I. THE DIVINE MISSION OF EZEKIEL.—Eze_1:1 to Eze_3:11
1. The Vision of Glory (Ch. 1)
It has been customary, as at Isaiah 6 and Jeremiah 1, so also here, to read Ezekiel’s call to be a prophet as if it were his ordination or consecration to office. But even in the case of Isaiah 6., where the official activity of the prophet does not certainly first begin, but where we find ourselves already in the midst of his labours, one has been compelled for this reason to individualize and to define more exactly; and instead of making it a call to the prophetic office in general, has made it a call to a special mission. This necessity, which is occasioned there by the position of the 6th chapter, would not indeed be present here; for the history of Ezekiel’s call would be found exactly in the right, or at least in an unexceptionable place, namely, at the commencement of his official activity. It would be just as in the case of Jeremiah (Eze_1:4 sqq.), only not in equally simple circumstances, so far as the vision is concerned. But as regards Jeremiah’s case, the historical call at a definite period of his life is from the first the element that falls into the background; what above all is prominent, is the divine consecration and appointment of Jeremiah as a prophet even before his appearance and birth in time. It is a thoroughly ideal history the history of the call of the prophet Jeremiah, and not to be compared with what Ezekiel relates to us in these chapters (1–3.). If then we keep by that which lies before us, is it anywhere a call to the prophetic office that is spoken of? If we bring closely together the detailed vision of Ezekiel 1., and the more compressed, briefer one of Isa_6:1-4, then also Eze_2:3 sqq. contains merely the mission of Ezekiel, which is represented as a divine one, just as Isa_6:8 sqq. contains that of Isaiah. It is this, and by no means to tell us how Ezekiel was called to be a prophet, that is the essential element in the opening chapters of our book. So much does the idea of the prophetic mission from God dominate the whole, that neither does the real incongruity of how a sinner among sinners is permitted to be the seer of the holy God (comp. Isa_6:5 sqq.), nor the seeming incongruity of how a man who is not eloquent, and too young, is sent as a prophet (comp. Jer_1:6 sqq.), come to a solution, but Ezekiel has simply to open his mouth and to eat what is given him by God (Eze_2:8 sqq.). The question, therefore, is not, how he becomes qualified for the office of a prophet,—thus Isaiah, if such a view is held in his case, in the relation alleged, but more correctly perhaps for his special commission, is qualified by the removal of sin (Isa_6:6 sqq.); or Jeremiah, by means of the touch of Jehovah’s hand (Jer_1:9);—the question rather turns on this point simply, in what capacity Ezekiel will have to discharge his prophetic office, to execute his mission. The distinction between the call in general and a mission in particular might admit of being expressed as that between something more subjective and what is more objective, in some such way as this: that, in the call, the prophet as subject stands in the foreground; in the mission, the objective matter of fact preponderates, in which and through which the prophet has to develope his activity, which is Ezekiel’s case. For the more general call, of course in its individual character in the case of each, one might have to confine himself in the case of Ezekiel as well as of Isaiah to their names (§ 1), while Jeremiah’s name seems rather to express his mission. The divine legitimation of the mission of Ezekiel is the primary meaning of Ezekiel 1-3. On the whole, it approximates too much the peculiar nature of the prophetic office to the priestly and the kingly, when we speak in this way of the consecration of a prophet. The mission of a prophet is at all events in actual fact equivalent to his consecration to the prophetic office.
CHAPTER 1
1And it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was in the midst of the captivity, by the river Chebar, that 2the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. On the fifth of the month—it was the fifth year [from the time] of the carrying away captive of king Jehoiachin—3The word of Jehovah came in reality unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of 4Jehovah came upon him there. And I saw, and, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, a great cloud, and fire flashing into itself, and brightness round about it [the cloud], and out of the midst of it [the fire] as the look of the brightness 5of gold, out of the midst of the fire. And out of the midst thereof [of the fire] appeared the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man. 6And every one had four faces, and every one of them four wings. 7And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot; and sparkling like the look of bright brass. 8And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and 9they four had their faces and their wings. Joined one to another were their wings; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward. 10As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; 11and they four had the face of an eagle. And their faces and their wings were separated above; in every one two were joined, and two covering their bodies. 12And they went every one straight forward: whither the spirit was to go, they went; they turned not when they went. 13As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like kindled, burning coals of fire, like the appearance of torches: this [the fire] was going round between the living creatures; and the fire had brightness, and out of the fire went forth lightning. 14And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning. 15And I saw the living creatures, and, behold, one wheel was upon the earth beside the living creatures, for its four faces. 16The appearance of the wheels and their make was like unto the look of the precious stone of Tartessus: and they four had one likeness; and their appearance and their make was as it were a wheel in the midst of a wheel. 17When they went, they went upon their four sides: they turned not when they went. 18As for their felloes, there was a highness about them, and fearfulness was about them; and their felloes were full of eyes round about them four. 19And when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up. 20Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they [the living creatures] went, thither Was also the Spirit to go [in the wheels]; and the wheels were lifted up beside them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. 21When those went, they also went; and when those stood, these also stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted 22up beside them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. And a likeness was over the heads of the living creature [Eze_1:20]—an expanse, like unto the look of the terrible crystal, stretched out over their heads above. 23And under the expanse were their wings straight, the one toward the other: to every 24one two which covered, to every one two which covered their bodies. And I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of many waters, as the voice of the Almighty, to wit, in their going, the noise of tumult, as the noise of an host: 25when they stood, they let down their wings. And there came a voice from above the expanse which was over their head: when they stood, they let down their wings. 26And above the expanse that was over their head was there as the appearance of a sapphire stone, the likeness of a throne: and upon the likeness of the throne the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. 27And I saw as the look of the brightness of gold, as the appearance of fire, a house round about it; from the appearance of his loins and upwards, and from the appearance of his loins and downwards, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and brightness round about Him. 28As the appearance of the bow that will be in the cloud on the day of heavy rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Jehovah. And I saw, and fell upon my face, and heard the voice of one that spake.
Eze_1:2. Sept.: ...
ôçò áἰ÷ìáëùóéáò Éùá÷åéì
—
Eze_1:3. ...
ἐð
̓
ἐìå ÷åéñ ÷õñéïõ
. (Syr., Arab., and some MSS.:
òìé
.)
Eze_1:16. Other readings:
åîòùéäï
;
åîøàä
, wanting in Sept.;
åîãàéäï
.
Eze_1:17. Anoth. read.:
ãáòéäí
.
Eze_1:18. ...
ïὐäå ïἱ íùôïé áí
̓
ôùí
...
ê
.
ἰäïí áὐôá
,
ê
.
ïἱ íùôïé
—
Eze_1:20.
Ïὑ ἀí ἠí ἡ íåöåëç ἐêåé ôï ðíåíìá ôïõ ðïñåõåóèáé
(
éìáå ùîä× ììëú
are wanting in some MSS. The Greek and Syriac translators and the Targ. (?) omit
äøåç ììëú
).
Eze_1:22. Sept., Vulg., Syr., Chald., Arab, read
äçéåú
.
Eze_1:23. ...
áἱ ðôåñõãåò áὐôùí ἐêôåôáìåíáé
,
ðôåñõóóïìåíáé ἑôåñá ôç ἑôåñá
,
ἑêáóôù äõï óõíåæåõãìåíáé
,—(
îá× ìäðäåìàéù ùú×
are wanting in some MSS., Vulg., Sept., and Arab.)
Eze_1:1-3 a preface, which contains introductory matter in general—specially to the vision which immediately follows, what is most necessary respecting the time, person, place, and subject-matter on hand. This latter, the subject-matter, is “visions of God” in the plural, which are separated by means of the expression: “and I saw, and, behold” (Eze_1:4; Eze_1:15), properly into two visions only, Eze_1:4-28; but it will commend itself to treat Eze_1:22-28 as a separate conclusion completing both visions.
Eze_1:1-3
.—Preface, Introductory
Eze_1:1. “And it came to pass.”—The imperf. with
å
consecut., as usual without Dagesh forte, indicating a continuation, an advance, connection with something going before, begins, as often elsewhere, so also here the book of Ezekiel. Since there is no real connection, as in the case of Exodus, Ezra, a connection in thought is to be assumed, as in the case of Ruth, Esther. The chronology, still more the inner relationship (comp. the Introduction, §§ 2, 3, 4), suggests a connection with Jeremiah. Hengstenberg, while he lays stress upon the similar commencements, by which Joshua is connected with the Pentateuch, the book of Judges with Joshua, the books of Samuel and also Ruth with the book of Judges, understands, besides a special connection of Ezekiel with Jeremiah (whose letter (Jeremiah 29.), directed shortly before to the exiles, formed as it were the programme for the labours of our prophet), in general (as in the case of the book of Esther) the incorporation (represented by such a commencement) in a chain of sacred books, a connection with a preceding sacred literature. In a more definite way Athanasius brought into connection with this the passage in Josephus (Antiq. 10.)—comp. Introd. § 5—and made out that the one book of Ezekiel, with which the present one is here connected by means of
å
, had gone amissing through the negligence of the Jews. Pradus cites Augustine (on Psalms 4.) and Gregory the Great in support of a view according to which this
å
is intended to connect the outward word of the prophet with what he had heard inwardly, with the inward vision (Corn. a. Lapide: “What he had formerly seen in his spirit or heard from God he connects by means of ‘and’ with something else which he saw and heard thereafter, and which he now relates”). Very many expositors have been quite content with a pleonastic Hebrew idiom, and with changing the sense of the future into that of the preterite. (According to Keil, appealing to Ewald (Ausf. Lehrb. § 231, b), it is merely “something annexed to a circle of what is finished—a circle already mentioned, or assumed as known.”)—In the thirtieth year, etc. Where the divine legitimation of Ezekiel for his labours about to be described, and at the same time for his literary labours—this book of his—is to be shown, and where accordingly the prophet speaks of himself in the first person, going on immediately to say: “as I,” so that
åàðé
in such close juxtaposition with
áùìùéí ùðä
looks like the usual phrase
áï ùìùéí ùðä
, there it ought to appear as simple as it is natural to think, with Origen and Gregory, of the thirtieth year of Ezekiel’s life. There was no necessity whatever for Hengstenberg (comp. Introd. § 3) to urge the significance “as respects the man of priestly family.” The appointment of the thirtieth year in Numbers 4., with a view to “the carrying of the sanctuary during the journey through the wilderness—a work requiring the full vigour of manhood,” cannot in actual fact be applied to Ezekiel; and we must then in a figurative way compare his prophetic labours in exile, especially his preaching of the glory of the Lord, and the circumstance that through Ezekiel’s exercise of the prophetic office the Lord became to the exiles as a sanctuary in the captivity (Eze_11:16), with that carrying of the tabernacle during the time of the wilderness. For “theological exposition,” of course, “the entrance on office of the Baptist and of Christ after completing their thirtieth year” may be kept in view. The indefiniteness of the statement of time, “in the thirtieth year,” is not greater than the indefiniteness with respect to the person: “as I.” As the latter indefiniteness is removed in Eze_1:3 by the mention of the name, etc., so (according to Kliefoth, and also Keil) the corresponding addition: in the fourth month, on the fifth day, by the repetition in Eze_1:2 of the fifth of the month, viz. the fifth day of the forementioned fourth month, is brought into connection with the objectivity of the “fifth year from the carrying away captive of king Jehoiachin,” and in this way relieved of all want of clearness, while at the same time expressly separated from the date: “in the thirtieth year,” just as this latter itself is so much the more evidently left to its simplest, natural acceptation of the thirtieth year of the prophet’s life. If then Eze_1:2 afterwards supplies the period according to which Ezekiel adjusts his first, subjective date, the supposition of another so-called “publicly current era” is superfluous, apart from the fact, that no such era has hitherto been pointed out. Recourse has been had (1) to a Jewish era, and (2) to a Babylonian one. (1) Thus Hitzig adheres to the opinion of many Jewish expositors, that the reference is to the thirtieth year from a jubilee (comp. on Eze_40:1), but combats what is yet so necessary, the more exact definition, e.g., of Raschi, that in this way the reckoning is from the eighteenth year of king Josiah, important on account of the finding of the book of the law, etc. (2 Kings 22. sqq.; 2 Chronicles 34. sqq.); while Hävernick declares this reckoning (already that of the Chaldee Paraphrast, Jerome, Grotius, and also Ideler) “the only tenable one,” as also that which is “alone suited to the context:” “that with the last period of prosperity there stands contrasted the last period of misfortune (under Jehoiachin): the numbers are prophetically significant statements, pointing to the weighty circumstance of the prophet’s making his appearance in a memorable, fatal time.” We must therefore assume a “priestly” mode of reckoning. Calvin lays stress upon the Greek analogy of Olympiads, as well as the Roman one of reckoning according to consulates, and in favour of the jubilee under Josiah brings forward the peculiarly solemn passover-feast at that time. (2) For accepting a Babylonian era one might urge the sojourn of Ezekiel in Babylon, especially his peculiar attention to chronology, which, dates from this seat of astronomical science. In this case the fifth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin has been reckoned, as the year b.c. 595, and the thirtieth year from that as the year b.c. 625, when Nabopolassar ascended the Chaldean throne; and either the eighteenth year of Josiah has been taken as contemporaneous therewith, or the era of Nabopolassar merely has been clung to (e.g. by Scaliger, Perizonius). But the reckoning does not agree; according to Bunsen, at least, the fifth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin would be the year b.c. 593. Perizonius wished therefore to be at liberty to read in Ezekiel the thirty-second instead of the thirtieth year. J. D. Michaelis helps himself by making the reckoning start not from Nabopolassar’s ascending the throne, but from the conquest of Nineveh and Babylon by him. Comp. besides in Hitzig.—The fourth month, since the first (Nisan) coincides for the most part with our March, corresponds to our June, or, according to J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, Bunsen, to July nearly. The (probably Babylonian) name of it would be Tammuz; but the prophet follows still the custom of antiquity, which, with only some exceptions, did not give names to the separate months, but merely numbered them.—
åàðé áúåêÎäâåìä
. As the time is indicated by “in the thirtieth year,” so also next the place is indicated in a personal way: as I was, etc. That the clause might by itself mean, cum essem in medio captivorum, is beyond a doubt; but that the LXX. in this case translate more correctly than the Vulgate is not less undoubtedly clear from Eze_3:11; Eze_3:15. Hitzig’s solution (favoured by Klief., Keil): “in the district (region) of their (the exiles’) dwelling-places (settlements),” is superfluous; more accurate is his remark: “and besides he himself was a captive.” Rightly Ewald: in the midst of the captivity. The historical dates in the prophetic books have a certain designedness, something symbolic about them,—are at all events not simply historical notices; they are intended to be understood in the light of the idea, exactly as that was to be realized in the case in hand, and hence characteristically as regards the prophet in question. In the midst of the misery the prophet was to behold the glory of God for his people (comp. Introd. § 5). Calvin on this occasion enters into a polemic against the notion of the Jews, as if the hand of God were shortened towards the holy land, etc. Ezekiel was, according to Eze_3:11; Eze_3:15, alone by the river, and did not go, till he had had the vision, among the multitudes of his countrymen who dwelt or happened to be nearest him.—By the river Chebar, comp. Introd. § 4 (Calvin attaches indeed no importance to it, but he mentions the opinion of those who regard the rivers as places consecrated for revelations, inasmuch as they give prominence to their symbolical character [“the lighter element of water,” while “the earth appears heavier”], or inasmuch as others think of the “cleansing” power of water and the like. A kind of spiritual reference to Psa_137:1 Calvin looks upon as forced.) Hengstenberg compares Dan_8:2; Dan_10:4; Ezekiel is “removed to the Chebar, because there he is far from the bustle of men, and allured to great thoughts by the rushing of the water.” And then it is alleged he was “there only in vision,” as is clear from Eze_3:12; Eze_3:14! As if, forscoth, the Spirit could not have carried him to and from the actual river! Then we must understand “in the midst of the captivity” likewise as being in vision. In Daniel it is expressly said at Eze_8:2 to be in vision, and at Eze_10:4 as well as here it is to be conceived of as not being so. At Eze_8:3; Eze_11:24, the definition as to its being in vision is expressly added. (Some have also formed to themselves a conception of the sojourn by the water after the analogy of the Romish Ghetto, as Martial says instead of Jew transtiberinus.)—The personal reference is kept up still in the description of the subject in hand, of what took place: the heavens were opened, and I saw—; so much is the divine authorization of Ezekiel the leading thought. The opening of the heavens refers, as respects the form, as regards the character of the vision, to this vision which follows. There is in this respect nothing more general intended by it (Joh_1:32), as Keil seems to hint. Comp., however, Mat_3:16; Mar_1:10; Luk_3:21; Act_7:56; Act_10:10-11; Rev_4:1; Rev_19:11. As regards what is essential in all ways and forms, Calvin will be right in maintaining, that “God opens His heavens, not that in reality they are cleft asunder, but inasmuch as, after the removal of all hindrances, He enables the eyes of believers to penetrate to His heavenly glory.” As Jerome has already said: fide credentis intellige, eo quod cœlestia sint illi reserata mysteria. (Grotius makes the heavens to be rent open by repeated flashes of lightning.) “He who says this, testifies that what he has seen he has not seen as something which has come out of the earth or existed first on the earth, but that it has descended from heaven, and consequently been visions of God” (Cocceius). If the opening of the heavens depicts the manner of the thing, how it happened, then the expression, visions of God (Eze_40:2), specifies the thing itself under discussion, and that first of all in accordance with what follows, where the next thing is vision. The genitive relation cannot be rendered by: sublime visions, or the like (as Calvin already rejects as frigid the interpretation: visiones præstantissimas, quia divinum vocatur in scriptura quidquid excellit), but it might perhaps, in accordance also with linguistic usage elsewhere, pass as equivalent to: divine visions, i.e. in the manner of Isaiah 6., 1Ki_22:19, 2Ki_6:17, etc. (Hitzig: heavenly visions). Quia ex cœlo demonstratas, ideoque divinas et a Deo ostensas (Cocceius). As genitive of the subject (auctoris) it might be interpreted in accordance with Num_24:4; Num_24:16, either: visions which God (as well as they) sees, or: visions which God gives to see (which proceed from God); which would correspond with the aim of the following vision, that of legitimating Ezekiel’s call as a divine one. “The divine visions stand opposed to the visions of one’s own heart, the empty fancies of false prophets, Jer_23:25-26” (Hengstenberg). “Otherwise it would have been incredible, that a prophet should have arisen out of Chaldea. Nazareth even (Joh_1:47) was still situated in the promised land. Thus the divine call needed to be confirmed as such in a special way” (Calv.). As genitive of the object the meaning would be, visions which have reference to God, have Him as their object; which suits the contents of the vision as expressed at Eze_1:28. Here: visions of God; in Jer_1:1 : words of Jeremiah.—
åָàֶøְàֶä
is the complete form without apocope, as after the
å
consecut. not seldom in the first person and in the later books.
Eze_1:2 is occupied with a reference to the dates. It was the fifth year from the carrying away captive of ting Jehoiachin, and it is meant of the “objective common era” (Hengstenberg), just as also in the sequel of this notice (Eze_1:3), which is better inserted immediately than later. Ezekiel—a thing which does not occur elsewhere in the book (Eze_24:24!)—speaks of himself in the third person. Without verses 2, 3, with Eze_1:1 simply pushed forward to Eze_1:4, we would have the impression that a private document, a leaf of the prophet’s journal, lay before us. The explicit statement of Eze_1:2 was the more necessary, where already in Eze_1:1 the fifth of the fourth month was to be explained with reference to this fixed period, the most important of course for the immediate hearers of the prophet, and therefore easily intelligible for them, and also retained by the prophet throughout, but for others not equally clear. That Eze_1:2-3 “interrupt” (Ewald) the connection cannot be alleged; we shall find the opposite.—
ðּåֹìָä
in Eze_1:1 is essentially the same as
ðָּìåּç
in Eze_1:2, the distinction to be made being perhaps this, that the former refers more to the condition, the latter to the action.—As to the historical fact, see 2Ki_24:6 sqq., 2Ch_36:9 sqq.—
éåֹéëִéï
as here, in 2 Kings, 2 Chron.
éְäåֹéָëִéï
, is called in Jer_22:24; Jer_22:28
ëָּðְéָäåּ
, in Eze_24:1 of the same book
éְëָðְéָäåּ
, and in Eze_27:20
éְëָðְéָä
.—Kliefoth, on the basis of the detailed exposition in Hävernick, gives prominence as regards this period, on the one hand, to the unpleasant impression of the first circular letter (Jeremiah 29.) to the exiles, and on the other hand, to the inflaming of their minds by the later prophetic announcement in Jer_51:59 sqq. Comp. in the remainder of the Introd. § 5. “That it was already the fifth year, is held up as a reproach to the stiffneckedness of the Jews” (Calv.). The appearance of Ezekiel took place in the most hopeful period of the reign of Zedekiah, when false prophecy was making its voice heard at home and abroad. To all this seeming and fancied glory, opposed as it was to the divine word of the true prophets, Ezekiel’s vision of glory formed the divine antithesis.
Eze_1:3.
äָéֹä äéä
, inf. absol., in solemnly rhetorical fashion emphasizing the divine attestation of the prophet: really, expressly, quite certainly. The full unquestionable reality of the transaction is to be indicated.—Though Eze_1:1 spoke of the person, time, place, subject-matter, all the elements of the introduction, yet Eze_1:2 reverted to the time; and so Eze_1:3 speaks anew first of all of the subject-matter as
ãáø éé×
, which came to Ezekiel, by which expression this same subject-matter, linking itself on to Eze_1:1 (there, “visions of God;” here, “the word of Jehovah”), is now designated according to its intrinsic, its essential character as the product of the Spirit (1Th_2:13). It is at the same time the exact announcement of what follows, and the introduction thereto; for at Eze_1:28 there is a transition from the “I saw” to the “I heard the voice of one that spake,” and this latter is shown from Eze_2:4 to be “the Lord Jehovah.”—As to the name of the prophet and that of his father, as well as the priestly rank of both, with which the personal description is completed, comp. Introd. §§ 1, 3. For the purpose in a quite objective way of making more prominent his divine legitimation, Ezekiel speaks of himself as of a third person. (Like the LXX., the Syriac and Arabic versions presuppose
öìé
, the reading of several Codd.) Humility also, in a case where he had been deemed worthy of such a revelation (comp. the similar mode of expression in 2Co_12:2 sqq.), recommended his speaking in the third person.—The renewed mention of the place is not a mere repetition of the words: by the river Chebar, but a more exact definition alike of this river, and especially of the phrase: “in the midst of the captivity,” both being defined by
áàøõ áùãéí
,—in the sense, however, of land of the Chaldeans=land of the enemy, to which at the close of the verse
ùí
again points back, emphatically, as Calvin remarks. This locality was only too significant a corrective of presumption on the one hand, as of despair on the other, or rather of fleshly narrow-mindedness in general.—If then, finally, the subject-matter is again brought into prominence, and that as respects its producing cause, viz. that the hand of Jehovah came upon him, this certainly is not said without reference to the statement: “and I fell upon my face,” in Eze_1:28, and might indeed have preceded the words: the word of Jehovah came in reality (Hitzig); but the immediately following subject-matter (Eze_1:4) demanded this or some such transition at the close of the verse. Thus verses 2, 3 complete the section. The formula of transition used is one that occurs again (Introd. § 7), Eze_3:22; Eze_37:1; Eze_40:1. Comp. 2Ki_3:15. The expression the hand of Jehovah always means a divine manifestation of power, but in the sense of action, consequently with will and intention, by means of which self-will and refusal on the part of man are laid in the dust, and the man is prepared for the divine purpose. For whatever may be the natural basis subjectively (intellectually, morally, and spiritually), as well as objectively (as respects the nexus in the history of the time, or of the individual), the prophetic word as God’s word, as visions of God, is neither a product of one’s own effort and exertion, reflection and investigation, nor a result of mere human instruction. It is not gifts, not study that makes the prophet, just as also we do not meet with inclination as a prophetic factor, but constraint must be put upon them,—the prophets needed to be overpowered. Thus something lies in the
öìéå éã éé×
. Comp. Jer_20:7. If this appears in a still stronger form where instead of
åַäְּäִé
, e.g. at Eze_8:1, we have
åַçִּîֹּì
, Eze_11:5 certainly explains
éã éé×
by
øåּçַ éé×
; it is the power of the Spirit. “He has thus expressed the energy of the divine Spirit” (Theodoret). Hence the prophetic preparation in consequence of this is rightly given by Oehler in the first place as a divine knowledge (comp. Jer_23:18 with Amo_3:7), to which there cannot be wanting as a second element the sanctifying as well as strengthening efficacy (Psalms 1-16 sqq.; Mic_3:8). J. Fr. Starck quotes: impulsus inopinatus, illuminatio extraordinaria, spiritus prophetiæ vehemens, afflatus Spiritus Sancti singularis. “Thus he saw what other men did not see, then he recollected all that he had seen and heard, and understood the meaning of the Lord and did His commandment.” Cocc. (On old pictures of the prophets, as well as in the frescoes of the church at Schwarz-Rheindorf, a hand is painted, which is stretched from heaven.)
Eze_1:4-28.—Ezekiel’s Vision of the Glory of Jehovah
Isaac Casaubon, in his once far-famed Exercitationes, 16. de reb. sacr. et eccl. adv. Baronium (Geneva 1655), asserts: “in the whole of the Old Testament there is nothing more obscure than the beginning and the end of the book of Ezekiel.” Under the same impression Calvin declares, that “he acknowledges that he does not understand this vision.” Jerome had pronounced that “in its interpretation all the synagogues of the Jews are dumb, giving as their reason that it transcends man’s capacity, et de hoa et de œdificatione templi, quod in ultimo hujus prophetœ scribitur, aliquid velle conari.” The Jewish designation for the following vision is
îֶøְëָּáָä
, “chariot” or “team of four,” in accordance with the four living creatures and the four wheels. Hävernick: “It formed the basis and the point of support for the later mystic theology in its endless gnostic speculations about the divine essence and the higher spirit-world.” As their natural theology is called among the Jews
áְּøֶàùִׁéç
, so-the mystic is called
îֶøְëָּá
. One is not to read before reaching his thirtieth year either the beginning of Genesis, or the Song of Songs, or the beginning and end of the book of Ezekiel; such is the admonition of Jewish tradition. Comp. Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vortr. d. Juden, p. 162 sqq. (the most important work of more recent times in this department).
Umbreit, while he denies him the poetic gift, ascribes to Ezekiel “in the rarest degree the ability which is characteristic of the painter, of making visible to the eye what he has seen.” But even the celebrated picture of Raphael in the Pitti Gallery at Florence may pass as a criticism of this assertion. There there is more than one feature quite passed over: what is separate appears grouped together; what is united, on the other hand, appears divided. To the artistic conception of the greatest painter the vision of Ezekiel presented itself with difficulty. We shall be compelled to assert even more positively, that with all the “exactitude of delineation, and with the plastic art in the giving of details” (Umbreit), an obscurity remains over the whole, even merely as respects the setting it before the eye, an invisibility, which is not certainly to be ascribed to “overcrowding,” but which lies in the subject-matter, the object of the vision, which results from the thing itself. The representation of Ezekiel wrestles with its subject, as the amplification, the repetition and recurrence again to what has been said, shows. It must indeed be the case, according to Exodus 33, that (Eze_1:22-23) only the “back parts” of the glory of God are capable of being seen by man here upon earth. Comp. 1Jn_3:2. Certainly, if Ezekiel, because he had been carried out of the body, were to have seen the “face” of the glory of God, his after-remembrance in the body of what he had seen would not have been capable of being expressed. Comp. 2Co_12:4; 2Co_12:3. The “unapproachable light,” in which God dwells (1Ti_6:16), remains from the time of the Sinaitic keynote theophany onwards for the whole of the Old Testament. Exo_19:9; Exo_19:16; Exo_19:20-21 (Deu_4:11; Deu_5:19); Lev_16:2; 1Ki_8:12; Psa_97:2 (Eze_18:12).
We may quote the remark of Umbreit, that Ezekiel “repeats more frequently than any other prophet the statement: the word of Jehovah was thus made known to me, as if he had felt the word like a burden, and was unable to reproduce it as such in a very worthy manner; it is only to set down its symbol that he feels himself called in his inmost being.” There is also to be found in Ezekiel as compared with the older prophets a greater complication in the symbolism, in which the following vision especially is expressed in its plastic art. Comp. Introd. § 7.
Inasmuch as it is vision, and consequently the divine element is represented visibly in pictures, these pictures have a divine import, are symbols, so that there belongs to them at the same time a concealing, relatively veiling character, especially as regards the people. The word of God must accordingly come in addition to the vision of God, in order to explain it for the prophet and the people. Comp. the distinction between
ὀðôáóἰáò
and
ἀðïêáëýøåéò êõñßïõ
, 2Co_12:1.
But it is not so much a peaceful picture which presents itself to our prophet, as rather a phenomenon of a very excited character inwardly as well as outwardly; a circumstance which must not remain unnoticed in the interpretation. The storm brings great clouds therefore. A strong brisk fire, which spreads its brightness round about, forms the interior of the cloud brought by the storm. Such is the first, outermost part of the vision, its porch as it were, which the prophet first of all enters (Eze_1:4). On a nearer view there are formed out of the intensive fire of the cloud as it were four “living creatures,” which have at first sight the appearance of a man, and are therefore to be carried back in thought to this in general, whatever else in detail more exact description perceives in them. And so the fourfold group of the creatures is individualized in a fourfoldness of each of them: man, lion, ox, eagle. In spite of such fourfoldness, which is perhaps also clear from other circumstances (thus they have wings, and at the same time the foot-soles of a calf, and yet the hands of a man, comp. at Eze_1:7), prominence is given expressly to a mutuality of relation, the unity of a whole, Eze_1:9; Eze_1:12; Eze_1:15; Eze_1:20-22 (Eze_1:5-14). Then, further, as the direction out of the north (Eze_1:4) has given the tendency of the vision in its immediate historical reference, so the wheels also bring the whole into connection with the earth. The more expressive connecting link will be the number four, the symbolic number (passing over from the living creatures to the wheels) of the cosmical relations, in which God reveals Himself. (Bähr, Symbolism of the Mosaic Cultus, 1 p. 341.) The glory of Jehovah from heaven manifests itself with this second part of the vision as a glorifying of Jehovah upon earth, inasmuch as “the spirit of the living creature” unites in the closest way wheels and creatures (Eze_1:15-21). Lastly, the holy of holies of the vision is opened with the vault as of heaven over the heads of the chajah. The living creatures, into union with which the wheels are taken up by means of the “spirit,” are by means of the “voice,” which comes from above the vault, and that while they are at rest, united to Him who is enthroned there, who looked like a man. From Him ultimately everything proceeds, just as to Him ultimately everything tends. As in the holy of holies of the tabernacle and of the temple, the vision culminates in the enthroning of Jehovah in His glory. Hence, too, it cannot be passed over without remark, that in this very excited phenomenon a thrice-repeated advance makes itself known. The first time the fire-cloud
ëְּöֵéï äַçַùְׁîַì îִúּåֹêְ äָàֵùׁ
(Eze_1:4). The second time the fire-picture of the chajoth
ëֹּöְַøåֹú ëְּîַøְàֵä äַîִּéãִéí ëְּðַçַìֵéÎàֵùׁ
(Eze_1:13; Eze_1:7), with the height and dreadfulness and
ëְּöֵéï úַּøùִׁéùׁ
of the wheels (Eze_1:18; Eze_1:16). The third time: the
øָ÷ִéöַ ëְּöֵéï äַ÷ֶּøַç äַðּåֹøָä
, and the throne
àֶáֶï íַîִּéø ëְּîַøְàֶä
, and the fire-bright appearance of the Glorious One thereon, the description of which, however, at last terminates significantly in: “As the appearance of the bow,” etc. Fire, brightness, light,—this remains the common feature all three times; it forms consequently the fundamental characteristic of the vision as respects its interpretation, in which, however, the meaning of the closing rainbow in the cloud must not be left out.
Let us now attempt to get at the meaning of the vision. Although the separate symbols must be left over to the exegesis, yet the symbolism as a whole must be understood beforehand, according to which the import of the vision, especially in comparison and connection with other similar visions of the Old Testament, will come to light. Ezekiel himself leaves us in no doubt as to the meaning of his vision, for he says expressly at the close:
äåּà îַøְàֵä ãּîåּú ëּáåֹø éé×
. It is therefore Jehovah’s glory that presented itself to him, and presents itself to us in the vision. In so far as this can be distinguished more in its personal relation to Himself, and on the other side more in its active manifestation and execution of His will, as Jehovah’s glory and as His glorification, the
äåּà
of Eze_1:28 may, by a glance at Eze_10:4; Eze_10:19, be more precisely explained by Keil (following Hitzig), but for the interpretation of the vision in Ezekiel 1 it is not advisable. As to the idea
ëáåã
for “glory,” comp. on Eze_1:28. Although the
ëָּáåֹã
of God stands for the appearance, hence for what is manifest (Introd. § 10), yet the figurative representation of the same must not be taken as a matter of course for the essential idea. Gesenius says incorrectly in his Pocket Dictionary: “The Hebrew conceives (?) of it as a clear shining fire, from which fire issues, and which is usually enveloped in smoke;” for the Hebrew conceives of it rather (comp. Ges. himself) as “weight, dignity, gravitas.” To the divine essence there belongs a corresponding sovereign dignity and sovereign power,—a glory (Herrlichkeit from “hehr”), as well as a dominion (Herrschaft from “Herr”). The two things conceived of as one idea, and not merely in antithesis to the world, but in the world as the light and the life of the world, is the
ëָּáåֹã
of God—the significance of God for the world. The heavens declare the glory of God (Psa_19:1), and the whole earth is full of His glory (Isa_6:3). Without it there is nothing but “power and matter” (Büchner), and our view of the world is an atomistic one. Although the manifest aim of creation has been turned by reason of sin into the goal, yet Psa_97:6 says and prophesies: “The heavens declare His righteousness, and all nations see His glory;” and in Num_14:21 Jehovah swears by His life, that the glory of Jehovah shall fill the whole earth. If with this far-reaching look at the world’s goal, and on the broad foundation of the divine aim as regards the world (“Jehovah” is certainly everywhere “Elohim”), Ezekiel’s vision of Jehovah’s glory shapes itself first of all and predominantly as the righteousness of the Holy One, who will execute the judgment upon Jerusalem, and thus also upon that portion of Israel not yet in banishment by the Chebar, such a thing is easily understood as being necessary for that historical period, alike from the situation of affairs and as regards the persons. And this it is that is symbolized by the fire-cloud in particular, as well as in general by the fire-style, in which the whole is kept. Nevertheless there comes forth as the kernel of the fire-cloud the fire-picture of the four chajoth, whose meaning is as little reached when one goes back and gives them a Judaistic interpretation as the cherubim in the tabernacle or in the temple, as when one christianizes them by anticipation, as Kliefoth does, as the “universality of the economy of salvation founded by Christ when He appeared, in contrast with the particularism and territorialism of the previous economy of salvation.” It might rather be nearer the mark to adopt a third view which would keep fast hold of the glory of God as the original aim of the creation of heaven and earth is well as the ultimate goal of the history of the world; in connection with which the idea of life, so frequent with Ezekiel, pervading as it does the whole book, must not be overlooked (Eze_18:23; Eze_33:11; the whole of Ezekiel 37; Eze_18:9; Eze_18:13; Eze_18:17; Eze_18:19; Eze_18:21; Eze_18:24; Eze_18:28; Eze_18:32; Eze_33:12-13; Eze_33:15-16; Eze_3:18; Eze_3:21; Eze_16:6; Eze_20:11; Eze_20:13; Eze_20:21; Eze_20:25; Eze_47:9; Eze_13:18-19; Eze_13:22; Eze_7:13; Eze_5:11; Eze_14:16; Eze_14:18; Eze_14:20; Eze_17:16; Eze_17:19; Eze_18:3; Eze_20:3; Eze_20:31; Eze_20:33; Eze_33:11; Eze_33:27; Eze_34:8; Eze_35:11 : comp. Eze_26:20; Eze_32:23-27; Eze_32:32). For as God’s glory has its side for Him, according to which it is the self-representation of His life in a majesty invisible for man, so, on the other side, heaven and earth and the world of creatures mirror forth the divine life in a visible glory of God, inasmuch as through them God’s peculiar nature and power come to be seen in a manifoldness and fulness of life. This is His “fame,” His “honour,” which become known from creation conformably to its original design, according to which the investigation of nature was meant to be, as Prof. Fichte says, “an uninterrupted worship, a rational and intelligent glorification of that uncreated wisdom which manifests itself in nature.” And in like manner (according to Beck), “all the threads of life, which the divine faithfulness in revelation preserves within the circle of sinful mankind from the beginning onwards, and evermore strengthens and perfects in a part of the same, converge at the end in a central manifestation of life:
ἡ æùὴ ἐöáíåñþèç
, 1Jn_1:2. The revelation of life in actual fact breaks the death-power of sin, 2Ti_1:10; life is the substance of salvation” (Lehrwissenschaft, 1 p. 448); and this life-development of salvation exercises, on the one hand, a preserving, renewing, and perfecting influence on the still remaining life-power of the world, and on the other hand, a relaxing, judging, and annihilating influence on the death-power of sin, works creatively, so that man and the earthly system come forth as a new creation in eternal and unchangeable life from the catastrophe of conflict and judgment. As arising from such a connection of the life and glory of God, must the spiritual symbolism of the chajoth also be understood in Ezekiel. The retrospective reference to the cherubim of the ark has certainly its truth, but not till Ezekiel 10 (comp. at Eze_9:3 the explanation with respect to the cherubs in general), where Ezekiel also (Eze_1:20) expressly brings them forward; and even there (Eze_1:15; Eze_1:17; Eze_1:20) they are called, as here and at Eze_3:13, “chajoth” or “chajah.” Their symbolic character is necessarily clear even from the symbolic connection in which they appear. The prophet saw also merely a “likeness” of four living creatures, consequently what looked like four living creatures. To their symbolic character corresponds also their designation; the biblical ideas of life and death have a symbolic colouring. But, in particular, support is entirely wanting in Holy Scripture for conceiving of these “living creatures,” as Keil would have us, as “beings who of all the creatures of heaven and earth possess and exhibit life in the fullest sense of the word, and who on this very account of all spiritual beings stand the nearest to the God of the spirits of all flesh, who lives from eternity to eternity, and surround His throne on every side.” What would thus be affirmed of “creatures,” is applicable properly to the Son alone (Joh_1:4); and how would such “representatives and bearers of the eternal blessed life” harmonize even with the uniquely prominent position of man made in the image of God in the Bible! In opposition to actual individual beings of such a kind, in opposition to “angelic beings of a higher order,” there speaks too evidently their fourfold form, whose meaning, as already settled by the Rabbins, is this, that the vital power according to four types (of man above all and in general because of his life being in highest potency, because of his spirit and its eternal destiny),—comp. Bähr, Symb. 1 p. 342 sqq.,—is to find an expression, is to be represented in a fulness of the highest possible significance. From the reproach of being “abstract ideas or ideal forms of the imagination,” which would thus be “represented as living beings,” the purely symbolic view is released by this circumstance, that certainly the four types are taken from real life, only the manner of their application and their juxtaposition being ideal. There can be no question of abstraction, where rather the individual element is specially realized by means of the idea of the whole, viz. life. Hengstenberg [“The Cherubim” at the close of his “Ezekiel,” Clark’s Trans.], who in Bähr’s interpretation emphas
