Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: October 15
Today is: Tuesday, October 22nd, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of October: (Show All Months)
One of these is, that the cherubic figures were intended to symbolize the Divine Persons in the sacred Trinity—the figure of the lion being associated with the human form to indicate the promised incarnation. This opinion was warmly and ably maintained by the learned but fanciful Hutchinson, and by others who more or less leaned to his opinions—such as Parkhurst, Bishop Horne, Julius Bates, Romaine, and Cuming. It has not, however, stood the test of criticism, and has now few supporters. In the first place, it would have been in direct opposition—and that, too, by divine authority—to the stringent prohibition of making any similitude of God—of aught designed to represent Him. “Take ye good heed to yourselves,” said Moses to the people, “for ye saw no manner of similitude in the day the Lord spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire; lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure.” It would surely be monstrous for this to be followed by an injunction to make a representation of the Trinity to be set in the most holy place. Besides, the Divine presence—the Shekinah—is always spoken of as distinct and separate from the cherubim—it “dwelt between the cherubim.” So, in Ezekiel’s vision, the four “living creatures,” or cherubim, are “under the God of Israel;” and, in Revelation 5, the four zoa, “beasts,” “living creatures,” or cherubim, rendered thanks to him that sat upon the throne; they, with the four-and-twenty elders, fell down before the Lamb, and sang this new song, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” It is surely unnecessary to point out the incompatibility of these incidents with this view of the cherubic symbols.
Another opinion, and, indeed, the general one at this day, is that which represents the cherubim to be holy angels, and the figures of them in the sanctuary to be symbolical representations of their nature and ministry. But how would angels, or any order of angels, say, as in the Revelation, that Christ had redeemed them to God by his blood? and their appearance in that vision is clearly distinguished from that of the angels. The number of the angels was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, and they all stood around the zoa, or “living creatures”—which is incompatible with the latter being any order of angels. These considerations seem to compel us to withhold our assent to the ingenious arguments which have been produced in favor of a notion, which is at the best only a conjecture, and which its warmest supporters admit to be incapable of direct proof from Scripture. We need not state the arguments; for since, as the engineers say, no fortress is stronger than its weakest part, if these weak points clearly exist, the strength of all other arguments and illustrations must count for nothing. It is true that the opinion is very ancient, and probably may be traced as having originated among the Jews themselves; and to have been inherited from them by the Christian church. But it has been forgotten that this is almost the only opinion they would be likely to reach, in the want of that better light into the hidden mysteries with which we have been favored; and, having that clearer light, we needlessly, and sometimes dangerously, limit ourselves, by carelessly adopting the narrow views which the Jews entertained of their own symbols and institutions.
It was shown lately that the cherubim of the tabernacle and temple were the same that Ezekiel saw, and the same that were seen in the apocalyptic vision. What is therefore declared of the latter is equally applicable to all; and this being the last and the New Testament revelation on the subject, might be expected to furnish some further; disclosure in regard to this mystery than had in old times been possessed. This appears to be furnished in their new song: “Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seal thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.” Can this possibly be the language of angels?—especially when we hear the apostle’s doctrine, "For verily he took not upon him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham,”—Heb_2:16—and when, moreover, in the context here, the angels are expressly distinguished from the four beasts? It can only be the language of human beings—of the multitude of the redeemed from among men, out of every nation—not of any section of the church, nor of any class of its members, but of the great body of the believers in the atonement, throughout all ages, countries, and nations. In the immediate application of this symbol, it may be said that, when the high priest entered the most holy place of the tabernacle—which he never did without the blood of atonement in his hand—and looked upon the ark of the covenant with its cherubic appendages, with the Shekinah, enthroned between, he beheld, in fact, but a miniature model of what he saw on a large scale without, when standing amidst the many thousands of Israel abiding in their tents. Here were the cherubic symbols resolved into their constituent multitudes; and over the host rested in calm majesty the pillar of cloud, the visible external token of the Divine presence permanently residing among the tribes. And even this was, as our further light indicates, but a type of that which the Israelites could not see, and would not like to have seen, of multitudes redeemed to God, out of all nations, by the blood of atonement, forming the church of God, among whom He should dwell.
When this clue to the meaning of the symbol is once apprehended, a multitude of circumstances come to the recollection in confirmation of it. We recall the assurance of Ezekiel that the human figure predominated in the cherubim, and that they possessed the hands of men. We may also call to mind that, although the etymology of cherubim is uncertain, the word “living creature,” is often used as a noun of multitude, and is so translated in the English version; and as the living creatures and the cherubim are the same, this idea must be common to both. So, “thy congregation,” in Psa_68:10, is, in Hebrew, “thy living creature;” and 2Sa_23:13, “the troop,” is, in Hebrew, “the living creature.” We shall also note that the presence of the cherubim is always more or less connected with the idea or practice of sacrifice and atonement. We see this constantly in the tabernacle and temple; we see it in the live coal (the efficient atoning power of sacrifice) wherewith one of the seraphim (the same as cherubim) purified Isaiah’s unclean lips; and we see it still more plainly in the Apocalypse.
We regret that space does not allow us to follow out this idea fully—to enforce it by further illustrations, and to vindicate it from possible objections. Aware, however, that many readers will wish to appreciate the fitness of the strange, anomalous, and it may be almost said monstrous diversity of forms and faces of which the symbol was composed, supposing the cherubic men—men standing in a covenant relation to God—men possessed of renewed spiritual life, and thus enjoying the Divine favor—we may reasonably conclude that this singular combination of forms represents some remarkable attributes in the character which the symbol adumbrates. Taking this view, it is asked by Professor Bush—“What, then, are distinguishing traits in the character of the people of God which may be filly represented by emblems so unique? How shall the hieroglyphic be read? The face of the ox reminds us of the qualities of the ox; and these, it is well known, are patient endurance, unwearied service, and meek submission to the yoke. What claim has he to the title of a man of God who is not distinguished by these ox-like attributes? The lion is the proper symbol of undaunted courage, glowing zeal, triumph over enemies, united with innate nobleness and magnanimity of spirit. The man, as a symbol, we may well conceive as indicating intelligence, meditation, wisdom, sympathy, philanthropy, and every generous and tender emotion. And, finally, in the eagle, we recognize the impersonation of an active, intelligent, fervent, soaring spirit, prompting the readiest and swiftest execution of the Divine commands, and elevating the soul to the things that are above.” Note: Notes on Exodus, p. 100. New York, 1843. The writer takes substantially the same view we have stated as to the nature of the symbol—which has also been very ably advocated by Mr. George Smith, F.S.A., in his recent work (1850) on the Doctrine of the Cherubim. This interpretation is not, however, a new one, for we have traced it in several good old authors, English and foreign. It must be confessed that the symbolization of qualities by animal representations is not congenial to the European taste in its present state of cultivation. It is, however, frequent in the Bible, and we must not forget how well it was calculated to impress the ancient and oriental imagination. It is merely a kind of embodied imagery, and all ancient literature—as well as all modern eastern literature—is full of it. Even our austerer taste still tolerates this kind of impersonation in poetry, and the language of the least educated classes still avouches its former predominance, and its present convenience in giving expression to the ideas entertained of the intellectual, spiritual, and physical qualities of men. It is the language of simple nature, which is full of material imagery: and in this language God often speaks to men.
Dr. Layard, speaking of the Assyrian symbols (which be takes to be representations of the Deity), says: “I used to contemplate for hours these mysterious symbols, and muse over their talent and history. What more sublime images could have been borrowed from nature, by men who sought, unaided by the light of revealed religion, to embody their conceptions of the wisdom, power, and equity of a Supreme Being? They could find no better type of wisdom and knowledge, than the head of the man; of strength, than the body of the lion; of ubiquity, than the wings of the bird.” Note: Nineveh, i. 70.