Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ezekiel 1:10, As 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; they four also had the face of an eagle.
Ezekiel 10:14, And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.
Does anyone know why Ezekiel's visions differ between the cherub and ox? Thank you!
__________________________________________________ __________________________________ The pictures below are not directly part of the question.
Hi PastorALly. The only information I have on that is from 'The Bible Knowledge Commentary' from Dallas Theological Seminary which has the following on Ezekiel 10:14.
10:14 Ezekiel then described the faces of the cherubim a second time (see comments on 1:10). However, an apparent discrepancy exists between these two descriptions. In chapter 1 the cherubim had the faces of a man, a lion, an eagle, and an ox; but in chapter 10 they had the faces of a cherub . . . a man . . . a lion, and an eagle. Some have suggested that a later scribe mistakenly copied "a cherub" in place of "face of an ox." A second view is that the face of an ox was, in fact, the normal understanding of the face of a cherub. In Akkadian literature the kuribu (cognate of "cherub" appear to have nonhuman faces. [The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures By Dallas Seminary Faculty, p. 1246]
John Gill, and the Pulpit Commentary both are of the opinion that the face of a cherub is that of an ox.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary disagrees and says,
14. cherub—but in Eze 1:10 it is an ox. The chief of the four cherubic forms was not the ox, but man. Therefore "cherub" cannot be synonymous with "ox." Probably Ezekiel, standing in front of one of the cherubim (namely, that which handed the coals to the man in linen), saw of him, not merely the ox-form, but the whole fourfold form, and therefore calls him simply "cherub"; whereas of the other three, having only a side view, he specifies the form of each which met his eye [Fairbairn]. As to the likelihood of the lower animals sharing in "the restoration of all things," see Isa 11:6; 65:25; Ro 8:20, 21; this accords with the animal forms combined with the human to typify redeemed man.
In Studylight.org, the Coffman Commentary offers the following.
Ezekiel 10:9-12 is nearly identical with Ezekiel 1:15-18; and this writer cannot visualize any consistent apparatus that fits the vision. Wheels that are whirling, but do not turn as they go, and that go in four directions somehow fail to form any clear picture. The complex, complicated vision is here changed in the particular of so many eyes so widely distributed, and "the face of the cherub," is apparently substituted for the "face of an ox" in Ezekiel 1. Perhaps we are not supposed to be able thoroughly to understand it. Dummelow is the only author we have studied who offered an adequate explanation of why the face of "the cherub" is not referred to as the "face of an ox." "The whole vision was about to move Eastward; and from where Ezekiel stood, the face of the cherub on the east side was that of an ox (as in chapter 1); but it is here called "the face of the cherub, because that was the direction in which the vision would move, and so might be called `the cherub.'"[11] Ezekiel 10:1 - Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible - Commentaries - StudyLight.org
The idea being expressed by Dummelow according to Coffman is that the ''ox face" was the face of the cherub because of the eastward projection.
The Preceptaustin website - Ezekiel Commentaries has a number of other commentaries addressing Ezekiel 10:14 which I haven't checked but you may wish to.
There seems to be no unanimous consensus on the reason for the differences in the descriptions.
Hi PastorALly. The only information I have on that is from 'The Bible Knowledge Commentary' from Dallas Theological Seminary which has the following on Ezekiel 10:14.
10:14 Ezekiel then described the faces of the cherubim a second time (see comments on 1:10). However, an apparent discrepancy exists between these two descriptions. In chapter 1 the cherubim had the faces of a man, a lion, an eagle, and an ox; but in chapter 10 they had the faces of a cherub . . . a man . . . a lion, and an eagle. Some have suggested that a later scribe mistakenly copied "a cherub" in place of "face of an ox." A second view is that the face of an ox was, in fact, the normal understanding of the face of a cherub. In Akkadian literature the kuribu (cognate of "cherub" appear to have nonhuman faces. [The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures By Dallas Seminary Faculty, p. 1246]
John Gill, and the Pulpit Commentary both are of the opinion that the face of a cherub is that of an ox.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary disagrees and says,
14. cherub—but in Eze 1:10 it is an ox. The chief of the four cherubic forms was not the ox, but man. Therefore "cherub" cannot be synonymous with "ox." Probably Ezekiel, standing in front of one of the cherubim (namely, that which handed the coals to the man in linen), saw of him, not merely the ox-form, but the whole fourfold form, and therefore calls him simply "cherub"; whereas of the other three, having only a side view, he specifies the form of each which met his eye [Fairbairn]. As to the likelihood of the lower animals sharing in "the restoration of all things," see Isa 11:6; 65:25; Ro 8:20, 21; this accords with the animal forms combined with the human to typify redeemed man.
In Studylight.org, the Coffman Commentary offers the following.
Ezekiel 10:9-12 is nearly identical with Ezekiel 1:15-18; and this writer cannot visualize any consistent apparatus that fits the vision. Wheels that are whirling, but do not turn as they go, and that go in four directions somehow fail to form any clear picture. The complex, complicated vision is here changed in the particular of so many eyes so widely distributed, and "the face of the cherub," is apparently substituted for the "face of an ox" in Ezekiel 1. Perhaps we are not supposed to be able thoroughly to understand it. Dummelow is the only author we have studied who offered an adequate explanation of why the face of "the cherub" is not referred to as the "face of an ox." "The whole vision was about to move Eastward; and from where Ezekiel stood, the face of the cherub on the east side was that of an ox (as in chapter 1); but it is here called "the face of the cherub, because that was the direction in which the vision would move, and so might be called `the cherub.'"[11] Ezekiel 10:1 - Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible - Commentaries - StudyLight.org
The idea being expressed by Dummelow according to Coffman is that the ''ox face" was the face of the cherub because of the eastward projection.
The Preceptaustin website - Ezekiel Commentaries has a number of other commentaries addressing Ezekiel 10:14 which I haven't checked but you may wish to.
There seems to be no unanimous consensus on the reason for the differences in the descriptions.
I hope this provides some help.
Mike
Thanks Mike, I wasn't familiar with the Preceptaustin website. I had scoured my usual sources, many the same as yours, and came up with no consensus. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't some smoking gun answer the instructor is looking for. I think it's one of those, "we'll never know outside of heaven" questions.
BTW, in the question, we're supposed to describe the similarities and differences between Numbers Chapter 2, Eze 10:14, Eze 1:10 and Rev 4:7, then apply to today's world. Yikes!
Both of these visions were Holy Angels of God , ...actually the second Vision was the account of when Holy Spirit was leaving Israel and looking back , in heart break as what would Israel do with out God , as It was the time when Israel was handed over to their enemies .....
Both of these visions were Holy Angels of God , ...actually the second Vision was the account of when Holy Spirit was leaving Israel and looking back , in heart break as what would Israel do with out God , as It was the time when Israel was handed over to their enemies .....
The word "Cherub" within the language of the Assyrians, carries the significance or meaning of: "To plow the ground, which is the work of an oxen." ...Christianity is a syncretistic Religion.
Many do not plow the fields of their own mind; they depend on others to do that!
The word "Cherub" within the language of the Assyrians, carries the significance or meaning of: "To plow the ground, which is the work of an oxen." ...Christianity is a syncretistic Religion.
Many do not plow the fields of their own mind; they depend on others to do that!
"It's the golden calf of mankind."
Thanks. Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary had this (and a lot more) to say;
Quote:
It appears, from Genesis 3:29, that this is a name given to angels; but whether it is the name of a distinct class of celestials, or designates the same order as the seraphim, we have no means of determining. But the term cherbim generally signifies those figures which Moses was commanded to make and place at each end of the mercy seat, or propitiatory, and which covered the ark with expanded wings in the most holy place of the Jewish tabernacle and temple. See Exodus 25:18-19 . The original meaning of the term, and the shape or form of these, any farther than that they were alata animata, "winged creatures," is not certainly known. The word in Hebrew is sometimes taken for a calf or ox; and Ezekiel 10:14 , sets down the face of a cherub as synonymous to the face of an ox. The word cherub, in Syriac and Chaldee, signifies to till or plough, which is the proper work of oxen. Cherub also signifies strong and powerful. Grotius says they were figures much like that of a calf; and Bochart, likewise, thinks that they were more like the figure of an ox than any thing beside; and Spencer is of the same mind. But Josephus says they were extraordinary creatures of a figure unknown to mankind. The opinion of most critics, taken, it seems, from Ezekiel 1:9-10 , is, that they were figures composed of parts of various creatures; as a man, a lion, an ox, an eagle. But certainly we have no decided proof that the figures placed in the holy of holies, in the tabernacle, were of the same form with those described by Ezekiel. The contrary, indeed, seems rather indicated, because they looked down upon the mercy seat, which is an attribute not well adapted to a four-faced creature, like the emblematical cherubim seen by Ezekiel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
