The recognition of the essential difference in form, significance, and origin, between the Mosaic cherubim and the cherubim of the vision will alone prevent confusion. This difference we find more clearly set forth in Ewald's note on Ezekiel and in Winer's Realwörterbuch than elsewhere; from the latter of which we quote the statement: "We cannot understand how the mere fantasy of this prophet, if only he held fast in general to the original type of the Mosaic cherubim, should not have been freely handled in the carrying out of its forms." How fast the prophet did hold to this type, and how much freedom there was in details of form, a comparison of the two representations will show us. We cannot expect the same simplicity and consistency in the delineation of the forms of vision as of historic reality, and as a matter of fact we do not find them.

The "living creatures of Ezekiel's vision are thus described: "They had the likeness [probably the upright posture (?)] of a man"; "Every one had four faces and every one had four wings"; "Their feet were straight feet" (translated in the Septuagint, καὶ τὰ σκέλη αὐτῶν ὀρθά; the Hebrew word meaning, in this place, straight, as opposed to curved); " and the soles of their feet like the soles of a calf's foot," which the Seventy render, xal TTеρwтoi oi Tódes αὐτῶν. They "sparkled like the color of burnished brass." "And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides"; of which wings we read that "two of every one joined to another, and two covered their bodies." "And 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; they four also had the face of an eagle." "Wheels" full of eyes, a "firmament," a "throne," "the likeness of a man above upon it," accompany these strange creatures, and almost make an integral part of them. Surely it would need a cunning workman in metal and tapestry to delineate these forms, were their complexity the only difficulty which he had to overcome. They are, however, not only complex, but also changeful.

In that wonderful tenth chapter, these beings, which had before been called "living creatures," are again described, with some changed and some entirely new details, and are thereupon called "cherubims." At the fourteenth verse of this chapter, the four faces are again enumerated; but now "the first face was the face of a cherub," and the face of "an ox on the left side" had disappeared. This fourteenth verse is, however, omitted in the Septuagint as edited by Tischendorf, though it is not without manuscript authority. What is meant by "the face of a cherub," in this connection, it is not easy to determine. The opinion of Spencer and others, that this interchange proves the face of an ox to have been the distinctive cherubic face, is now generally abandoned.1 May not the expression be held to show that there was a distinctive historic " face of a cherub," and thus disclose touches of the real in this imaginative compound? At any rate, this phrase and the one which attributes to these living creatures the likeness of man are the most certain elements of the old Mosaic cherubim considered as contributing anything besides a name to this new compound. The latter phrase is, however, restricted by Ewald to the common intelligence of man and these cherubim. In this tenth chapter, where the word "cherubim" occurs twenty-one of the something like eightyfive times in all, we are also told that their whole body and their backs and their hands and their wings, as well as the wheels, were full of eyes round about. Well may Gesenius say, "Pro ingenii luxuria et nimia fere ubertate," has the prophet constructed them. Well may we say, with more emphasis than Winer, "Thus executed, one will not easily recognize the form of the Mosaic cherubim."

Indeed, strictly speaking, they cannot thus be executed at all; and Ewald is certainly right in claiming that the whole of this compound, as Ezekiel thought of it, cannot be represented in drawing or plastic, but only in the imagination of the prophet. Why, then, should the discussion of the subject be perpetually confused by assuming the essential

1 See Bähr's Symbolik. i. 313.

similarity of the cherubim of Ezekiel's vision and the cherubim of the tabernable and temple?

II. From the inquiry into the form of the cherubim, we now turn to consider their significance. This question and the question of their original throw a slight mutual light or shadow one upon the other. The question of significance is one hard to decide; and though Bähr, who asserts that even the commonest materials and measures of the tabernacle were symbolic, may be sure in every instance, we must be content to know less.

1. As to the significance of the historic cherubim, the first passage in point is Gen. iii. 24, where they are, according to Gesenius and most others, mentioned as guardians of Eden. Indeed, this mention of them leads Herder to conclude that they were a sort of Hebrew griffin. According to Bähr,1 however, they are set as beings of abounding life, to inhabit, and not to guard, this garden of life. The plain import of the text is that their office was that of guardians. There is another allusion to these guarding cherubim of Eden, which cannot well be passed by. In Ezek. xxviii. 14, the king of Tyre is called "the cherub of extension that covereth" (wrongly rendered, in our Bibles, "anointed cherub," but "cherub extentus," in the Vulgate); because, according to Gesenius, he guards his treasures as the cherub "covered with his wings and protected radiant gems in the holy mount of Eden." With a fierce joy does the prophet say to this guardian cherub, the king of Tyre: "Thou hast sinned, and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire."

We next find the cherubim set up by Moses over the ark of the covenant. Were the chronological relation of these two passages-Gen. iii. 24 and Ex. xxv. 18 sq.-known beyond doubt, we might feel more ready to assert or deny that the cherubim in both instances symbolize the same thought. Their watchful posture, with wings overshading, and faces toward the mercy-seat, seem still to indicate the

1 Symbolik. i. 351.

guardian, and to be constantly saying: "Procul, O procul este profani." And since both records, by whomsoever first written, were doubtless put together by the same hand, we should expect such similarity of office. We conclude, then, that the earliest significance of the cherubim was that of simple guardianship.

66

" I

But when once placed upon the ark their significance was necessarily farther expanded and defined. They are now enveloped with the visible glory of Jehovah; on them he sits or rides, from between them he speaks or shines forth; and they become, by an easy and natural transition, his throne, his place of most intimate self-revealing. "The cherub became among the Hebrews," says Ewald, "the token of the holy place, where Jehovah, as it were, has descended, and man feels his nearness more intimately than elsewhere."1 will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubims," was God's promise (Ex. xxv. 22) to his servant Moses. Of this promise there is recorded one fulfilment (Num. vii. 89). Jehovah's distinctive epithet becomes, "He that sitteth the cherubim " (our version, "dwelleth between "). The presence of "the ark of the Lord of hosts, which sitteth the cherubim. was to vanquish the Philistines. Of "the God of my rock" David sings: "He rode upon a cherub, and did fly." The cry of the exiled and oppressed is: "Thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth" (Ps. lxxx. 1); and his exultation is: "Jehovah sitteth the cherubim, let the earth be moved." It is to the Lord of hosts, God of Israel, who sitteth the cherubim, that Hezekiah sends up prayer for succor. As these quotations prove, no break occurs in the thought. And the same forms have the same significance in the Temple of Solomon as in the ancient tabernacle.

According to Bähr,2 cherubim are connected with Jehovah's throne, because, being creatures of most perfect life, they are the most perfect disclosures of his life, and thus belong to the throne, the place of highest disclosure. Upon the 1 Die Propheten, ii. 342. 2 Symbolik. i. 372.

walls and veil of the temple they find place, because here is a state of high life, a miniature Eden, "where everything blooms and is green as in Eden." The plain historic connection is much preferable to this profundity in the interpretation of symbolism.

The importance which attaches itself to the cherubim is not because of their original, intrinsic, and hidden symbolism, but because the cherubim above the ark were to the Hebrew mind, as shrouded in the Shekinah, connected by inseparable association with all that was most occult and most awful in Jehovah's self-disclosure. Being placed there, with perhaps the original significance of guardians, they simply acquired by their place the added significance which we find them possessing in poetry and prayer. If those golden forms had not first raised their wings aloft to overshadow the ark of the covenant, Jehovah would never have been called, "He that sitteth the cherubim." The cherubim receive this part of their symbolism from their place, not impart to the place the prior acquisition of their symbolism.

The expression "chariot of cherubims" (1 Chron. xxviii. 18) probably refers to the movable character of the ark and its apparatus of cherubim, upon which Jehovah is represented as sitting.

2. If we inquire, now, into the significance of the cherubim of Ezekiel's vision, we shall incur all the perplexity which is wont to attend the interpretation of prophetic symbolism. These "living creatures," and through their influence the cherubim of Moses' time, have been found to mean many things, from the vassals or "thunder-steeds" of Jehovah to the most intimate disclosures of his own being and attributes. De Wette understands them as symbols of the strength, power, and wisdom of God and of his nearness. But Bähr, applying his cherubic theory, decides that they are called "living creatures," as possessing creature life, KaT' ¿§OXŃV. Being the most perfect creatures, they are the most perfect

1 So J. D. Michaelis in his "De cherubis equis tonantibus," though his view was founded mainly upon Ps. xviii. 10.