the composer(s) of 3 Baruch was/were aware of them and incorporate(s) the oil tradition found in these texts into Baruch's vision. ³²

The Apocalypse of Moses, later titled the Life of Adam and Eve, was very likely indebted to the account of the sacred oil in 2 Enoch, ³³ the earlier of the two. In this story, Adam begins to sense the pains of oncoming death some time after being driven from the Garden and losing his immortality. Upon his deathbed, he urges his son Seth to hurry to the gate of Paradise in order that God might show compassion (σπλαγχνισθᾐ) and send his angel to give Seth some of the oil (ἔλαιον) that flows from the tree of life. ³⁴ In the end, his request for oil is denied. However, the point is that Adam and those with him believe that the oil carries the efficacy to relieve Adam's pain, heal his body, and sustain his life. ³⁵

In 2 Enoch the power and efficacy of the oil is even more striking. Here, oil is an agent of apotheosis. When Enoch ascends to the tenth heaven ³⁶ he has a direct, visual encounter with the Lord and is invited to stand before his face forever. At this point, the oil comes into play in dramatic fashion:

The Lord said to Michael, ‘Take Enoch, and extract (him) from the earthly clothing. And anoint him with the delightful oil, and put (him) into the clothes of glory.’ And Michael extracted me from my clothes. He anointed me with the delightful oil; and the appearance of that oil is greater than the greatest light, its ointment is like sweet dew, and its fragrance like myrrh; and its shining is like the sun. And I gazed at all of myself, and I had become like one of the glorious ones, and there was no observable difference. ³⁷

Here, Enoch receives a divine priestly anointing resulting in divine transformation. Later, in 56.2 Enoch refers to this oil as ‘the ointment of my glory’ when describing the mysteries of God to his children shortly before his return to heaven. The oil is the primary agent responsible for Enoch's metamorphosis into a glorious being.

When we examine the oil more closely in this story, it is important to note that the oil is of God and in God's possession. The oil, along with the heavenly clothing, is used to transform Enoch at God's command and instruction, indicating that the oil is a substance over which God has single authority. Further, it shares some of the characteristics of God himself. This is clear from the description of the oil as ‘greatest light', with its ‘shining’ being ‘like the sun'. Using light imagery as a way of speaking about God has a wide and established tradition in both Jewish and Christian circles. The Scripture writers themselves use light as a divine metaphor describing anything from God's dwelling place (1 Tim. 6.16), appearance (Pss 4.6; 76.4; 104.2), glory (Rev. 21.21), salvation (2 Sam. 22.9; Ps. 27.1; 2 Pet. 2.9; 1 Jn 1.7), and even his very being (1 Jn 1.5). The apocalyptic writers likewise show consistency applying this oft-used metaphor. To describe the oil in terms of light and radiance is to ascribe to it a divine characteristic, suggesting the oil is a divine substance.

The appearance and description of the oil in these two apocalyptic works point to a tradition (or traditions) where oil is more than a valuable commodity. Although the two accounts do not give identical descriptions of the oil's appearance, power, and function, they are most likely borrowing from the same traditions. These traditions, stemming from the Old Testament and other ancient literature, ³⁸ depict the oil as a divine substance that brings about healing, life, and transformation. Central to all this is the concept of glory. In the case of Adam, his impending death was due to the loss of his former glory. The oil from the tree of life was to be applied in order to suppress or eradicate his pain and death. Here, a theme of the restoration of glory, at least to some degree, is evident. What had been lost would in some way be restored. In the case of Enoch, the place of glory is all the more clear in that he is changed by the ‘ointment of glory’ into a ‘glorious one', becoming identical with the heavenly beings. In this case, the oil itself bears the efficacy for glorification. Both accounts convey the unique relationship between oil and glory in apocalyptic traditions. While the degree to which the two are related may vary from one text to another, an organic connection is clear.

In what ways do these oil traditions resonate with 3 Baruch? ³⁹ First, in all three narratives (Life of Adam and Eve, 2 Enoch, and 3 Baruch) Michael is in charge of the oil. Second, it is noteworthy that in 3 Baruch the oil comes from God in his dwelling place. This is consistent with 2 Enoch. In both documents it is God who puts the oil in Michael's care and commands its usage. Michael uses the oil while playing the role of mediator between God and humankind. Although Michael puts the oil to actual use, it is ultimately a divine gift from God. ⁴⁰

Second, the fact that God has the oil in his keeping and entrusts its use to the archangel suggests the oil's sacredness and salvific effect upon those who receive it. In 15.1–4[G] Michael fills the angels’ baskets with oil, baskets that had previously carried flowers representing the virtues of the righteous. The oil serves as a ‘hundredfold reward’ to those who have lived righteously. The expression ‘hundredfold’ is likely a Christian interpolation referring to Mt. 19.28–29. ⁴¹ In this passage, Jesus is describing the παλιγγενεσία—the new age or ‘renewal’ of all things—where those who have given up everything for his sake will receive a ‘hundredfold reward’ in addition to eternal life. Further, after dispensing the oil Michael gives the angels who preside over the righteous the charge: ‘Go, bless our friends and tell them that thus says the Lord: You have been faithful over a little, he will set you over much; enter into the delight of your Lord’ (15.4[G]). ⁴² This is another reference to Jesus’ teaching, this time to Mt. 25.23. If these passages from the New Testament in any way inform 15.1–4[G], it is quite possible that the oil given to the righteous represents eternal life and the eschatological fulfillment where the righteous will enter into glory and see the Son of Man on his ‘glorious throne'. In this case, the oil symbolizes both present and future glory.

Finally, it is important to stress that the angels are to use the oil to bless the righteous. From the context, it is clear that the oil not only indicates spiritual prosperity, but also an intimate communion and participation with God in this life. The oil is the means by which the righteous receive their inheritance; it is a divine substance that allows the righteous to participate in God's goodness. The magnitude of this reward conveys something about the character of God; namely, the love, justice, and goodness of God toward the righteous. Conversely, the wicked are deprived of the oil. Here too the character of God is on display in that withholding the oil exhibits his just judgment. For those who receive it, the oil is salvific and life-giving; a bountiful reward for good works. ⁴³ For those who do not receive oil due to their wickedness, the judgment of God will consume them through plagues, demons, the sword and death, jealousy, anger, and bitterness (16.2–3[G]). The communication of God's love and justice toward humanity happens concurrently with the exchange of oil. This is an important observation for understanding the glory of God in 3 Baruch. For the author(s) of the text, the entire episode involving Michael, the angels, and the oil wherein God's actions and character are conveyed is itself the vision of the glory of God. Here God's sovereign and saving activity is on full display. Though Baruch is kept from seeing God in terms of a theophany, what he observes is nevertheless a vision of God's glory.

Conclusion

Baruch's observation of the angelic interaction outside the gate of the fifth heaven is the fulfillment of the angel's promise that he would ‘see the glory of God'. In 3 Baruch, to see the glory of God is not to observe God in bodily image or form, but rather his sovereign and salvific action over all humankind where God demonstrates his redemptive love and justice. Because of the theological principle of divine–human distance that underlies 3 Baruch, the vision of God's glory consists of a contemplative experience whereby Baruch witnesses God's divine interaction with humanity, albeit mediated through the angels. The implication here—contrary to most apocalyptic accounts of heavenly ascents—is that a vision of God's glory is not reserved for heavenly seers alone. Rather, anyone who recognizes God's sovereign and saving action in the world ‘sees’ the glory of God. This way of understanding is not without precedent. In Ps. 63.2 the worshipper declares, ‘So I have looked upon thee in the sanctuary, beholding thy power and glory'. Certainly, the ‘looking upon’ is not to be taken literally. Rather, in this Psalm, like 3 Baruch, ‘it is a case of contemplative experience which leads to a recognition of God's glory'. ⁴⁴ Baruch's experience teaches him that the apparent victory of wickedness over righteousness that seems so apparent on earth is a fiction. The Temple may be destroyed, but God continues to reign supremely and has the entire world, not Israel alone, under his loving, providential care. Both in this life and the next, God demonstrates his love through recognizing the prayers and virtues of the righteous while manifesting his justice through rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked. ⁴⁵

At the conclusion of the narrative, Baruch is returned to his place in the earthly Jerusalem. In 17.3–4[G] he praises God for the honor of experiencing his heavenly journey and charges his brethren who discover these revelations to ‘glorify God also so that he will glorify us now and forever to all eternity!' ⁴⁶ Through his journey and climactic vision of God's glory, Baruch learns that the world is not out of reach of God's mercy. ⁴⁷ Hope remains, but this hope is no longer in the Temple or even Jerusalem. Rather, the hope is in God alone who, with characteristic love and justice, manifests his glory through his sovereign, salvific interaction with humanity.