Глава 1
Machine translation from the original · Show original
Vision of the Glory of God on the Cherubim
Ezek.1:1. And it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, while I was among the exiles by the river Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.
"AND" . In addition to the book of the prophet Ezekiel, the following books begin with the conjunction “and”: Exodus, Joshua, Ruth, Judges, Kings, Jonah, Esther, 1 Mac. Consequently, for the ancient Jew such a beginning of the books did not represent anything as unusual and strange as it does for us. But for most of these books, this beginning finds some explanation in the fact that these books are a continuation of the previous ones. At the beginning of the book of Ezekiel, “and” is especially unexpected. It should be noted that “and” stands here not only before the first sentence of the book, but also before the second, completely independent, but connected with the first relation of the time sequence (the second “and” in the Russian translation is translated “when”). To impart roundness, smoothness and solemnity to the speech, so important at the beginning of the book, “and” is placed not only before the second sentence, but also before the first. This “and” has an analogy in Greek. μεν, lat. nam, itaque. Consequently, the beginning of the book of Ezekiel with “and” does not give reason to conclude that at the beginning of the book there was some lost section, for example, the story of another vision (Spinoza Tract, theol.-pol. p.
10) or information about the former life of the prophet (Clostermann, Ezechiel in Studien u. Kritiken 1877, 391 etc.).
"In the thirtieth year". Ezekiel calls the year of his calling to prophecy the thirtieth, without saying where this year came from the thirtieth. But in 2 tbsp. the prophet supplements this unclear date by noting that this year 30 was the 5th year of the captivity of King Joachim. There are the following explanations for this mysterious date. 1) The ancients (Origen, Ephraim the Syrian, Gregory the Dvoeslov, partly Blessed Jerome) meant here the 30th year of the prophet’s life. The following speaks for this understanding. consideration: “if this is the 30th year of the prophet’s life, then Ezekiel entered the prophetic ministry at an age when, under other circumstances, he should have received priestly ordination; in this year he received spiritual baptism into prophecy, as a rich replacement for the lost priestly ministry" (Kretschmar, Das Buch Ezechiel 1900). This was the fullness of age that, according to the fate of Providence, turned out to be necessary for the Savior himself to begin His ministry. But if this is the 30th year of the prophet’s life, then he should have added “my life.”
2) Others (for example, Targum, rabbis) think that the chronology here begins with the 18th year of Josiah, when the book of the law was found in the Temple of Jerusalem and when the Passover, which had not been celebrated for a long time, was solemnly celebrated, which marked the beginning of the religious and moral renewal of the Kingdom of Judah, and so on. of all Israel of that time, the beginning of a new era of his life. Indeed, about 30–32 years passed from this event to the calling of Ezekiel. Since in the year the book was found, God, through the prophetess Huldama, confirmed his threats about the impending disaster for Judea, then, in the opinion of Blessed. Theodoret and others, this year can be considered the beginning of the Babylonian captivity, especially since according to Ezekiel 4.6, 40 years of captivity remained for Judah from the calling of Ezekiel, following. the year of the prophet's calling was the 30th year of captivity.
But, no matter how great the social significance of the mentioned event might have been, in the life of the Jews, of course, there were more important events, but they did not become eras: for example, the construction of the church; there is no surviving news that Josiah introduced chronology from here; and the consequences of Josiah's reform were not such that other kings had reason to begin a new reckoning with it. Such an era under Ezekiel would have been too young for him to use without explanation. 3rd widespread opinion about 30 Eze. 1.1, that this is the 30th year of the Babylonian, so-called Nabopolassar era, from the reign of Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar: Nabopolassar reigned (according to the “Canon of Kings” of Ptolemy) 21, Joachim in Judea, in the 4th year of whose reign according to Jeremiah 25.1 Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne, after Nabopolassar he reigned for another 8 years and (omitting the reign of Jeconiah) 5 years from the captivity of Jeconiah will give 34 years.
Since Ezekiel’s vision is marked by two eras and one of them is Jewish (2 v.), the first must be related to the Chaldean kingdom, where the prophet lived; Daniel designates the years according to the reigns of the Babylonian rulers (Dan 2.1, etc.), and Haggai, Zechariah and Ezra - the Persian ones, and the latter, like Ezekiel, designates the years of Artaxerxes with a bare number (Hagg 1.1 cf. Zech 1.1; 1 Ezra 6.15). But not to mention the incomplete coincidence of this era with Ezek.1.1, it is not confirmed by other places in the Bible. 4) There is still a 30th anniversary here. But only rabbis, and not the Bible, use jubilee counting (they begin counting jubilees with the entry of the Jews into Canaan). Although the destruction of Jerusalem was believed to be in the 36th year of the jubilee, why the calling of Ezekiel falls on the 30th year of the jubilee, but perhaps the rabbis in their account of jubilees were based precisely on Ezekiel 1.1–5. The newest exegetes suggest here a corruption of the text: Bertholet considers the date to be a gloss speaking about the year 30 of captivity, Heb. sense Luzzato (commentary 1876) with the damage to the “13th year of Nebuchadnezzar”, Kretschmar suggests here the omission of the words “my life”.
Although it is impossible to completely agree with any of the above explanations, it is remarkable that each of them, 30 years after the calling of Ezekiel, indicates one or another important event from which the prophet, indeed, could trace his chronology; but from which exactly it was led remains unknown, or, more precisely, left unknown to them. But might not this very silence provide the key to an explanation? Could the prophet himself indicate where the year of his vision came from? If this year fell on the 30th from any specific event in time, then nothing could prevent the prophet from naming this event. But the starting point for calculating some mysterious times and periods in the Bible is not always a specific single event in time: exegesis is powerless to decide exactly where to calculate the 400 years of “the migration of the seed of Abraham into a land that is not theirs” (Gen. 15.13) or the 70 weeks of Daniel, as if the beginning of these symbolic periods is lost to human comprehension in sacred darkness.
What happened to the prophet Ezekiel on Chebar was, as we will see, an event in the history of Israel important enough to have the same mysterious dates as the Egyptian slavery and the Babylonian captivity. It happened upon the fulfillment of the well-known and undoubted by its symbolism number of years “30” from something that could not have been named and indicated by a human finger. Full of secrets, the vision of the prophet Ezekiel on the river. It was fitting for Khovar to have a mysterious date. And nothing could the prophet so immediately and shockingly warn the reader about the terrible mystery of what he was preparing to tell, as by defining the very time of this with a symbolic and inexplicable number. This explanation of the date of Ezekiel 1.1 may seem strange to our European thinking, so to speak.
But we must keep in mind that the first verse of Ezekiel with this date, impossible for our ears, was read and copied for dozens of centuries in this form, with this bare number 30, and not a single scribe or rabbi thought about a possible mistake here, no one decided to correct the prophet here and finished off his omission.
"In the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month". While other prophets indicate only the year of their calling (Jeremiah), others limit themselves to designating the reigns in which they served (Isaiah, Amos, etc.), and some do not name the time (as well as place) of their activity at all (Nahum, Habakkuk, Jonah), the prophet Ezekiel, in addition to the year, also indicates the month and day of his calling, because not a single prophet was called to his ministry so amazingly, thanks to which in the soul of Ezekiel he could not the day of his calling will not be recorded. And in general, “the later biblical writers show much more chronological care than the most ancient ones” (Gefernik, Commentar uber d. Pr. Ezechiel 1843). The month of the calling of the prophet was the fourth, of course, of the sacred or Easter year, which alone is known to the sacred writers (Zechariah 1:7, 7:1; Esther 2:16, 3:7, 8:9), and not of the civil year, which began with the month of Tisri (September), the very existence of which among the Jews is doubtful and is assumed on the basis only of Lev.25.12. The fourth month is Easter. year corresponded to June–July.
So, the calling of the prophet was in the midst of the eastern summer with its heat, interrupted at times by devastating storms: the vision of the prophet also began with the storm.
“When I was among the migrants”, lit. “And I am among the captives.” The auxiliary verb is omitted deliberately: the analogous Nehemiah 1.1 has it. With a verb, the expression could only have a specific meaning: the prophet was (at the time of the vision) in the company of captives; but “that someone was with the prophet during the vision does not allow us to think of an expression other than Ezek.8.1” (Kretschmar). Without a verb, the expression takes on the character of a general introduction by the author to the reader of his personality: “I am one of the settlers near the river. Khovar." However, wherever the prophet in the book mentions his first vision, he connects it with this river; Obviously, here too he names this river not only as his place of residence, but as the place of his vision. The peculiar way of expression (without “was” Nehemiah 1.1 and without “was”, “sat” Nehemiah 8.1) allows just such a double meaning in it. Epiphanies and visions repeatedly occurred on the banks of rivers and seas: Daniel had two visions on the banks of rivers; apocalyptic visions were given on the open sea.
In terms of suitability for visions, waters can compete with the tops of mountains and deserts, these usual places of visions and epiphanies: in the sound of water something mysterious is always heard, the voice of the Almighty (Ezek. 1.24; Ps. 41.7-8; Ps. 92.3-4). Maybe Ezekiel in the described chapter 1. case, “he sat on the shore of Khobar, tuned by the sound of the waters to lofty thoughts, which had as their subject the terrible fate of him and his people” (Kretschmar). "Displacers" Heb. goal This noun, coming from a root consonant and unambiguous with the Russian “gol” (“gola” - to expose Gen. 9.21, etc.) came into literary use with the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24.15) and became a special name for those languishing in captivity among the population of Judea spared by the conqueror (Ezek. 11.15). More accurately conveys the meaning of this collective name slav. "captivity"; “migrants”, the meaning is softer than necessary; Westerners prefer a simple transcription - golah. With this one word, the prophet sufficiently described both the external conditions of his life and the state of his spirit. Contrary to the opinion of modern biblical scholars (e.g. Stade, Gesch. d. v. Isr.
II, 1–63) the situation of the Jewish captives in Babylonia, at least at first, could not but be difficult: it was worth hard work to find a means of living in an unfamiliar country, where, of course, the worst, useless plots of land were allotted for the captives. Noteworthy is the fact that the prophet cannot name his place of residence, his city or village. He indicates only the river on the banks of which the Jewish colony to which he belonged lived. It was probably just an emerging, insignificant settlement created by the labor and sweat of captives, which had not yet had time to receive a name. And for future prophetic activity, God assigns Ezekiel not this initial residence, but another probably more significant and rich settlement of Tel Aviv (Ezek.3.15).
“Khobar” (according to the Masoretic text kevar) of the prophet Ezekiel was first identified with Habor 2 Kings 17.6, probably a tributary of the Tigris, on which the captives of the Kingdom of Israel were settled by the Assyrian kings, then with C αβορα of Ptolemy (5, 6) also ʹ Αβορρας (lib. 16) a tributary of the Euphrates, flowing from the Masian mountains and flowing into the Euphrates near Carchemish. But both rivers are north of Chaldea. In the region, ancient Chaldea itself has not been preserved, and a river with a similar name is unknown among the monuments. But in lower Mesopotamia, not only rivers, but also the smallest canals were called nagar “river,” as the prophet Ezekiel Chebar calls them. Rawlison proposed that Khobar was a large canal in lower Mesopotamia, connecting the Euphrates with the Tigris and called nar-malkha "royal river"; During the time of Pliny, there was a legend that this canal was dug by the head of the region named Gobar (Knabenbauer, Ezechiel propheta 1890). More light on the location of Khovar is shed by the discovery made by Hilprecht in 1893 in Niffer, ancient Nitzpur, to the southeast.
from Babylon; in the tables of treaties he found here (and published in The babylonian expedition of the university of Pennsylvania) from the times of Artaxerxes I (464–424) and Darius II (423–405) it is called naru ka ba-ru twice, as the name of a large shipping canal lying near Nippur; it is assumed that this is the current Shat-el-Nil, representing an ancient canal, 36 m wide; it leaves the Euphrates at Babylon, flows to the southeast, flows through the middle of the Niffer and flows again into the Euphrates at Warka, ancient Uruk. "Kabaru" means "great" in Assyrian; the name indicates that it was one of the main waterways of Babylonia. The form “Kevar” instead of “Kavar” is explained by the dialectical pronunciation of the name, as from Babylon. Purathu, Persian. Ifrat in euros it became Perat (Euphrates) or this form is due to the punctators, who vocalized the kvr according to the familiar Perat.
"The heavens opened". “Understand the opening of heaven as happening not as a result of the division of the firmament, but according to the faith of the believer, in the sense that the heavenly secrets were revealed to him” (Blessed Jerome). From the description of the Khovar vision, it is not clear that during it the sky opened in the proper sense, as at the baptism of Christ, before St. Stephen, Paul, John the Theologian; rather, a heavenly vision descended to the prophet; These were all the visions of Ezekiel: these were heavenly scenes, but on earth (VIII-XI, XL-LIV). The expression refers not so much to the Khobar vision, which the prophet will begin to describe only from v. 4, but to the nature of the prophet’s entire activity: starting a book, the distinctive feature of which is visions, it was natural for him to warn the reader about this and note at what time this series of visions began and the sky opened before him. This meaning and purpose of this expression is confirmed by the following. with the sentence: “and I saw visions of God,” where plural. h. shows that the prophet speaks about all his visions; if Ezekiel sometimes uses the plural. h.
this word in relation to one vision, then only when the vision is too complex and represents a whole series of pictures, such as, for example, about the vision of Chapters VIII-XI; but about vision XL-XLIV pl. h. (in Ezek.40) only in some codes. “Godly” can mean “which God produces” (genitivus subjecti), as well as “in whom they see God” (gen. objecti).
Ezek.1:2. On the fifth day of the month (this was the fifth year from the captivity of King Joachim)
If you keep in mind that 1 tbsp. does not yet speak about the Khobar vision, but in general about the beginning and nature of Ezekiel’s prophetic activity, then Art. 2 and 3 will not contain those seemingly insurmountable difficulties (ch. o. repetition) that make one suspect the authenticity of the entire beginning of the chapter (Corneille crosses out 1st article, others - 2nd article, etc.). Could the prophet begin the description of his first vision more simply and clearly with the words: “on (the one mentioned above) the fifth day of the month - it was the 5th year from the captivity of King Joachim - the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel,” etc.? From the usual (stereotypical) beginning of the prophetic books, Ezekiel made only that slight deviation that he preceded such a beginning with a remark (in the first century) regarding the abundance of visions in his book and about when and where these visions began, the sky opened before him, a remark, in view of the originality of his book, is far from superfluous. It is completely in the spirit of not only Hebrew, but also of any equally ancient language to convey the concept “on the mentioned, on the named day through” the repetition of the nearest numerical designation for it.
– The mysterious and perhaps subjective date of Art. 1. the prophet in this verse translates to a simpler, clearer and more objective date, from which the reader can see at what time in the national life of Israel his call to prophetic ministry occurred. Other prophets date their speeches to the years of the reigns; for Ezekiel, who lived so far from his homeland that news from there arrived barely 1 1/2 years later (cf. Ezekiel 33.21 and Jer. 39.1), this was inconvenient; Moreover, the kingdom of Judah soon fell. The chronology of Ezekiel sounds mournful: years of captivity instead of years of reign!
"Joachim". Heb. Joahin, this is a shorter spelling instead of the full Jehoahin (2 Kings 24.6; 2 Chronicles 36.8 etc.). Just like in Ezekiel, this king is called in 2 Kings 25.27 and LXX there they convey it Ιωακειν, according to glory. Joachin. This is how it should be written here too. The spelling “Joachim” is erroneous and probably arose from confusion between this king and his father Joachim. In the book of the prophet Jeremiah this name is already written as Jehoiahu, in LXX Ιοχανιαξ (Jer 24.1), as here with them; the difference comes from the fact that the name of God, which is part of this word (it means “God will strengthen”), is placed here at the end of the word, and there at the beginning. The edition of this name “Jechoniah” has now become common. The captivity of Jehoiachin followed in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 21.12), and Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in 604 BC; track. Jehoiachin (with Ezekiel and others) was taken into captivity in 597–598, and Ezekiel was called in 592–593.
Ezek.1:3. the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel the son of Buzi, the priest, in the land of the Chaldeans, by the river Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was upon him there.
"The word of the Lord came." No matter how wonderful and unprecedented in all Old Testament history was the vision of the prophet Ezekiel on the river. Khobar, this vision had the greatest importance for him not from the side of its extraordinaryness, but from the side that through this vision he was called to his ministry, that it made him a prophet; through him God spoke to him for the first time in the same voice with which he spoke to his prophets. Solemnly sounds the expression “the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel,” which seems to be placed here out of place. The reader expects, after such an expression, an exposition of what exactly God said to the prophet, but instead, a terrible picture of a vision unfolds before him, terrible in its grandeur, and the reader begins to understand that the word of the Lord, which the prophet heard, was originally a silent word, a word without words, but all the more stunning and powerful. For the purpose of this solemnity, the expression “was” in Heb.
expressed twice, through the indefinite with the indicative, as in Gen. 18.18: “Abraham will be great in tongue” - an emphatic (intensified, energetic) turn, for some reason not conveyed here as in Gen., LXX. The solemnity of speech also explains the fact that the prophet replaces here (cf. Ezekiel 24.24) the personal pronoun “I”, which he used to designate himself in the 1st article, with his own name and, moreover, his full one - with the addition of his father’s name and even the title of priest: “to Ezekiel, the son of Buzi, the priest.”
The name “Ezekiel” is not applied to the present prophet (who is not named anywhere in the Old Testament, except for Sir. 49.10) is found only in 1 Chronicles 24.16, as the name of the ancestor of the 2nd priestly order under David (there it is transmitted by the Slavic “Ezekiel” in the Greek Εζεκηλ). The name (the exact pronunciation is Yehetzkel, in Hebrew jargon - Khatzkel) consists of the verb Chazak “to be strong” and the name of God El (Elohim) and means (like the name Hezekiah from “Chazak” and “Jehovah”): “God is strength”, “God will make, make or make strong”; Origen (homil in Ez. 1) explains it as "the dominion of God," and in Hieron. Onom. Sacr. (II, 12) it is explained as “brave of God” or “possessing God.” “The name contains the beliefs of pious parents at the birth of their son” (Krech.). It meant that “Ezekiel will not have the heartfelt tenderness and sweetness of his contemporary Jeremiah, but for that he will have amazing strength of spirit (cf. in the same place with the name “Isaiah” - “salvation of God.” Gaffnik). Perhaps this was not the name of the prophet from birth, but an official one, adopted when he received a calling from God (Hengstenberg. Die Weissangungen des Pr. Ezechiels erklarte, 1867–1868). A hint of the name of the prophet is found in Ezek.3.8.
The name of Ezekiel's father Buzi means “disdained,” perhaps indicating the low position that for some reason the family of the prophet occupied in Jerusalem (contrary to the assertion of some, based on Ezekiel 44.10–14, that the prophet belonged to the aristocratic priestly family of the Zadokids, which occupied the best places); The opinion of the rabbis is not based on anything that Buzius is identical with Jeremiah, who received such a nickname from those dissatisfied with his denunciations.
The application to "priest" is grammatical in Hebrew. language can be applied to both the nearest noun "Buzi" and Ezekiel. LXX, Jero and all ancient translations refer him to Ezekiel and rightly so, because the prophet himself, and not his father, should be most closely identified (cf. Jer 1:1, 28:1). If Ezekiel did not hold the position of priest, then the title was inalienable from him due to his descent along a well-known line from Levi. The priests were also taken into captivity with Jehoiachin (Jeremiah 29.1). The priestly origin of the prophet explains much in his book; but the prophet mentions him not only because, but also because he valued this title.
"In the land of the Chaldeans, by the river Chebar". The prophet's repeated reference to the place where his calling followed serves as one of the main reasons for the critic to suspect the integrity of Articles 1, 2 and 3. Valid in 3 tbsp. This indication is somewhat unexpected. Ewald (Die Propheten des Alten Bundes. 2 Aus. 2 V. Jeremja und Heseqiel, 1868) explains this repetition by saying that when the book was written, the prophet was already living in a different place.
“And the hand of the Lord was upon him there.” This expression is used in the Bible about any direct, miraculous and especially strong influence of God on man (1 Kings 18.46; 2 Chronicles 30.12; 2 Kings 3.15; Ezek.3.14; Acts 13.11); but in Ezekiel it invariably precedes the description of each of his visions (Ezek.1.3; Ezek.3.22; Ezek.8.1; Ezek.37.1; Ezek.40.1); track. he uses it to designate his state at the onset of the vision (ecstasy), as clearly produced by the direct power of God and somewhat difficult for a person (cf. Dan 10.8 and the expression of the psalms: “the hand of the Lord is heavy upon me”).
Ezek.1:4. And I saw, and behold, a stormy wind came from the north, a great cloud and swirling fire, and a radiance around it,
The description of the mysterious vision of the prophet on the river begins. Howare. This vision, in which the prophet was shown heavenly beings (cherubim) and their supermundane activities and relationships, was revealed by purely earthly phenomena, natural phenomena, although reaching an unusual and even impossible degree in the natural course of nature: a stormy wind, a large cloud (cloud) and the appearance of some special fire. All these phenomena can be combined into the concept of a storm, which the prophet himself uses as a definition for the first of these phenomena - wind (“stormy”). It goes without saying that the present vision of God was preceded not by a simple and natural storm, but by a storm that can be called the storm of theophany. Such a storm was accompanied or preceded by many theophanies in the Old Testament, namely the most important of them - the one at Sinai (Exodus 19.16–18), to the prophet Elijah (1 Kings 19.11–12); God also spoke to Job from the storm (Job 38.1; cf. Zech 9.14; Ps 49.3). The appearance of a storm before and during Epiphany is understandable.
If God can appear and be in a certain place on earth, then the earth in that place, like man, if not completely unable, then at least with difficulty can tolerate the presence of God on it; in the place where God “descends,” nature cannot come into any confusion. – The shock and trembling of nature at the Epiphany is expressed primarily in the wind, which is nothing more than excitement, trembling of the air. Therefore, epiphanies are often accompanied, like the present, by the wind: thus, the wind was accompanied by the appearance of God in paradise after the Fall (“and the coolness”, like the famous “afternoon”, inaccurate translation of the Hebrew laruach - “with the wind” in Gen. 3.8), the epiphany to David during one battle with the Philistines (1 Chr. 14.14–15), the appearance of Elijah on Horeb. In Art. 12 we will see that the wind seen by the prophet on Chebar had such an extraordinary quality that the name wind can hardly be applied to it, and it is not for nothing that LXX was translated here into Heb. ruach is not ανεμος “wind” as in Eze. 13.11, but πνευμα, “spirit”.
"Walked from the North". Since God himself, the Glory of the Lord, walked to the prophet in the wind (v. 28), all interpreters consider, not without reason, that this wind came from the north to be very significant, but they explain it differently. 1) The majority thinks that the north is taken as the place from where the most disastrous invasions of the Jews were made, from where Nebuchadnezzar’s attack was now threatened; Wed Jer 1.13–14. But the prophet is at the moment of vision precisely in the very north from where Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion was being prepared; the north in relation to this north will already be Media and other regions, from which nothing threatened Judea at that time. 2) Others think that the mention of the north refers to the then widespread opinion that in the northern part of the sky there is an entrance to the dwelling and castle of the gods; since the course of the sun makes one imagine the south inclined downward, the north appears to lie higher and with its high mountains - Lebanon, the Caucasus - reaching the sky. Usually the ancients imagined the gods living on one of these mountains, supporting the sky under the very pole (the Greeks on Olympus).
This mountain is said to have been referred to by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 14.13–14 (cf. Ps 17.3; Job 37.22; Job 38.1; Ezek.28.14). But if there existed and was known to the Jews a mountain with which similar beliefs of the pagan East were associated, then to every pious Jew such a mountain could only seem to be a place of special action of dark forces, a mountain of demons (who are the gods of the pagans); could Jehovah come from such a mountain in the opinion of the ancient Jew? 3) Finally, they think that the prophet represents Jehovah coming to him from His dwelling in Jerusalem, which has not yet been abandoned (cf. Chapters X-XI), from the church. But Jerusalem is to the west of Babylon, not to the north.
The question will be somewhat illuminated if we compare this case of the appearance of the Glory of God with other cases of its appearance. At least in some of these cases, God chose a deliberately known direction for his march across the earth, and in the choice of these directions one cannot help but notice some correct alternation and sequence. So before the prophet Ezekiel and his holy era, which was so critical for Israel. writers, if they ever talk about where the Lord and His glory come from, they always indicate the south as such a place: Deut. 33.2; Avv 3.3. At the end of the book of Ezekiel, where the prophet speaks of the future glorious St. earth, the distant future, the Glory of the Lord, heading to the new church for eternal residence in it, is already coming from the East. Only from the west, the land of darkness and evil, the Lord never came.
"The Great Cloud". God repeatedly appeared on earth in a cloud: thus He led Israel through the wilderness, was present in the tabernacle (Exodus 40.34, 38, cf. Ezek.33.9–10) and in the church (1 Kings 8.10–11). The participation of the cloud in the theophany had the meaning that with it God closed himself from those to whom he appeared. In this case, as at Sinai (Judges 5.4; Ps 67.9–10), the theophanic cloud was part of the storm that accompanied the theophany (cf. Job 38.1) and was the cloud of this storm. But of course, to the extent that the storm of the epiphany was superior to an ordinary storm, so the theophanic cloud was superior to a simple, even the largest cloud (the prophet makes this clear by the definition of “great”), superior to a) in density, reaching the complete immersion of the earth in darkness (Ps 17:10, 12, 97:2; Joel 2.2; Zeph 1.15; Deut. 4:11, 5:22; Heb 12.18); b) lowness above the earth, reaching the point of completely sinking to the ground (Ps. 17.10, etc.), why such a cloud, trace. and the present must have been like a tornado. (Cook in The Holy Bible 1876 puts this word in the text of Ezekiel); hence the LXX addition about this cloud is clear, that it was “in it,” that is, in the wind, whirling and carried by it.
"And the Whirling Fire". Along with the wind and the cloud, fire came towards the prophet. These were three great whole visions, equal to each other, each terrible in itself and terrible in its combination. The definition given by the prophet to this fire is explained differently - according to Heb. mitlakahat (Russian “swirling”). This word is found only in Ex. 9 and also in addition to the fire, which, together with hail, the 7th plague of Egypt, spread across the earth. LXX, translating this word εξαστραπτων, “shine” (fire from lightning), they think that this is frequent lightning; but to denote lightning in Heb. language there is a special word barak, used all the time even in the psalms with their figurative language. Mitlakahat is a reciprocal form of the verb lakah “to take.” But it is difficult to find a meaning for this form of this verb.
The majority, including our Russian translation of the Bible, following the Vulgate, understand this form from the verb lacah about the appearance, outline, image of burning fire, that it was a swirling, curling, curling fire, and not spreading (perhaps they say that the clouds of fire made their way throughout the cloud): others - constantly arising here and there. These explanations sin against the meaning of the verb lakakh, which never loses its basic meaning “to take” and in no voice can it have such a distant and artificial meaning as the Russian “to take”, in the sense of “to cling to each other”, “to form a circle”. And in relation to fire, lakah can have only one meaning - “to embrace” the burning substance, “to devour it”; and the fire that came to the prophet could not help but burn something, and this should be mentioned in the definition given to fire. Since this fire went to the prophet, like the wind and the cloud, it burned everything that was in its path, and a trace. the very path of wind and cloud; it covered their common path (hence mutual - return form); it was a trace.
the same fiery river that flowed in Daniel’s vision before the throne of God. Like the wind and the cloud, it did not arise from a natural cause, but was ignited by the descent of God, and it burned the place through which God walked. This is how Mount Sinai once burned, “the descent for the sake of God,” the path along which God passed before Elijah in Horeb, the thorn bush from which God made a revelation to Moses; fire and smoke passed between the cut parts of animals during the epiphany to Abraham (Gen. 15.17); when God is called “a consuming fire,” by the way this sign of His appearance is meant. In such fire, as in wind, thunderstorm, earthquake, the shock of nature at the appearance of God in it is manifested: in the air this shock is produced by a strong, stormy wind; the earth shakes and shakes from the appearance of God; the waters are agitated and noisy (Hab 3.10); flammable substances ignite and burn. It is known that the last coming of God to earth will be in “fiery fire.” (2 Thessalonians 1.8).
“And radiance around it,” that is, the fire spread radiance around itself. In order for this remark not to be idle, it must be assumed that the prophet wants to draw their attention to the special brightness and power of the radiance spread by the fire described above, and also to the fact that this radiance stood out too sharply in the darkness with which the huge cloud of theophany shrouded the surrounding area. In LXX, this remark appears before the words “fire shine,” where it seems to be more appropriate; then the pronoun “his” (“around him”) will refer to the cloud, and not to the fire, to which it cannot refer in Hebrew. i.e. due to its grammatical gender – masculine.
Ezek.1:5. and from the midst of it is like the light of a flame from the midst of fire; and from the middle of it the likeness of four animals was visible, and this was their appearance: their appearance was like that of a man;
"From the midst of it". Why “him”? In euros here is the feminine pronoun. r.; track. “it” cannot be attributed to the nearest noun “radiance”, which in Hebrew. m.r.; cannot be attributed to noun. "fire", which is too far; moreover, fire art. 4, as we saw, covered the earth under a phenomenon moving across it, and with radiance, light 5 art. God, who sat above the firmament, shone, as v. 27 shows; The pronoun cannot be attributed to a noun either. “cloud” which is even further away and m.r. What noun should it refer to? None.
As we will see further in article 5, the feminine pronoun with the preposition “from among” replaces a non-existent one in Hebrew. language neuter pronoun: “from the midst of this,” “from the midst of all this,” of everything the prophet had seen hitherto, “the light of the flame” shone.
"Light of the Flame" slav. “vision of ilektra” – both are tentative translations of Heb. gen hashmal, of which the second word is ΄ απαξ λεγομενον (found only in Ezekiel and in this connection). The focus of everything hitherto seen was something that had the appearance (Slavic “vision”, more precisely than the Russian “light”)), the hashmal gene. The Prophet could not say that it had the “likeness” of demut or the real appearance, the outline of a mare hashmal; but only “like a gene.” Being a word identical in outline to the word “eye”, which differs only in pronunciation (gain), gene is used about a small surface, about a shiny point: it can be the gene of a precious stone (Ezek. 1.16), sparkling metal (Ezek. 1.7), scabs of leprosy (Lev. 13.2), sparkling wine in a vat (Prov. 23.31). The meaning of the gene indicates the approximate meaning of the mysterious word hashmal (Russian translation: “flame”, Slavic: “ilektra”). It should mean some small, shiny object that sparkled and sparkled in the light and fire surrounding it. But what kind of object it was, all the efforts of the interpreters to say anything about it ended in almost nothing.
Only in two places is this word still used by the prophet, and in both cases when describing the appearance of the One who appeared to him in a vision. Having the general likeness of a man, the one who appeared to the prophet shone and shone like fire, and above the loins, like hashmal (Ezek. 1.27) and like a zohar, “radiance,” “luminary” (Eze. 8.2). Thus, the radiance of the fire and the luminaries seemed insufficient to the prophet so that they could form an idea of the light that he saw: this light stood out and shone brightly on the field of the fire itself (“from the middle of the fire”), differed in some shade from the light of the fire and surpassed it: the upper part of the image of the One who appeared shone with it, perhaps His very face and body (in contrast to the clothes, which could be fiery). They wanted to formulate the concept of hashmal based on the etymology of the word, but it itself presents a riddle. In euros there is no root close to this word in the language; but such a root is sought in related languages and on this basis they give the word a meaning: “golden copper” (cf. 1Ezra 8.27), “polished copper”, “amber”, “hot or shiny metal”, the word is considered the ancient name for gold (Meyer) or pure fire, without smoke (some.
newest rabbis) 3. Recent discoveries are beginning to shed light on the mysterious hashmal of the prophet Ezekiel. In the list of booty taken by Thutmes III from Nagar to the north. Syria (the list is placed on tablets found in the Karnak ruins), “Ashmer” or “Ashmal” is mentioned. Reminds me of “Khashmal” and Assyrian. “eshmaru”, which is placed next to the gold, silver, precious stones and royal regalia brought by Asurbanipal upon the conquest of Susa from the treasures of this city. All this allows us to say about the hashmal that it was some kind of large and rare jewel, not inferior to gold and precious stones. In the prophet Ezekiel, it is indeed placed infinitely higher than topaz (more precisely, some kind of precious stone “tarshish”, which in turn was placed much higher than gold - see Ezek. 1.16) and higher than sapphire (see 26).
LXX, also probably not understanding this word, like Peshito and Targum (leaving it without translation), decided to translate it ηλεκτρον for the following reasons: they, like modern interpreters, rightly thought that this word meant some kind of jewel and most likely a metal of high value; on the basis of Dan 10.6 (cf. Mk 9.3; Mt 28.3) they could believe that the light seen in this case by the prophet and different from the red light of fire was lightning-like light. But if we compare this light with the light (brilliance) emitted by any metal, then no comparison will be more accurate than the comparison with the electrum. Representing a mixture of 3 4 or 4 5 gold with 1 4 or 1 5 silver, this alloy was very valuable in antiquity, almost more expensive than gold (Plinius, Hist nat. ХXXIX, 4; Strabo 3:146), probably due to the difficulty of preparing it and its beauty; In the dazzling sparkle of gold, through such an admixture, a quiet and gentle shine of silver was added, just as “as the unbearable radiance of the Divinity was tempered in Christ by His union with humanity” (Blessed Jer.).
"From the Middle of the Fire". This addition, following the Vulgate, which translates it: “id est de medio ignis,” is considered an explanation for the expression: “from the middle of it” (at the beginning of the verse), made by the prophet himself; but this would be a pleonasm unheard of in Ezekiel. Therefore, others believe that the hashmal was as if heated in fire; but noble metals melt in fire, not glow; and was it khashmal metal? These words receive the most natural meaning in the light of v. 27: according to this verse, the hashmal shone precisely from the midst of the fire, but not the fire of v. 4, and another mass of fire, with which He who sat on the throne was clothed like a robe. – LXX after “from the middle of the fire” they have the addition: “and the light in it”, made according to Art. 26, where more precisely from Hebrew. will be: “and light to him,” or “with him” (lo), i.e.: “and hashmal, ilektr was something (strongly) luminous, full of light, woven from light and brilliance.”
"And from the midst of it." The pronoun “his” in Hebrew. female r. here, as at the beginning of the verse, replaces cf. r. and means: “from the midst of all this,” i.e., everything seen by the prophet hitherto - mysterious animals were seen: the wind carried them (v. 12), a cloud enveloped them, a fire was kindled under them (v. 4) and between them (v. 13), the ilektr - hashmal shone over their heads (v. 27, cf. 22). Slav. “in the middle” (without a pronoun) is not a discrepancy, but a skillful translation of an expression that is so unclear in Russian. lane
"Similarity". Heb. demut can mean the most distant, vague similarity, bordering on the opposite (Isaiah 40.18–19 about the similarity of pagan gods to God), Western biblical scholars do not even dare to translate this word into a noun, but translate it descriptively: “something like”, “something like”; closer resemblance is signified in Ezekiel by other words, for example, mare (“kind”); The prophet uses “demut” about parts of the vision that are less noticeable and clear, which at the same time turn out to be the most important: about the faces of animals, about wheels, about the throne and the One sitting on it. Consequently, how far the similarity between the creatures seen by the prophet Ezekiel and animals extended, the word demut does not allow us to say. If the figures seen by the prophet were barely distinguishable, if they had vague outlines (contours, silhouettes) barely visible, the prophet could say that he saw “demut” of animals. To what extent the prophet could not clearly see the figures of animals, at least at first, is shown by the fact that before the 10th century. he cannot determine what kind of animals they were.
There were “four” of the mysterious animals that appeared to the prophet Ezekiel. This number is symbolic, as can be seen from the persistence with which it is carried out in this vision: 4 not only animals, 4 faces for each of the animals, 4 wings, 4 wheels. 4 is a symbol of spatial completeness, since it embraces all the countries of the world; therefore, the body seen by Nebuchadnezzar and signifying worldwide monarchies has 4 components; the prophet Daniel sees 4 beasts and their appearance is preceded by the struggle of 4 winds on the sea (Dan. 7); according to Ezek.14.21, if God wants to destroy a nation, he sends 4 plagues to it; the spirit that revived the dry bones in Ezekiel's vision came from the 4 winds (Ezek.37.9). Being the number of spatial completeness, 4 is therefore also a symbol of completeness, completion, filling, exhaustion, like 7 of eternity, infinity (space and time). As such, these numbers are applied to the calculation of the highest spirits - cherubim and archangels. What is remarkable is not the large number of these closest servants of the throne of God, in contrast to the thousands of thousands and tens of thousands of angels.
– The “animals” that appeared to the prophet were cherubim, as the prophet later learned when repeating the vision (in chapter 1, therefore, he does not call them cherubim anywhere), and he learned perhaps from the fact that God himself called these animals cherubim before him (Ezek. 10.2). The image of animals for the cherubs could have been chosen instead of the human, because the animal must have a more complete, strong and concentrated sense of life and existence itself than a person, in whom this feeling is weakened by consciousness and reflection; and how can an animal be a better symbol than a human image of the most complete carriers of created life - the cherubim. Moreover, the life of animals is more mysterious to us than our life; therefore, serving as a symbol of a full and strong life, animals can serve as a good symbol of a mysterious life; hence the representation of the Messiah in the form of a lamb, a copper serpent, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove.
The expression “and such was their appearance—their appearance was like that of a man” means that the creatures that appeared to the prophet were as much like animals as they were like humans. The prophet expresses with this the general impression of the creatures that appeared to him. Therefore, it is unfair to look here for indications of certain particulars in their figure; so they say that the present expression of the prophet obliges everything in the figure of creatures to be thought human, excluding what is listed below (wings, legs), - therefore, for example, the body of creatures should be represented as vertical, not horizontal (Bertholet), the body as featherless and hairless (Hitzig). Since the cherubs were as much like animals as they were like humans, their body had to be both vertical and horizontal; how the combination of such positions is possible is shown by the winged figures of lions and oxen with a human body discovered in Assyro-Babylonia.
The impression from such creatures could not but be stunning, and sacred horror is felt here in the lines of the prophet, a horror that is not surprising if we take into account that the prophet came into contact with the nearest sphere of the Divine and saw the highest angelic spheres (and angels could not be visible to man without a strong shock to his being).
Ezek.1:6. and each one had four faces, and each one had four wings;
The face is the most important part of the body, the one that most distinguishes every creature from other creatures - a part so essential that in many languages the face is synonymous with the creature itself. Therefore, the assimilation of 4 faces to the cherubim means, first of all, their unattainable elevation above the limited human precision (“four faces signifies something divine in the cherubim.” Riehm, De natura et notione symbobica cheruborum, 1864, 21). With that singularity that serves as a distinctive feature of our personality and consciousness, cherubim in an incomprehensible way combine plurality in their personality. Then, thanks to so many faces in the cherubs, there could be no distinction between sides - there could be no front, back and sides (Macarius the Great, conversation 1). Further, thanks to this, they could look simultaneously in all directions and, therefore, always see everything, which indicated the special height of their knowledge, reminiscent of the omniscience of God.
Finally, thanks to the four faces, the cherubim could go without turning around to each country of the world, which gave them exceptional power over spatial limitations, signifying their greater freedom from spatial boundaries, compared to other creatures, reminiscent of the omnipresence of God. Since the four-faced structure of the cherubim was designed so that they would be able to go in any direction without turning, this goal could only be achieved if on each of their 4 sides they had not only a face in the proper sense, but also wings and legs, then the word “face” here by the prophet does not designate just the front part of the head, but the front part of the entire body (in Hebrew it was said: the face of the earth, the face of the field, the face of clothing Gen. 2.6; Ex.10, etc.).
The wings of the creatures that appeared to the prophet were supposed to direct his thought to the sphere of their habitat - the heavenly (birds are called heavenly in the Bible for their wings: Gen 1.26; Ps 8.9, etc.) and show that this is their real, own sphere, like the sphere of birds - air, and fish - water. The wings of the seraphim and cherubim are intended to show that both are inseparable from heaven and are inconceivable without it, that the earth is a completely alien sphere to them, into which they can only temporarily descend, while the angels, who are nowhere in St. The Scriptures do not assimilate wings, they have a closer relationship to the earth. The wing serves the bird not only for flight, but also as a cover from external influences, both for itself and especially for its chicks - the purpose of the wing, which the Bible especially likes to dwell on (Ruth. 2.12; Ps. 62.8, etc.). And the wings of cherubs should have had such a purpose. The cherubim covered their bodies with two lowered wings (v.
11, 23); and with two outstretched wings they covered, without a doubt, the same thing that the cherubim of the tabernacle and church covered with their outstretched wings; and these latter covered the lid of the Ark of the Covenant with their wings, as a place of revelation of the Glory of God (hence the epithet “overshadowing cherub” Eze. 28.14, etc.); The cherubim of Ezekiel’s vision also covered with their outstretched wings from the ground the vault on which the throne of God stood (v. 23). – The quadruple number of wings on cherubim, by its discrepancy with the usual number of wings on earthly creatures that have them, indicated a special elevation of their habitat. Such a number of wings was also unexpected in comparison with the image of the previous representation of cherubim and seraphim: the cherubim of the tabernacle and the church had 2 wings each, and the seraphim of Isaiah had 6.
According to the generally accepted explanation, cherubim do not have another pair of wings, since their sole purpose is to overshadow the Ark, and not to move the Glory of God, as in Ezekiel; on the other hand, the cherubim of the prophet Ezekiel, being under the throne of God as its bearers, did not need a third pair of wings to cover their faces; in the Apocalypse, the cherubim, being not under the throne of God, but around it, already have 6 wings.
Ezek.1:7. and their legs were straight legs, and the soles of their feet were like the soles of a calf, and they sparkled like shiny brass (and their wings were light).
The Prophet points out 3 features of the legs of mysterious animals. 1) The first feature - straightness of the leg - is usually understood to mean that the legs of animals did not have knee bends and even no vertebrae or joints; This is how LXX understood the expression, translating here freely: “and their legs (part instead of the whole) are right”; the fragile structure of all the joints that make up the human and animal legs was unnecessary for those creatures that could move without walking (wings, wheels); therefore, the legs of the cherubim could have the advantage of perfect straightness, which gave the legs a special hardness and strength, so necessary for them in view of the fact that their owners bore a great, unimaginable weight - the glory (in Hebrew, “kebod” - “heaviness”) of Jehovah. The legs of the cherubim did not bend or bow, raising their thoughts with this quality to the spiritual fortitude and power of those to whom they belonged. 2) The second feature of the legs was, according to Heb. text in their foot, which was like the foot of a calf.
Thus, the cherubim in the lowest and most secondary part of their figure had the likeness of a calf. In the Old Testament, the calf after the lamb is the first sacrificial animal, a sacrificial animal ad honorem, so to speak, a sacrifice of special honor, which the high priest and “the whole community” offered for themselves, moreover, in cases of exceptional importance - for involuntary sin (Lev. 4) and when both have the right and need for special closeness to God - on the day of purification (Lev. 16); this is a trace. the sacrifice of a bold approach to God, a special exaltation to Him, which only one of the people or the whole people as one can count on. Even the entire community of the sons of Israel, which is given the opportunity to atone for its sin, like the high priest, with a calf (Lev. 4.14), when (precisely on the day of atonement) atones for its sin with this sacrifice and enters into terrible closeness to God, the high priest already offers a goat for sin (Lev. 5.15).
Tempered and ascending with the smoke of its burning to the sky, the calf, one of the sacrificial animals, seems to represent the chosen one of God before the very throne of God (in the highest heavenly sphere, that is, exactly where the sphere of action of the cherubim begins). The Jew represented the sacrifice of a happy, gracious future in the form of calves (Ps 50.21); Let us also remember: “And God will be more pleased with a young calf that wears out its horns and wears its nose” (Ps 68.32). It is unfairly thought that the cherubim needed the calf’s foot because of its round shape, thanks to which it always faces in all directions, whereas the human foot only faces one, making it possible for the cherubim to move in all directions without turning in one direction or another. If we talk about the convenience of moving in different directions, then the human foot, although facing one direction, should take first place; if a round shape was required here for such reasons, then on what basis should the hoof of a calf (not an ox!) be given preference over a mass of homogeneous hooves?
– LXX in this place give a completely different idea: ... and their feet are feathered (πτερωτοι). Greek πτερωτοι can mean winged, with wings (aligerus) or feathered, feathered (pennatus). All interpreters unanimously believe that the Hebrew reading here is more correct and the different readings of LXX are declared to be because the Alexandrian translators seemed incredible and tempting the presence of the legs of a calf on the cherubim in view of the sad significance that the calf was destined to have in the history of Israel. Although the Masoretic reading of the present sentence, as we have seen, gives a thought that is not only completely possible, but also one that emanates mystery and grandeur, it cannot be said that the thought given by LXX is not impossible and does not have its advantages, both with the first and second meanings of “feathered.” The wings on the feet of the cherubim could symbolize their speed, show that the cherubim did not run on their feet, but flew (although the cherubim were equipped with wings in the usual place of the latter - at the shoulders - v. 8, next.
there was no need for wings on the legs; Mercury has wings only on its legs). In the same way, the feathering of the legs of cherubs could have the same meaning as the feathering of birds - to make the body light and give it the ability to soar in the air (however, this goal by the feathering of the legs alone would be achieved to the smallest extent). And so reading the LXX already from its inner side, from the side of its thoughts, allows for objections. Moreover, by accepting it, it is impossible to explain the emergence of the Masoretic reading, while the first of the second is easier to explain. LXX, finding for well-known reasons the comparison with the calf inconvenient and unlikely in the mouth of the prophet, could here decide to freely convey the thoughts of the prophet; They thought that by comparing the legs of the cherubs with the legs of a calf, the prophet wanted to indicate their speed: they could convey the concept of “fast” through πτερωτος in order to strengthen and poetically decorate the thought.
Besides the LXX, other ancient translations did not read “taurus” here: the Targum and Aquila read “round” (Hegel - taurus was vocalized as hagol “round”): but Symmachus, Pescito and the Vulgate agree with the Masoretes. 3) The third feature of the cherubim’s legs was that they sparkled (nocetzim; cf. Isa 1.31; LXX: σπινθηρες “sparks”; Russian translation inaccurately “sparkled”), like copper of some special kind - kalal (Russian translation presumably: “shiny”). To that sea of light and fire with which the cherubim were surrounded, who had fire under (v. 4) and among themselves (v. 13) and the unbearable radiance of the Divine above their heads (v. 27), the intermittent, fickle and generally weak light of the spark could not add anything; track. the spark is not brought here for a lighting effect. Since sparks are produced by known objects when they are acted upon by other objects, the sparks from the feet of the cherubs were a sign that the latter were subject to alien influence.
To get closer to the prophet, the cherubim needed to be on earth, walk or fly over it, enter its sphere, but this sphere is completely alien to them, more alien than to other angels, since their life and activity is the very throne of God and its footstool; their contact with the earthly sphere, which is completely alien to them, can be compared with that rough touch on an object that gives a spark from it. The appearance of a spark from the feet of the cherubs was supposed to indicate the extraordinary strength and speed of their movement, as well as the special strength of their legs, which should not have been inferior to the strength of metal or stone. The Prophet adds that, judging by the sparks, one might think (“how”) that the animals’ legs were made of a special kind of copper. People usually look for indications of the extraordinary brilliance of these legs by comparing the legs of cherubs with copper. But can copper, even the best, give a shine that would suit this vision, where everything shines with a light that is barely comparable to anything and shines better than the best types of precious stones?
The prophet should not speak about the shine of his legs, but about their iron strength (hence the straightness of the legs). At that time, copper took the place of iron (Isaiah 45.2, etc.). Not inferior to iron in strength, copper has always been considered nobler, more elegant than iron and therefore suitable for comparison here (as in Dan 10.6; Rev 1.15). What has been said indicates the approximate meaning of that most precise definition of copper “dripped”, which Russian. lane conveys through “brilliant”, glory. “brilliant” (i.e., lightning-shaped, obviously according to Art. 4), both presumably, as in other ancient translations (Vulg. aes candens, like the Targum; Peshito and Arab. like LXX). You cannot look, as interpreters usually do, in the word kalal for the concepts of brilliance, radiance (since kalal means “light”, they say it can also mean “light”, since light is lighter than darkness (!), or “polished” from the meaning “to be light, mobile”), but for the concepts of hardness, strength, indestructibility; the main meaning of the word kalal was “to make small, insignificant” (Gen. 16.4–5, etc.); in this meaning, the word could easily be applied to hot metal, i.e.
placed in fire, which destroys him, crushes him, but cannot destroy him; this meaning of the word is confirmed by the meaning of the word “galil”, “fin”, “crucible” (cf. calere, “to heat”). – In LXX the 7th verse is against Heb. increase; “their wings are light (ελαφροι), that is, mobile (maybe: elastic). Since the wing is essentially movable, this remark can only make sense if this quality in real wings has reached a significant, conspicuous degree. The Prophet in LXX wants to say that the wings of the cherubim were in constant motion; The peace into which ordinary wings must from time to time plunge for rest was alien to them. If such quality of wings does not contradict Art. 24s. 25b, then they would covertly indicate the sphere of habitation and action of the cherubim, which is not the solid earth, where you can stand and fold your wings, but the above-ground and supermundane spaces, where you can only soar.
Ezek.1:8. And the hands of men were under their wings, on their four sides;
Since “hands” determine the possibility of activity for a person and this most sharply distinguishes him from animals, for whom, due to the absence of hands, activity is impossible, but only life (nutrition), then the assimilation of hands by cherubs is intended to indicate their ability to perform activities similar to human activity. This combination of the subtlety of human actions with the elemental power of an animal could not but be terrible and stunning for the prophet’s gaze. In the definition of “human”, as if superfluous with “hands”, one can see pleonasm or an echo of some surprise on the part of the prophet at the fact of the presence of hands here. Since the creatures that appeared to the prophet Ezekiel were winged, the natural place of the hands in their body was occupied by wings, and the prophet, to the reader’s natural bewilderment as to where the cherubim’s hands could be, notes that they “were under their wings.” – In view of the prophet’s silence about the number of hands of each cherub, a question was raised about this among interpreters, and the hands numbered from 1 to 16 for each cherub.
There could not be more than two hands on each side of the four-faced cherub, since otherwise the number of hands would deviate from human ones and the prophet had to say about this. But how many hands should a cherub have in this case, such a question cannot be posed, because the prophet could not simultaneously see all 4 sides of the cherub (and probably only one), and what he did not see did not exist, since here we are dealing with a vision, and not with external reality.
Ezek.1:9. and they had faces and wings, all four of them; their wings touched one another; During their procession they did not turn around, but walked each in the direction of their faces.
The words “all four of them had faces and wings” in their literal sense (that none of the 4 cherubs had faces and wings) would contain a completely unnecessary thought; therefore, the Targum conveys them: “and their faces and their wings were the same among all four of them,” which already went without saying and was unnecessary for the prophet to say; Peshito and Vulgate Heb. learbagtam “at four of them” is translated “on their four sides,” which does not give a new thought compared to Art. 6. and is bought at the price of inserting a new concept “side” into the text. It is best to see this expression as characteristic of the Hebrew. language and Ezekiel’s favorite phrase “nominative independent”: “as for the faces and their wings, they were like that for all 4 (cherubim): their wings touched one another,” etc. After the prophet in Art. 5–8 spoke about the faces, wings, legs and hands of cherubim, he now describes the most important parts of the body - faces and wings - closer; “In this way, the prophet especially highlights the faces and wings from all parts of the figure: in them the power of life is found primarily, in these the being of “animals” (Gephernik).
“Their wings touched one another.” The expression apparently indicates the contact of the wings of one cherub with each other, since the contact of the wings of different cherubs with each other should have been designated more separately, that is, to say that the wing of one cherub touched the wing of another. The meaning that such contact of the wings of each cherub should have had with each other is also clear: connecting one with the other on the body of the cherub, the wings would cover this body, thereby signifying the complete incomprehensibility for us of the being of the cherubs, an incomprehensibility however less than the incomprehensibility of the Divinity, and perhaps of the seraphim, whose face is inaccessible to human gaze. But the Vulgate and almost all interpreters are inclined to the opinion that this refers to the contact of the wings of different animals, and they are inclined not without reason. The concept of “their wings” could have been used by the prophet to designate the wings of all the cherubim together, without any distinction between the wings of one and the wings of another, trace.
and contact is conceivable between all members of this equal union: the prophet does not say that only everyone’s wings (in Hebrew would be “leish”, as in v. 11 and 23) touched each other, but all the wings of all the cherubim touched. According to Art. 11, the two wings of the cherubim were stretched out - these wings could touch the edges of the wings of other cherubim, and the two wings were lowered, these wings could connect with each other on the body, covering it. The contact of individual cherubs with their wings 1) had the meaning that thanks to such a connection of wings, all the cherubs, as if with one impulse, walked in the same direction with the same speed; 2) could remind the prophet of the two wings of the cherubim of the Holy of Holies touching each other and show him that on these wings, as on the wings of the cherubim of the Holy of Holies, rests the Glory of God, the Shekinah. – LXX has a different idea here: omitting the second “their wings” of Heb. i.e., they connect the verb of the present sentence (Hebrew “hoverst” “contacted”) as a predicate with the beginning of the verse: and their faces “and their four wings holding each other.”
According to LXX, the prophet wants to say that the faces and wings of the creatures he saw were constantly in the same relationship, as a result of which they formed one whole (“communion together” Ps 121.3). The four mysterious animals would thus reveal a close connection with each other, a certain inseparability of each other. They were connected to each other in a way that separate and independent objects on earth cannot be connected: they were connected by their faces and wings, which could never come out of the same position in relation to each other. But the LXX was able to attribute the verb “khavar” not only to the wings, but also to the faces of the cherubim, only due to the fact that they do not read in v. 9. "their wings." – The described position of the cherubim’s wings was so important that even the movement of the cherubim was subordinate to it, conformed to it. To maintain this position of their wings, the cherubs “did not turn around during their procession.”
But this did not restrict the freedom of their movements: having 4 faces, they were at all times facing each of the 4 countries of the world and could walk without turning around to any of these countries, each walking in the direction of their face. The 3rd and 4th sentences of the verse have such a connection with the second. But in itself, the fact that the last part of the verse speaks of was of great importance. For the mysterious animals, the very structure of their being completely excluded the possibility of returning back. Every movement they made was a movement forward.
They moved only in a straight line in front of them, and not in a roundabout or circular manner. This meant that the spiritual forces represented by these animals “are never stimulated or retreated, but are directed further, forward” (Blessed Jerome).
They noticed (Müller, Ezechiel-Studien 1895, 15) that with this method of movement of the cherubs, they could move from place to place not always in a direct way: if the goal of their movement lay not on the radii going from their location (o) to the four cardinal points, but at some point a, then the cherubs could move to this goal not by the shortest path along the diagonal oa, but roundabout, describing two legs oba or wasp. But this is not a design flaw in Bozhest. chariots: the vision could deliberately not take into account the subtlest ramifications of the wind rose, since the number 4 means in the Bible the entire set of directions, and as a sign that the divine chariot was above earthly conditions and spatial boundaries. – Vatican and some other Greek. The codes give a reading of Article 9 that eliminates from it everything that makes it so difficult to understand, namely; “and the faces of their four did not turn around as they walked; each one walked in the direction of its face.”
But maybe these codes “are trying here to come to the aid of the somewhat unnaturally constructed exposition of Ezekiel” (Kretschmar) by eliminating its roughness and imaginary contradictions and repetitions in comparison with Art. 11 and 23.
Ezek.1:10. The similarity of their faces is the face of a man and the face of a lion on the right side of all four of them; and on the left side the face of a calf in all four and the face of an eagle in all four.
The prophet only now speaks about the faces of the creatures that appeared to him, having already spoken about wings, arms, legs, even feet, probably because the faces of these creatures later than their other parts emerged from that cloud and whirlwind, shrouded in which the cherubim walked to the prophet. Perhaps these faces during the vision did not appear with all clarity and distinctness for the prophet’s gaze: clouds shrouded in thick darkness, they perhaps emerged only with flashes of the fire that burned between the cherubim, and those lightning that continually cut through the darkness of the vision (v. 13). If man cannot see the face of God at all, then the face of the cherub, the creature closest to God, could not be fully shown to man. Hence the appearance in the description of the prophet here again of the concept of “likeness,” which has not been used since Art. 5.
The first the prophet calls “the face of a man” either because of its comparative dignity with other faces or because it was the face turned towards him by all the cherubim. It is clear why the lion occupies the right side, the ox the left, and the eagle the last place. The appearance of such persons in the form of cherubs is usually explained in such a way that the face of a man expresses the intelligence of the creatures that appeared, the face of a lion - their strength, the ox - strength and meekness, and the eagle - pomp. But the strangeness of introducing animals and bestial forms into the images of the highest spirits is not weakened by this explanation; This is the mystery of prophetic contemplation, which can sooner be shed light on. considerations. The choice of animals was made so that representatives of the entire living world were included: four creatures have primacy in this world: among creatures man, among birds the eagle, among cattle the ox and among beasts the lion (Schemoth rabba 23). The kingdom of reptiles (which, in a broad sense, can also include fish) is excluded for obvious reasons.
Thus, from each area of earthly life, the best was taken as a likeness for the cherubim, as if the color of this life. If it was already inevitably necessary for the fullest possible expression of the idea of the cherub to join the human image with the form of animals (see explanation, present 5), then truly it was impossible to give a better connection than here. God himself is not ashamed to compare himself with these noble animals (Hosea 11.10; Exodus 19.4; Deut. 32.11, etc.). The multiplicity and diversity of animal forms here was required by “the completeness of the idea, which barely allows sensual expression” (Gephernik), just as the Egyptian gods “had the form not of cattle, not of birds, not of beasts, not even of man himself, but of a form especially artificially composed and arousing awe by its very novelty” (Apulei, Metam. XI).
Ezek.1:11. And their faces and their wings on top were divided, but each had two wings touching one another, and two covered their bodies.
The faces and wings of the cherubim were in such a close connection that it was impossible to talk about them except together, which is why the prophet from describing the faces again (cf. vv. 9 and 6) moves on to the wings and their relation to the faces. Both of them, forming the top of the whole phenomenon, represented, as it were, one harmonious and strictly measured system, in which not a single member could move without setting the other in motion. The description of this system of faces and wings of cherubim is given to the prophet in the section of chapters 9-12, which is clearly divided into 2 parts: 9-10 art. and 11–12 tbsp. and each of them begins with the words “and their faces and their wings.” The mutual connection of the members of this marvelously coordinated system is spoken of by the prophet in v. 9. expresses in the concept hoverot ("touched", "holding"), and here with the verb perudot "were separated", slav. "prostrate". But in what sense could the prophet say of the faces and wings of the creatures that appeared to him that they were separated? The fact that they were not merged into one mass? But this itself followed from the very essence of the face and wing.
However, one could still expect such an expression about the wings: with this remark the reader would be warned against such an idea about the connection of the wings, that this connection reached their complete merging into one wing, into one wing plane, but that on this area composed by the wings one wing was clearly demarcated from the other. But what meaning could such a remark have in relation to persons? Is it the fact that the faces did not imperceptibly transform into one another, and each was visible as fully and clearly as if the others were not there? Obviously, the verb here is parade, like havar st.
9, which no one except Ezekiel uses about faces and wings and the usual meanings of which are difficult to apply to both, in the mouth of the prophet has some special meaning, and we must admit that we do not understand the prophet in this place, and we do not understand because what he described in this section was, like much in this mysterious vision, not easily amenable to a clear and precise description, as a result of which the prophet had to find new concepts for their description, adapting old words to them. The relationship between the faces and wings of the cherubs, like everything in these latter, was inexplicable and indescribable. The Alexandrian and Vatican Codes, the Coptic and Ethiopic translations do not have the first word “and their faces” in this verse, due to which the first sentence of the verse refers only to wings. And in this case, the verb perudot takes on a more understandable meaning; In addition to the meaning “were divided”, which goes to the wings, as we have seen, more than to the faces, this verb can also have the meaning “to extend” (to separate the wings from the body) about the wings, which is assigned to it here LXX.
But we cannot guarantee that the reading of the indicated codes here is correct (one would rather expect the omission of an incomprehensible word in the sacred text than the addition of such a word).
“But each had two wings touching one another.” As in v. 9, the prophet here, having begun speaking about faces and wings together, moves on to one wings. He is already in the 9th century. said about the wings that they touched one another; Now this message is supplemented by the remark that only two wings of each “animal” were in contact, while the other two were lowered onto the body. And with regard to the pair of wings touching, the prophet in this v. makes an important addition to Art. 9. He says that the wings were in contact not simply: “one to the other” (as is inaccurate in the Russian translation), but “of one” (“leish”, actually “of the husband”, Greek ΄ εκατερω), i.e. of an animal, with another (“ish” “husband”), while Art. 9 allowed us to think of contact only between the wings of the same animal. Consequently, between the cherubs there was a constantly closed place, fastened by their wings; in Art. 13 we learn what was the contents of this terrible place.
"And two covered their bodies." The two functions that are carried out by a natural wing - flight and covering the body - among the cherubs are divided between special wings, of course, for a more perfect performance of these functions: just as the cherubs could not help but constantly soar in the air, so they could not leave their bodies uncovered. The covering of the body with wings among cherubim is usually explained as a sign of reverence for God; bliss Jerome (with whom Blessed Theodoret also agrees) “the two wings with which the body is covered depicts the imperfection of knowledge”; rather, covering the body with wings could mean the incomprehensibility of the being of the cherubs themselves.
Ezek.1:12. And they walked, each in the direction that was before him; Where the spirit wanted to go, that’s where they went; They did not turn around during their procession.
First and third sentence of Art. 12 literally identical with Art. 9. Such literal repetitions are in the spirit of the prophet Ezekiel, who uses them as a means of drawing the reader’s attention to one or another thought. Thus, the prophet considered the fact that the cherubim did not turn around while walking to be very important; it struck him very much. But in the same with 9 art. expressions of Art. 12 compared to 9 tbsp. There is also a significant difference. There, the remark that each “animal” walked in the direction in front of him is preceded by the remark that the animals did not turn around during the procession; here these two remarks are put in the reverse order. In v. 9: “during their procession they did not turn around, but each walked in the direction of his face”; in v. 12: And they walked every one in the direction of his face; “during their procession they did not turn around.” In 9th century the main idea was that the animals never turned around, because this made possible the constant and always equal contact between their wings, which is the theme of verse 9.
In verse 12 this idea is secondary, but the main one is that the animals could walk in the direction of each of their faces, which means in all directions; The main idea here is because the prophet now wants to point out how, given such indifference and equal accessibility to the cherubim of all countries of the world, their movement in one direction and not the other was determined. “Wherever the spirit was to go, they went” is how the prophet literally answers this question in Hebrew; this expression is explained by the LXX: “maybe even if the spirit walks, I go,” and Russian. lane “where the spirit wanted to go.” So “a special command to the 4 creatures in which direction the movement should take place was as little needed as in Isa VI the express command to one of the seraphim to take a hot coal from the altar. The entire chariot was permeated by one spirit and one will, which was communicated to creatures without the medium of words” (Kretschmar). What kind of “spirit” is this that determined the movement of the Divine chariot?
The fact that the word “ruach” (“spirit”), which had a wide variety of meanings in the language of the Jews, is used here without any explanation, as well as the member in front of it, leaves no doubt that what is meant here is “ruach” - “wind” (Slav. “spirit”) 4 art. There was nothing humiliating for either of them in the fact that the movement of the cherubim and the entire Divine chariot was determined by the movement of the wind, for that wind was not an ordinary wind. Just as the cloud that walked with that wind turned out to be filled with unearthly creatures for the prophet’s gaze, so the wind that walked before the Lord had to be, so to speak, worthy and capable of this; it must have contained something similar to what the cloud contained, if not higher and more excellent; in all the parts and details of the present vision, even in such minor ones as the wheels, there was life, intelligence and consciousness.
But while the prophet speaks about the “inner content” of the cloud, so to speak, he says nothing about the “uplifting” wind that walked in front of the cloud: his spiritual vision could not penetrate into the inner content of that extraordinary wind in the same way as it penetrated into the content of the cloud. Obviously, in this wind there was none other than the Spirit of God (“ruach elohim”), which in the book of Ezekiel, as often in general, appears to act through the wind: Eze. 2:2, 3:14, 8:3, 11:24; 1 Kings 18.12; 2 Kings 2.16; Job 37:1, 9; John 3:8, 20:22; Acts 2:2. Of these cases, the most remarkable is the appearance of the Spirit of God in the 4 winds when dry bones were revived in the vision of Ezekiel and in a stormy breath when descending on the apostles. The Old Testament knew so much about the Holy Spirit!
Ezek.1:13. And the appearance of these animals was like the appearance of burning coals, like the appearance of lamps; fire walked among the animals, and radiance came from the fire and lightning came from the fire.
With their mutually touching wings, the cherubs cordoned off a certain place, which, as could already be concluded from such an extraordinary fencing of it, had some special purpose. The description of this place is contained in Art. 13. The beginning of the verse in LXX is rendered in disagreement with the Hebrew. t.: “and in the midst of the animals there was a vision,” thus, according to LXX, the prophet in 13a already describes the place between the cherubim, and according to Heb. text and Russian lane even the cherubim themselves, what happened between them is spoken of only in the 13th century. It is the Hebrew. the text here describes the cherubim from the point of view of their color, which was fiery, so that they appeared entirely fiery and sparkled like lamps. But now almost everyone gives preference to LXX in this place: the prophet already spoke about the type of animals in v. 5, then it should have been said that it was fiery; and how could cherubim have the appearance of coals and lamps? They could only shine like both: and the radiance of a coal and a lamp is too different to serve as a comparison for the same object; Probably the Masoretes simply wanted to clarify what was unsaid by the prophet about the color of the cherubs.
Thus, it can be considered certain that those coals and lamps for which the Heb. T. wants the cherubs to resemble, to be a new vision: they resemble the place that was cordoned off by the wings of the cherubs; The content is quite suitable for such a place. The coals between the cherubs are called burning, to show that they were not black and extinct, but red, still hot and in the very process of burning. The presence of coals here is explained by analogy with the vision of Isaiah, in which the seraphim takes a burning coal from the altar and which traces. suggests, like apocalyptic visions (Rev. 8:3, 5; Isa. 6.6), at the throne of God there is an altar with coals; although under his mysterious coals the prophet Ezekiel did not see the altar, and he could not be describing the heavenly sphere that Isaiah and John the Theologian described, but this does not prevent the coals between the cherubim from also giving a sacrificial character: the cherubim appear with symbols of constant burnt offering to God; the absence of an altar could indicate the highest and purest spirituality of this burnt offering.
If God is a consuming fire, then the place on which He steps, seated on cherubim, i.e., closest to the cherubim, must burn, and the product of combustion is coal.
"Like a type of lamps". Lamps before the throne of God are also found in the visions of the Apocalypse and are explained by the seer himself that these are “the essence of the seven spirits of God” (Rev 4.5) and “seven churches” (Rev 1:12–13, 20). Lighting a lamp before God is a rite of worship, signifying the warmth and dedication of serving God. If the “spirits of God” and “churches” appear before the throne of God not with lamps, but themselves turn into lamps, then this idea increases to extraordinary proportions. In Ezekiel, instead, the lamps appear in a clearly close, but not precisely defined, relationship to the cherubim, accompanying their appearance. But their symbolism is the same as in the Apocalypse: the spiritual burning of the entire being before God. There is a clear gradualness in the picture: coals, lamps, lightning; coals can occupy the bottom, turning into flames at the top and being discharged even higher by lightning.
"Fire walked among the animals." From euros literally: “she (“gi”) walked among the animals.” Who is she? Which noun does the pronoun f refer to? r.? There are two nouns ahead in the verse. r.: view (“demut”) and fire (“esh”; in Hebrew “burning coals” it is expressed: “coals of a burning fire”). The first is too far away and its authenticity is doubtful; Moreover, how can a species of animals move between animals? The second occupies a too subordinate position: standing as a definition in “coals”, according to Heb. forms one word with it (casus constructus). But since all the contents of the space between the cherubim listed so far were fiery, there was fire in one form or another, then the reader of the prophet who (as in the Russian translation) will understand by “ha” - “she” will not be greatly mistaken is fire. Isn't it used here? r. instead of non-existent in Heb. language Wed r.? If the prophet wanted to say: “this (i.e., everything mentioned earlier - coals, lamps) walked among the animals,” how could he express “this” if not through “here” (“this”, “that”) or “gi” (“it”)?
If such an understanding of “gi” was grammatically impossible, then in the course of speech and the essence of the matter, nothing more than everything listed earlier should most likely be what “went among the animals.” The Prophet, at least so far, sees the cherubim only in motion; track. everything that was between the cherubim, the place between them with all its extraordinary content - coals, lamps, had to move, “go with” (“mitgalleket”) them. The reciprocal form of the verb “galak” - “to go”, placed here, indicates the exact relationship between the movement of what was between the animals (coals and lamps), and the movement of the animals themselves, as well as the mutual dependence of the movement of these fiery elements on each other: they moved not only as the animals moved and depending on their movement, but also moved depending on each other: the movement of one of these elements caused the movement of the other; here everything was movement and life.
LXX apparently gives a different reading of this passage: omitting “gi” (“she” or “it”), they agree on the verb “mitgalleket” (“walked”) with λαμπαδες and translates it συστρεφομενων “converging”: “like a vision of candles congregating among animals.” Συστρεφεσθαι means joint circulation or circling, dependent on each other; Thus, this word in the LXX indicates that the lamps for which it serves as a definition rotate together, either with each other, or with coals, or with animals, or with all these together (which is most likely). We see that whether to refer to the lamps as the verb “mitgalleket” from the LXX or to read for it from the Hebrew. i.e. a special subject (“gi” “it”), the thought will be the same as what could give LXX the right to free translation here.
"And the radiance from the fire". From this remark, it is first of all clear that the coals and lamps, which were in constant motion, merged for the prophet into one mass of fire, which spread light around itself. At the same time, the remark shows that the radiance emanating from this fire was of special strength (otherwise there was no need to talk about it, since every fire gives radiance), as Heb. the word “nogah” (“shine”), which serves as a poetic trace. a particularly strong designation of light (Isaiah 4:4, 60:20, 62:1; Hab 3.11, etc.) and is used about the radiance of the Glory of God (Ezek.10.4). This was the radiance to which the prophet drew attention at the beginning of the vision (v. 4, where the same is in Hebrew “feet”): it illuminated the cloud that was coming towards him, since this cloud contained 4 cherubim, then this radiance, illuminating the entire bulk (“great cloud”) of it, served as immeasurable, embracing the entire horizon (“around it”, i.e., the clouds v. 4) a halo worthy in size of those he surrounded. – The fire between the cherubim emitted more than just a quiet, gentle radiance (“to the feet” in Isaiah 62.7 about the morning dawn, Joel 2.10 about the radiance of the luminaries).
It continuously (“emanated” in the Hebrew word “outgoing”) flashed like lightning. Of all the types of earthly light, lightning alone brings us, in addition to admiration, to a certain awe and therefore can serve as the best likeness of the light with which the Divinity shines. In addition, lightning can be called an internal, hidden light, only temporarily breaking out and visible to man, and in this way it most closely resembles the divine light invisible to man (in the service of the Transfiguration: “carry the hidden lightning under the flesh of Your being”). Thanks to this, lightning in the Old Testament often acts as an attribute of theophany: Mount Sinai shone with lightning when God descended on it; lightning is mentioned in psalmic descriptions of expected or requested theophany (Ps 17 and others cf. Hab 3.4, 11); in the Apocalypse, lightning comes from the throne of God (Rev 4.5). The fact that the fire between the cherubim emits lightning indicates the high degree of godlikeness of the cherubim: they shine with a glory reminiscent of the Divine glory.
Ezek.1:14. And the animals moved quickly to and fro, like lightning flashing.
The Russian translation of this verse is speculative; glory The Hebrew answers not much more. text: “and the living creature flows and turns like the vision of God.” The first half of the verse from Heb. letters “and the animals ran and returned” “your race.” The verbs are put in the indefinite mood, which here obviously replaces the final. The second verb is undoubtedly “to return”, and the first is απαξ λεγομενον and is considered the Aramaicized form of the verb “ruts” “to run”. The replacement of the final mood by the indefinite is not alien to the Hebrew language, both ancient: Gen 8.7, and especially later: Job 40.2; Dan 9.5, 1; Zechariah 7.5; but in these places it is undefinable. does not stand without the indicative, sometimes serving only as an addition to it; and most importantly in these places we are dealing with oratorical and poetic speech, where undefined. could be used for liveliness of speech; here “it is not clear why the description suddenly had to become so vivid” (Smend). This forces many interpreters to see the indicative mood in these verbs. But if “ratso” can still be somehow made indicative (read “ratsu”, which would be 3 l.
pl. h. aor; from ruts, but the last letter - aleph - will be extra), then the “seam” is impossible without touching the text. So the indefinite mood remains a mystery here. – And the meaning of “run” for the first verb is very problematic. Such an Aramaicization of the form, as suggested here with the verb “ruts,” “would have no analogy; the concept of running does not apply to cherubs” (Smend); and with such a meaning, the word would not correspond to the directly associated “returned”, which contains the concept of direction in movement, and not its speed (although, in addition to LXX, Pescito has “ran” here). In view of this, they propose to read instead of “ratso” - “yetsu” - “went out”, which would be in accordance with the Vulgate (ibant) and Targum (“turned around and walked around and returned”) and would require changing only one letter; but such a typo in the text is unlikely (the Hebrew rosh is very far from the small yod).
- However, without knowing what the prophet wants to say about the movement of the cherubs with the first verb, we extract from the second verb (“shev” “to return”) one not insignificant feature of this movement, that it had at times a return direction, a feature that is important for us in view of the previous remark that the cherubs did not turn back; track. this last circumstance did not prevent them from moving back.
The movement of the cherubs, characterized by the words “ratso vashov”, is compared by the prophet with the movement of a kind of bazag (Russian translation: “lightning”, Slavic: “vision of vezekov”). And this new concept does little to clarify the verse, since the word “bazak” is απαξ λεγομενον and its meaning must be found by the root. Many, due to the infrequency of such a word in the Bible, assume that Russian. lane, here is a typo: instead of “bazak”, they think, there was “barak” - lightning. – As a matter of fact, it is possible that the cherubs of Chapter I. Eze. had a movement similar to the movement of lightning: the design of a real chariot determined, as we saw in v. 9, the fact that the cherubs could not always move from place to place in a straight line, but sometimes had to walk along the legs of a triangle built on it; such a movement will be a zigzag movement, and lightning has precisely a zigzag movement. But the possibility of such an error in the text is unlikely: the letters Rosh and Zayin are not close in style; and why in 13th Art. “barrack” has not changed, but only in the 14th century, where the 13th century. did you expect a comparison with lightning? In later Heb. language
and related languages, the root “azak” has the meaning “to scatter” (Talmud), “to scatter” (Arabic), “to crush” (Syr.). Since the whole phenomenon has a fiery appearance, then probably “bazak” is a special expression here “about some kind of scattering of fire, fiery splashes” (Gefernik), or about rays of light suddenly scattering over a wide space. Ancient translations agree in this exact understanding of this word - about rays, about light. While Theodotion (from which article 14 was taken into the text of LXX) leaves this word without translation, rewriting it in Greek letters - βεζεκ, Symmachus renders it ακτις v αστραπης, Aquilla - ως ειδος απορροιας ΄ αστραπες, Targum: "like a form of lightning." Peshito puts here the related Syriac word bezek, the root meaning of which is “scattering,” but the present one is lost and is indicated by various siriologists and interpreters of Peshito in different ways: flame, lightning, meteor, falling star, rain of stars, whirlwind, even a hyacinth stone. Next, no matter how unclear the meaning of this comparison is, it can be recognized beyond doubt that this comparison is taken from the field of light phenomena.
So, the only movement in nature that could be compared to the movement of the cherubs is the movement of light. Judging by the verb “to return,” used to characterize the movement of the cherubs, the movement of light could serve as a similarity for the movement of the cherubs in that the light always returns to its source and does not leave it. “Just as the ether is illuminated by sparks of frequent fires and in the blink of an eye, lightning suddenly scatters in different directions and returns back, without losing the container and, so to speak, the source and substance of the fire, so these animals, continuing their path unhindered, hurry forward” (Blessed Jerome). The Targum renders the verse as follows: “And the creatures (those), when they were sent to do the will of their Lord, Who placed His majesty on high above them, in the twinkling of an eye they turned and went around and tore the universe, and returned to the place of creation and were swift as the sight of lightning.”
Thus, the cherubim could move everywhere without leaving the throne of God, and without dragging it to any place; they could have, in addition to a common movement with the throne of God, their own, which, although not coinciding in direction with that movement, was simultaneously with it. Such a connection of such apparently incompatible things, says the prophet, is also given in nature, in one of its phenomena, which he calls “bazakh”. – There are some reasons to think that this verse was not in the text used by the LXX, and I agree with Blessed. Jerome, that in the LXX translation it was added from Theodotion: it is not in the Vatican, Venetian and one Parsons codes; into code. Alexandrian, Marshallian (VI-VII centuries), Chisian (IX-XI centuries), in the Syrian exapla (VII century) it is under the asterisk, next. brought in from the euro. text.
Ezek.1:15. And I looked at the animals, and behold, on the ground next to these animals, there was one wheel in front of their four faces.
A description begins of a new component of the vision - the wheels - which will occupy a considerable (vv. 15-21) section of the chapter; hence the solemn “and I looked.” – The addition “on animals”, which is not found in LXX, indicates a close connection between animals and wheels, such that wheels are only a part of animals. - “On the earth” in the proper sense, as shown in v. 19, by which the wheels sometimes rose from the earth (and not “on the basis of the heavenly arena”, or “on the earth that was visible in the sky”). Wheels are primarily a method of transportation adapted to the earth (like wings - air, a ship - water), therefore real wheels can be looked at as a link between the heavenly vision and the earth, of which it is the most perfect method of transportation. Descending to earth, God must reckon with its frailty, which does not allow for a better way of movement. The purpose of the wheels is to show that God moves on the earth itself, not above it. - “Near these animals.” “Beside” indicates the complete independence of the wheels in relation to the “animals” - the cherubs. In the book of Enoch, the Ophanim (“Ophaa” in Hebrew)
“wheel”) are counted among the ranks of angels (chap. 61:10; 70:7). - “One wheel at a time.” Literally: “one wheel,” but Ezek.10.9 shows that there were 4 wheels; Wed Ezek.1.16; units h. – dividing; Therefore, some people unfairly assume one wheel. Between the cherubim and the Glory of the Lord or the throne of God they carry, in the vision of the prophet Ezekiel there appears a new, independent and, judging by the attention paid to him by the prophet, a figure of great importance - wheels. The wheels suggest a chariot behind it; but the prophet does not indicate it, because the wheels intended in this vision, as in the vision of Daniel (Dan 7.9), for the movement of the throne of God, did not need a material connection with this latter and should, without this connection, mediate the movement of such an exceptional object; the cherubim themselves were the chariot in this case.
Still, presuming behind them this or that chariot (in this case, a spiritual one), the wheels give the real epiphany the character of a solemnly majestic and rapid ride instead of a simple and slow procession, which has hitherto represented every epiphany. From now on, isn’t a special speed introduced into the actions of Divine Providence, usual at the end of every task, inevitable in the works of God at the end of time? "Before their four faces". Heb. “learnbagat panav”, lit. "It has four faces." Unit Part of the pronoun is placed according to the meaning (contrary to grammatical agreement, since the “animals” to which the pronoun refers is in the plural), because we are talking about one wheel, which can be owned by only one animal. After the prophet’s remark that the wheels were near the animals, the reader expects from him the most precise indication on which side of the four-faced creature had the wheel near him. Such an indication should be given in the words being analyzed. “At (or “before”, as in Russian translation; colloquial: “for”) all four persons,” the prophet answers this question.
The indication is already quite precise and definite, but at first glance it contains something unthinkable: one wheel was at one time in four different places. No wonder LXX omitted this “exact” instruction! But we must not forget that we are dealing with a vision. Just as 4 wings and 2 arms could be on 4 different sides of an animal at the same time, so could it be with the wheel; in visions, violations of the laws of space and time are allowed, which have no force in the sphere of existence affected by visions.
Ezek.1:16. The appearance of the wheels and their structure are like the appearance of topaz, and all four have the same likeness; and from their appearance and their structure it seemed as if there was a wheel within a wheel.
The verse contains a description of the appearance and structure of the wheels. Since the first half of the verse talks about the appearance of the wheels (that they were like topaz), the words in it “and their structure” seem redundant, just like the words “according to their appearance” in the second half of the verse, which talks about the structure of the wheels, “why don’t LXX read these words. – “View” – Heb. "gene" see art. 5. – “Topaz”. Heb. "tarshish"; from Ezek.10.9 we learn that it is a precious stone; it is mentioned among the precious stones in Ezekiel 28.13; in the breastplate of the high priest he was 1st in the 4th row (Exodus 28.17–20); according to Dan 10.6, the body of the One who appeared to the prophet was like a “tarshish”. The name is taken from the Phoenician colony in Spain on the river of the same name, present-day Guadalquivir, just as the famous type of gold was called Ophir (Job 22.24). LXX here they leave this word without translation (“Tarshish”), and in a completely identical place Eze. Ezek.28.13 – “chrysolite”; Targum: “good stone”; Translation;
– “yastis”). Thus, the most votes are for chrysolite; the chrysolite of the ancients, according to Pliny’s description, would most closely correspond to our topaz, golden in color. This color of the wheels corresponds to the wheels of Daniel’s vision, which were “blazing fire”, and the fiery content between the real wheels (Ezek.10.12) and the harmony of colors in the vision: golden-red wheels, crystal-white firmament and sapphire-blue foot of the throne.
“And all four have one likeness.” And without such a remark, this would follow naturally from the fact that the prophet nowhere indicates the differences between the wheels; track. The remark wants to draw the reader’s special attention to the similarity of the wheels. The wheels were as similar to each other as animals, and just like animals there were four of them. Thus, the wheels, like animals, were directed immediately and equally to “all the ends of the earth.” All countries of the world were accessible to the Divine chariot with absolutely equal ease. It did not have a front or back, which in an ordinary chariot is characterized by the difference in wheels and their size. - In addition to complete similarity with each other, the indifference of the wheels in relation to different directions of movement was achieved by their special structure, which will be discussed later. "The wheel was within the wheel." Most interpreters rightly understand this expression to mean that the wheel was perpendicular to each other within the wheel. Next The verse says that the wheels could go on their four sides without turning around; track.
they had 4 sides; the side of the wheel can only be called its semicircle; This means that the wheel of vision should have consisted of 4 semicircles or 2 intersecting circles. Apparently, the image of the expression speaks against this: the term in the word “wheel”, “ofan”, moreover, is double, requiring one to think about being in each other about the previously mentioned wheels. Therefore, it is assumed that one or the other of the four wheels was located in each other, and this location was either only apparent, in perspective, or real. But the term with “ofan” can also give the idea that the intersecting circles from which each wheel was composed should not be represented as just components of one wheel, but as independent, although interconnected wheels; This relative independence of the component parts of the wheel would correspond to the combination of several persons in animals.
Ezek.1:17. When they walked, they walked to their four sides; They didn’t turn around during the procession.
The wheels had the same amazing ability to move in all directions as the cherubs. In cherubim the ability of such movement was determined by their four-facedness, in wheels by their four-sidedness; “They did not turn around as they walked” is a deliberately literal repetition of what was said about animals; For completeness of similarity, even the pronoun is placed in g. r. (in Heb.), although the wheel in Heb. m.r. This expression is thus repeated for the third time by the prophet (vv. 9, 12). Sounding like a refrain (a part of an oratorical speech corresponding to a chorus in a song), its repeated repetition draws the reader’s special attention to this feature in the movement of the entire phenomenon - that it did not require turning when walking. In relation to wheels, this feature was even more surprising and therefore deserved to be pointed out: movement to the sides is even more impossible for ordinary wheels than for living creatures with sufficient flexibility of the legs.
Ezek.1:18. And their rims were high and terrible; All four of their rims around were full of eyes.
The beginning of a verse of letters. from euros it will be: “and their rims and their height.” Consequently, the words: “and their rims” (in Hebrew this is one word) stands completely independently grammatically from everything that follows, which is why LXX connects it with the previous verse and translates: “below their ridges”: “I do not turn (i.e., the wheels) always to walk them, below their ridges”; but in such a connection this word does not give any new thought and is idle: if the wheels did not turn around when moving, then the rims could not turn around. Meanwhile, in what follows we will talk specifically about the rims. Consequently, the grammatical independence of this word from the subsequent one must be explained as an independent nominative phrase. As in 9 and 11 art. this nominativ. The absolut prophet indicates the theme of the entire verse. And this was necessary, because the prophet, both before and after, speaks generally about wheels; now he wants to work on just one part of them - the rims. Such an episodic transition in the description is well marked by this phrase.
- Having warned that he will now talk about the rims, the prophet points out three features of them, just as there were three features at the feet of the cherubim. The first is that they were “high”. Lit. from euros “and their height,” an expression that can be understood in such a way that those rims “represented an elevated and majestic appearance, which is usually unusual for wheels rolling in the dust of the earth” (Kretschmar). The expression: “the rims had height” sounds as unusual in Hebrew as in Russian; one could simply say: “and they were tall or great.” Moreover, if we talk about height, then we should rather talk about the height not of the rims, but of the wheels themselves; such a quality would have an understandable meaning for them: the high height of the wheels achieves the speed of the chariot. But on the other hand, to assume here that the text is damaged or to give Heb. the word “gova” (translated “height”) has another meaning, for example, “upper side” (“the rims had an upper side”), which is prohibited by the unanimous transfer of this place in all texts and the unanimous translation of the ancient “gova” feature height.
“And they were terrible.” Lit.: “and they have fear.” What this fear or horror of the rims consisted of is now said: there were eyes on them. Isn't this horror: eyes on wheels! Therefore, it is impossible to say with certainty. the interpretation is that it will remain unclear why the wheels or their rims were terrible, and there is no need to look for another meaning here, for example: “and I looked at the rims” (“irea” horror is consonant with “eree” “looked”), as Slav does. trans.: “and videh ta” (so do most Greek codices; but the Venetian and 5 minuscule, i.e. written in cursive, codices have: και φουεροι σαν, as does one ancient famous manuscript of Explanatory Prophecies: “and terrible behu”).
“And the rims of all four of them... were full of eyes.” Not just equipped with eyes, but “full” (glorious translation) of eyes, they abounded with them (γεμοντα δφθαλμων Rev. 4.8). – And so it was “all four” wheels, - a refractive addition (vv. 8, 10, 16; o refrain, see Vol. Art. 17), but together it strengthens the impression of the picture: four wheels and all dotted with eyes - The supply of wheels with eyes is one of those purely eastern symbols in which a thought of special power seeks expression, an idea that does not fit into natural ideas and concepts. strength, insight and wisdom, then the eyes in the wheels indicate life and intelligence. The wheels are animated, because a dead object cannot be an instrument of the Glory of God.
The eyes, of course, were not inactive on the wheels: the wheels could look with them (“and they saw” Pescito has instead of “they were terrible”); the wheels looked where they were rolling; they rolled consciously: “the wheels were full of knowledge” (Blessed Theodoret). The wheels are equipped with eyes “to express the infallible confidence with which the Divine Throne moved” (Smend); “with watching eyes the wheels could not stray from the road” (Bertolet). Since wheels move the throne of God, we can say that through the eyes of wheels God Himself looks at the earth on which He walks. This symbol apparently found a special place among the captives and after the captive prophets: Dan 7.8; Zech 3.9; Zechariah 4.10 was, perhaps, a consequence of the eastern environment and symbolism, “as the ancient sculptural image of Jupiter in Larissa had 3 eyes and was attributed to Trojan, at least Asian, origin (Pausanias I, 24). (Gefernik); “wheels,” says the blessed one. Jerome, were such as the fables of poets depict the hundred-eyed or many-eyed Argus"; Wed the eyes and ears of the king (satraps) by Xenophon Sugor. VIII, 2; Mithra according to Zendavesta has 1000 ears and 10,000 eyes.
Ezek.1:19. And when the animals walked, the wheels walked beside them; and when the animals rose from the ground, then the wheels also rose.
The Prophet has already finished describing the wheels: having listed all the features of their appearance and structure in comparison with ordinary wheels, he also described their movement. Now the question arose about the relationship of wheels to animals: was there any connection between the two, similar to the connection between the animals pulling the chariot and the chariot itself? In Art. 19–21 the prophet gives the answer to this question that he could give. The relationship between animals and wheels was completely incomprehensible to the viewer. There was no visible connection between the two: “there was no drawbar or yoke on the animals: the divine chariot moved by itself: the animals were in front, the wheels moved behind them, heading in all directions without turning” (Blessed Theodoret). Nevertheless, “when the animals walked, the wheels walked beside them.” Such joint movement of animals and wheels certainly implied a connection between both. This connection was even more clearly confirmed by the fact that the wheels followed the animals not only when the latter moved on the ground, but also when the animals were raised from the ground, the wheels also rose.”
The wheel is a tool for movement exclusively on the ground; the presence of wheels in the air was an unnatural position for them, and if they accepted this position, then this proved their especially close connection with animals.
Ezekiel 1:20. Wherever the spirit wanted to go, there they went; Wherever the spirit went, the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the animals was in the wheels.
Forced to return to the movement of animals, the prophet repeats the most important of what has been said about this movement. It differed from any other movement in many ways, but most of all in that it was determined in its direction in a special, mysterious way. Its qualifier was “spirit”. Heb. “where was the spirit to go” glory. translates: “Where there are clouds, there is spirit”; Thus, the verse asks for a new concept of “cloud”; in parallel 12 tbsp. this word is not present and therefore LXX is suspected of adding here: they could read the preposition “gal”, “on”, “to” as “woof”, “cloud”, or replace this last concept with “ruach” “spirit”, which, it is really unclear why, the Hebrew text puts twice (this substitution could be made on the basis of 1 Kings 18.45, where the cloud appears before the wind in a thunderstorm); By putting “cloud,” LXX obviously meant the cloud that the prophet saw in v. 4, and under the spirit was the wind, which revealed the vision; meaning of glory lane like this: where the cloud went, the wind went there, and the animals and the wheels went there.
– Why is it said about the wheels “rising” and not walking? “They rose up” here hardly has its exact meaning – separation from the earth: in verses 19 and 21, where it has such a meaning, “from the earth” is added to it; here it means “to rise from a place,” “to leave a place,” “to move” (Numbers 23.24, etc.); if this verb carries its usual meaning here, as in v. 19 and 21, then it gives the idea that animals with wheels hovered in the air rather than walked on the ground. – The Prophet also indicates the reason for such agreement in the movement of wheels and animals: “for the spirit of the animals was in the wheels.” “Animal spirit” more precisely: “animal spirit” – unit. h. (gahaya). “The prophet calls animals four animals that are inseparably connected to each other and move in exactly the same way” (Smend). The Prophet more than once assigns such a collective name to 4 animals (he calls them all - in the singular “animal”): Ezek.1.22; Ezek.10.15, 20, like his wheels, are also designated by the collective name “Galgal” (Ezek.10.2,13). The animals were so closely related to each other that the prophet in v. 11. considers it necessary to warn that their faces and wings were still separated.
In general, cherubim are thought of in such inseparability from each other that almost nothing is said about them separately. Part of this name is almost never used. - Since in relation to the cherubim there can be no talk of spirit as their soul, here we obviously mean the spirit, which, according to Art. 12 determined their movement. LXX, Peshito, Vulgate, translates here "spirit of life", but "haya" instead of "hamim" in the meaning of "life" is used only in poetry; this word in this meaning cannot stand with a member, as it does here; then - if wheels generally only have a living soul, then it does not follow that they should move like animals.
Ezek.1:21. When they walked, they walked too; and when they stood, they stood; and when they rose from the ground, then the wheels also rose along with them, for the spirit of the animals was in the wheels.
The agreement in the movement of wheels and animals was so remarkable that the prophet once again draws attention to it by briefly repeating everything that was said about it. He complements this repetition with an indication that when the animals stopped, the wheels also stopped with them - a circumstance that is far from obvious in itself due to the fact that the wheels were in no way connected with the animals. Thus, “21 Art. combines the two preceding verses with the addition of a new one and concludes them” (Hitzig). In addition to this purpose - it serves as a conclusion to the description of the remarkable harmony in the movement of animals and wheels, the verse also has another purpose: it paints us a picture of the general movement of the entire phenomenon. From it we learn that the phenomenon did not always proceed, but sometimes stopped, and that it sometimes walked along the ground, and at times rushed above the ground, “rose from the ground” - important information and not yet reported by the prophet in such completeness and clarity.
The verse ends with a literal repetition of the final words of the previous verse: “for the spirit of the beasts was in the wheels,” one of Ezekiel’s literary devices (refrain, see v. 17), meaning to draw attention to the thought repeated with such literalness. “This causal sentence stands twice because the main force lies in it” (Kretschmar). “It is said twice: “for the spirit of life was in the wheels,” so that we should not at all consider the wheels to be something that we see in the lower parts of carts, carts and chariots, but living beings, even higher than living beings” (Blessed Jerome).
Ezek.1:22. Above the heads of the animals there was a semblance of a vault, like the appearance of an amazing crystal, stretched from above their heads.
"Animals", in Heb. again, as in v. 19 and 21, “strange” (Cornille) singular. h. (instead of which, however, 3 Hebrew manuscripts in Kennicott, LXX, Targum, Peshito and Vulgate have plural parts) 4 cherubim here, as in those verses, are considered as one organic being. – The word “similarity” warns the reader about the mystery of what is now being described. The Prophet again (vv. 5, 10, 13) sees something to which only a similarity on earth can be indicated: about the wheels it is not said that their likenesses were visible; Afterwards this word will be used only when describing the throne and Him who sits on it. - “Vault”, glory. "firmament". The Hebrew “rakia” (στερεομα, firmanentum) in the Old Testament is not used in any other meaning than the firmament. True, the absence of a member makes it possible that here the word does not mean the firmament; but since Jehovah has His throne in heaven, “rakia” here can only mean the sky, the firmament. But it was not the firmament that we usually see, but only a likeness of it, much superior to its prototype.
LXX before “firmament” also have the particle “like”, ωσει (as if); if this particle is genuine, then the similarity of the firmament that appeared to the prophet with the visible one becomes even less and is reduced to a weak similarity. The visible and sensible can give a very insufficient idea of the invisible sky.
Moses and the “elders of Israel,” who saw the place where God stood, found that with its pure and transparent light it resembled the firmament of heaven: “like the vision of the firmament of the heavens in purity” (Exodus 24.10). The Prophet Ezekiel for the vault that he saw above the heads of the cherubim does not find it sufficient to compare only with the firmament and also compares it with “kerah”, Russian. lane crystal. “Kerach” means either cold, frost (Gen. 31.40; Jer. 36.30), or ice (Job 37:10, 38:29); the second meaning is more rare and seems to be later, it must be recognized as the main one, because the root of this word is “to be smooth” and therefore initially it should have been applied to water that had become smooth from the cold. But since the appearance of ice, no matter how pure and transparent it may be, is not at all so magnificent as to serve as a strong comparison for this case, the LXX and almost all the ancients (only the Targum - “ice”) settled on a crystal or crystal as an object that would be more suitable here than ice.
Although “kerah” is not used anywhere in the meaning of crystal (in Job 28.17 “gavish” is translated through “crystal”), they think that the crystal could be called this either because of its resemblance to ice or because, according to the ancients, it is produced by frost (Pliny, Hist, nat. XXXVII, 8, 9). It is assumed that Bl. John, who had in mind Ezek.1.22 in Rev. 4.6, is inclined to this meaning of the word; although he rather combines both meanings when he says that before the throne of God there was “a sea of glass, like crystal.” In the book. Job's crystal (if this is how "gavish" needs to be translated) is apparently placed below the gold of Ophir, but along with ordinary pure gold (Job 28.17–18); track. in ancient times it was of great value and, perhaps, was worthy of being included in the majestic vision, where everything, even the wheels, seemed made of the best precious stones. The floors in the richest palaces of the ancient East were covered with crystal or glass; in the Koran (sur. 25, n. 44), the Queen of Sheba mistakes the crystal platform in front of Solomon’s throne for water.
But if by “kerah” we mean crystal, then it is not clear why the prophet calls it such an uncommon name. The Prophet needed a mineral that would represent the best combination of complete transparency with a stone fortress and could serve as a good symbol of heavenly purity and clarity. Maybe “kerakh” was the native name (Assyrian kirgu - “fortress”) of a mineral that was, as it were, numb pure water, like our pure water diamond (but diamond in Hebrew “shamir” and in a polished form was hardly known then). – For the mysterious object, called “kerah” by the prophet, he learns the no less mysterious definition of “gannor” (Russian translation: “amazing”), which LXX does not have in the code. Alexandrian and Vatican, in Coptic and Ethiopic translations. The root meaning of this word is “terrible” (Vulgate and Peshito horribilis, but the Targum is “strong”) but in the two places in the Old Testament where it is used (Judg. 6.13; Job 37.22), it means fear and awe inspired by the appearance of God or an angel.
And in such a special meaning, this word is appropriate here: that crystal, which hung in the form of a firmament over the heads of the cherubs, of course, inspired awe in the prophet because it made him feel his high, unearthly purpose; the prophet suddenly felt himself in front of a real, open sky, and this feeling could not but fill him with horror. - “Over their heads.” Instead of this tautological indication of the LXX, most of the best codes have a more natural one: “on their wings,” with which the prophet more accurately determines the position of the firmament: it was not directly above their heads, but above the wings, which were somewhat raised above their heads (v. 11).
Ezekiel 1:23. And under the arch their wings stretched out straight one to the other, and each one had two wings that covered them, each one had two wings that covered their bodies.
The prophet dramatically postpones the description that one might already expect - what was in the firmament - to the end and again returns to the description of the view in which the cherubs rushed towards him with thunderous beats of their wings; to the picture of this deafening flight (see 23–25) Art. 23 serves as an introduction in which the prophet recalls what was already described in vv. 9 and 11. relative position of the wings. The Prophet, therefore, speaks about this for the third time, which shows the importance of this particular vision. But 23 Art. does not simply repeat the data of Articles 9 and 11; he more precisely defines the way in which the wings of the cherubim were extended to each other: they extended directly to each other, i.e. b. constituted one horizontal plane lying at the base of the firmament; This position of the wings was all the more surprising because even during the flight they did not leave this always-present, mathematically precisely calculated position in relation to each other. From euros
lit.: “the wings were straight (yesharot) to each other”, the expression is somewhat strange (as before, in v. 9 and 11, the position of the wings was determined by the barely understandable words “hoverot” and “perudot”, as if the wings were in a difficult to convey position to each other), why did the LXX put the expression 11 art. “stretched out”, completing it according to Ezek. 3.13 πτερυσσομενον “soaring” (but there in Slav. “winged”), i.e. flying, waving (other Slav. translation. “fluttering”), and not calmly just stretched out. – The Prophet considers it necessary again, as in Art. 11, to stipulate that the cherubim had only two outstretched wings; the other two were omitted, for their purpose was to cover the body. In euros this thought is expressed by a dividing sentence: “one (leish) of them had two (wings) covering, and the other (uleish) two of them covering their body”; Wed Isa 6.2. In LXX, the thought here is conveyed in one sentence with the addition of the concept “conjugated” (the wings covering the body were connected to each other); but in code. The Cisian and Syriac exaplahs also have a second sentence (και δυο καλυπτουσαι αυτοϊς) under the asterisk. Although the last thought of Art. 23
is not new, but its repetition, in addition to emphasizing it, sheds new light on it, placing it in the same connection as here; The cherubim only covered their body (lit. “torso”) because they were under the firmament and the throne of God, and not in front of it, like the seraphim.
Ezekiel 1:24. And as they walked, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of many waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a strong noise, like the noise of a military camp; and when they stopped, they lowered their wings.
And the flight of large birds makes considerable noise; and here winged lions and oxen flew. The roar from this flight occurred right under the surface; as a result, the whole place positively thundered; the footstool of Jehovah was supposed to amaze all the senses with its grandeur—not just sight, but also hearing. The prophet does not find a sufficient comparison for the noise coming from there; hence this heap of comparisons. But the comparisons used here are Heb. t. and rus. lane unfairly referred to as the same subject. Several Greek codes (Venetian, 5 minuscules, Blessed Theodoret and Slavic transl.) make a successful addition to the Hebrew. i.e., putting in the first two comparisons “always soaring”: when the cherubim flew, the sound of their wings was like the sound of many waters and like the voice of the Almighty. But the cherubs did not always fly, but sometimes walked or otherwise moved on the ground in some other way, and sometimes stopped completely. In both cases, their wings could not make noise, at least as much as when flying; the prophet and notes that when the cherubim walked (“when they walked” in Hebrew).
It’s not in the right place to put it Russian. trans., and before the third comparison), a “strong noise” was heard from their wings (“kol hamullah” cf. Jer. 11.16; maybe “haman” Eze. 7.11; 1 Kings 18.41; d.b. a kind of dull noise), similar to the noise in a military camp. When the cherubim stopped, their wings were at rest and, of course, could not make noise.
“Like the sound of many waters.” The biblical writers' favorite comparison for loud noise: Ezek.43.2; Isa 17.12; Jer 10.13; Rev 1:15, 14:2; Ps 92.4. Many waters can mean rain, the sea, or most likely the mountain streams with waterfalls that are frequent in Judea; all this gives a large, but indefinite and vague sound, most suitable here. – The roar heard by the prophet was not at all like the “sound of many waters”: it was stronger than him. If we look for comparisons for it, the prophet continues, then it can only be compared with the voice of God himself (“like the voice of the Almighty”). “What is the use of searching for a likeness worthy of a thing and not finding it anywhere? It is enough to point out the Acting One and show them the power of noise” (Blessed Theodoret). The “voice of the Almighty” can also be understood as the real voice of God (heard, for example, at Sinai); This understanding is favored by the addition to this comparison in Ezekiel 10.5: “when He speaks.” But among biblical writers this expression (“voice of God”) is a common paraphrase for thunder: Ps 28.3–5; Job 37.2–5; Rev 19:5–6.
Finally, the “voice of God” can also mean any large, piercing and terrible noise, just as “cedars of God” and “mountains of God” are large cedars and mountains. All these understandings can be combined: the comparison of the prophet wants to name the greatest noise possible on earth, reaching the degree that the Jew designated in various qualities by the high definition of God; but no noise can compare in power with the deafening peals of thunder, during which the universe seems to tremble; if anything could be stronger than this noise on earth, then perhaps theophanic thunder, which of course was stronger than natural and which is meant in the indicated places of the psalms, the Apocalypse and Job. Whatever the “voice of the Almighty” may mean, at any rate this epithet indicates a louder noise than the first comparison; In addition, the second comparison complements the first, defining the noise heard by the prophet on its other side - by degree and strength, while the first comparison defines it by quality. Not without purpose, God is called here by the rare name Shaddai (Russian translation of “Almighty”, slav. “Saddai”).
God is called by this name on especially important and solemn occasions: Gen. 17.1; Numbers 24.4; in the book of Job this name appears 30 times. This is some kind of mysterious name of God, perhaps expressing the elemental, world power of the Divine; see on Gen. 17.1. As a noun, Shaddai occurs only in poetry; in prose it has El in front of it, and on the basis of Ezek.10.5 some. Greek codes and glory. the translation is read and here in front of it is “God”.
The prophet compares the noise produced by the wings of the cherubim as they walk with the noise of a military camp, which is produced by huge armies preparing for battle on both sides. Wed. Gen 32.3; therefore the Targum: “like the voice of the angels on high.” Naturally, the procession of the heavenly army is accompanied by the noise of a military campaign. And this loud military noise, reminiscent of the noise of an entire camp, comes from only 4 creatures! – The noise of the cherubim’s wings should have stopped when they stood: then they did not flap their wings, lowering them. Instead of “lowering” the glory. has “pochivakha” (making “wings” the subject of it, and not “animals”, as in Russian translation), which is correct, because according to Art. 12 and 23, the two pairs of wings of the cherubim were constantly outstretched. – At 7 euros. manuscripts (6 in Kennicott and 1 in Rossi) and in some Pescito lists there is no 24th century at all. The Vatican Codex only reads from this verse: “And I heard the voice of their wings as they walked, like the voice of many waters; and as they stood, their wings rested”; thus, from a number of comparisons of Vat. code.
brings only one; everything unnecessary against this stands in the Marshallian Codex under an asterisk with the mark θε (from Theodotion). In view of the fact that the reading of Vat. codex stands alone (confirmed only by the Marsh. codex, and in other cases agreeing with it), one can suspect this code, which generally tends to bypass difficult passages by skipping them, in correcting the verse according to Ezek. 43.2, where only one comparison is given - with the sound of waters.
Ezek.1:25. And a voice came from the vault that was over their heads; when they stopped, then they lowered their wings.
What kind of “voice from the vault” it was, various assumptions are made. The first thing that comes to mind is the assumption that this voice belonged to the One above the firmament, who indicated where the animals should stop. The second half of the verse could then mean that “at the call from above, the chariot finally stopped before Ezekiel and now the prophet could give a description of the throne and Him who sat on it. But such an understanding is hindered by 1) what Jehovah first says in Ezekiel 2.1; 2) the chariot was already standing when the voice sounded; 3) the fact that the animals, obedient to the voice from the firmament, finally stopped, could not be said like this: “as they stood, their wings drooped.” Other assumptions about this voice are also untenable. He “could not be an echo coming from below, neither by the nature of things, nor because Ezekiel, by his location, could not hear him. He could not come from the throne that was at rest. It could not come from Jehovah himself, be the noise of His feet, because Jehovah does not step, but sits.
If it were thunder, then it could be defined more precisely, called by its proper name” (Hitzig). This list needs to be supplemented with Kretschmar’s witty guess that by the voice from the firmament one must “understand the noise caused by the conceivable circle of Jehovah, the army of the Lord; for he who sits on the throne is Jehovah, who follows. appears like a king, must be like one, surrounded by a countless crowd of servants, without whom an Eastern person cannot imagine a king; “a loud noise, like the noise of a military camp” must be transferred from Art. 24. in 25, where it will denote the awe-filled whispering that ran through the multitude of heavenly armies when the Divine chariot stopped and Jehovah had to begin to speak; Ezekiel does not dwell in more detail on the description of the Divine court, but hurries past those around him to the main Person. It would be too resourceful a thought for the prophet to assume in the reader, who must, from the existence of noise around the Lord, draw a conclusion about the army surrounding Him.
The mystery of the voice that the verse speaks of, and the complete impossibility of establishing any connection between the two halves of the verse, as well as the literal similarity of 25b to 24c. led even older interpreters to the idea of damage to the text here. This idea is also supported by the history of the text: 9 Hebrew manuscripts and some Pescito errors omit the entire verse; The Chisian Codex marks it with an asterisk; the second half of the verse is not in Hebrew 13. hands., in the codes of Alex. Vatik., translations in Coptic and Ethiopian, thanks to which the verse there takes on the following form: “and there was a voice from the firmament.” This reading is smooth, but this smoothness is also suspicious: how could it turn into the roughness that is represented by the modern Hebrew and the Greek codes that agree with it?
Actually, only the second half of the verse cannot be explained, representing such a jarring repetition of the recent 24th century. But such a repetition of final expressions in the spirit of Ezekiel and Chapter I represents more than one example of this author’s technique (“they did not turn around as they walked,” “for the spirit of life was in the wheels”). Such repetition replaces the prophet’s current emphasis on expressions. So the repeated expression cannot stand in very close connection with neighboring sentences (vv. 9, 12); it has its goal not in another sentence, but in itself: the prophet uses a distant occasion to recall the thought expressed earlier. One need not read these final repetitions and the thread of description will not be broken; this is what should be done here; needed in the 1st half of the art. see the continuation of the description, and in the second - a break in it, caused by the desire to return to the previously expressed thought; “there was a voice from the vault - it could be heard, for when the animals stopped, their wings made no noise.” – If so, then the first half of the verse can be explained completely independently of the second.
It is remarkable that there is no immediate definition for the “voice from the vault.” No less remarkable is the fact that the verbum finitum was used for the first time about this voice: and there was a voice. These two circumstances give the voice from the vault an exclusive and very high and honorable place: “above the firmament” - a truly Divine place. At the same time, this voice, through its lack of any definition, is given a certain mystery and incomprehensibility. Already for the noise from the wings of the cherubim, the prophet could hardly find a similarity between earthly noises. For a voice from the firmament, he doesn't even try to make any comparison. All this proves the Divine nature of this “noise”. And in fact, why couldn’t God, by his appearance, produce, in addition to everything else, a special Divine noise? Such a noise (“voice” - “stake”) was accompanied by His first appearance, described in the Bible (in paradise); the stunning noise from His appearance (“voices” - “beat”) is also spoken of in the description of the Sinai Epiphany. God first of all and most closely reveals Himself in the world through a “stake,” a voice, His Word.
And the cherubim “could not bear the voice of God Almighty, heard in the sky, but stood and marveled, and with their silence pointed to the power of God, who sat in the firmament” (Blessed Jerome).
Ezek.1:26. And above the vault, which was over their heads, there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance as if made of sapphire stone; and above the likeness of the throne was the likeness of a man above it.
“The likeness of a throne in appearance is as if made of sapphire stone.” Lit.: “Like the likeness of a sapphire stone, like a throne.” Thus, the original text leaves it unknown whether the throne was sapphire or whether the sapphire was something separate from the throne. LXX are inclined to the last thought: “like a vision of a sapphire stone, the likeness of a throne on it”; “on it”, excessively venerable against Heb. t., definitely says that the throne was on sapphire and that the trace. It was not the throne that was sapphire, but something underneath it - the foot of the throne or something else is unknown. But whether the throne was sapphire or something else, the appearance of this stone here is significant. This is a stone that bears the name of the brilliance itself (“safar” - “to shine”), considered one of the most beautiful stones (Is 54.11; Rev 21.19), not inferior in price to gold (Job 28.6, 16), a stone of blue color in any case (if it is not the same as our safir) according to Pliny (Hist. nat. 87, 9) it is blue sometimes with red and glitters with golden dots (hardly our Lapis - Lazuli). Sapphire adds impenetrability to the light blue of the sky, which is why it is brought here for comparison.
“Just as a crystal points to everything that is completely pure and luminous in the sky, so a sapphire points to the hidden, hidden and unattainable secrets of God, “who laid down darkness for His blood” (Blessed Jerome) “This similarity points to a mysterious and invisible nature” (Blessed Theodoret). – The prophet sees a throne, about which there could be no doubt whose it is. Rising to an unattainable height (cf. Isaiah 6.1), shrouded in flames and flooded with a light unbearable to the eye, the heavenly throne, of course, barely allowed itself to be seen, and the prophet now had to mentally complete what he saw. Hence the “similarity” with such a definite object as a throne, hence the silence about the light and material of the throne (if we do not consider it sapphire). – The throne presupposes a king. So God appears to the prophet Ezekiel, first of all, as a king. God was not the first to appear to the prophet Ezekiel in the form of a king; but the appearances of God in this form began shortly before Ezekiel.
The representation of God on the throne arose during the time of the kings: Moses is honored with the appearance of God in the form of a burning fire in a bush, Elijah in the desert wind, Samuel hears the calling voice of God. The appearance of God in the form of a king is first introduced by Micah: 1 Kings 22.8, 17–22, followed by the vision of Isaiah. The development of such an idea could not but be influenced by the emergence and strengthening of royal power: there could not be a better image on earth for God, like a sovereign king in all the splendor of his greatness. The splendor of Nebuchadnezzar's court could indirectly influence the revival of the idea of God as King, and in the prophet Daniel we find an even more complex representation of the Heavenly King and His holy Court than in Ezekiel (Dan 7:9–10, 13–14).
“And above the likeness (repetition of the concept to strengthen the thought) of the throne there was, as it were, the likeness of a man,” lit.: “likeness, as it were, the appearance of a man.” This image could barely emerge in the sea of light with which it was flooded. If the throne was vaguely visible (“likeness”), then the concept of visibility was almost not applicable to the One sitting on it. Hence this accumulation of restrictive words: “similarity”, “as if”, “kind”. In this regard, the prophet Ezekiel, however, did not receive less than what was given to other God-seers. “The elders of Israel and Moses were shown only the place where God stood; Isaiah saw the seraphim surrounding the throne of God; Ezekiel sees the bearers themselves, and the bearers of the immediate throne of God” (Kretschmar). Actually, “God is nowhere to be seen” (John 1.18). If Moses, Isaiah and Daniel say that they saw the Lord (for example, sitting on the throne), then this brief expression of theirs should probably be understood in the light of the exact and detailed description of Ezekiel: they did not see the face of God who appeared (which could not be shown to Moses: Ex 33.23), seeing d.b.
only the vague outlines of the image of God.
Ezek.1:27. And I saw, as it were, burning metal, as it were, the appearance of fire inside it all around; from the sight of his loins and above, and from the sight of his loins and below, I saw a kind of fire, and a radiance was around him.
In the setting of the King who appeared to the prophet, the precious stones that usually adorn kings and their crowns took an obviously secondary position: they were relegated to such parts of this setting as the wheels of the throne and its foot. They did not decorate the one who sat on the throne. All their beauty and brilliance could not add anything to the light with which the Seated One shone and with which the radiance of the hashmal unknown to us could only be compared (from this it is only clear what kind of jewel the hashmal was and how mistaken the interpreters are when they assume that it is, for example, amber or some kind of copper). “It is noticeable that the prophet is very modest in this last part of his picture: he barely outlines the outline of the divine phenomenon; the radiance it cast seemed to blind him and hide details from him” (Reis). "And I saw". For the first time after 4 tbsp. and twice in this verse: the extraordinary importance of the moment “Like burning metal.” Lit. “like a kind of hashmal”; thus, “khashmal” in Russian. conveyed here in disagreement with Art. 5; where it is translated (as presumably as here): “light of flame”, glory. in 5 tbsp.
and here it is the same: “like the vision of an electr.” Like the hashmal (see v. 5) He who sat on the throne shone; but the prophet replaces the direct description of his image (for example, “and his appearance was like the appearance of hashmal”) with this cautious expression. On the throne was a barely visible human form; in fact, what could be seen on it was only the light of hashmal. “However, it wasn’t just this radiance that came from the throne. The light of hashmal was joined by fiery light. The relationship in which the second stood, simply a fiery light, to the first is expressed by the following unclear phrase: “as if the appearance of fire inside (“bet” is a word not commonly used anywhere, unless it is considered equivalent to “byt” “house”) of it (actually “her,” i.e., either a human image on a throne or a hashmal; both according to the Hebrew language) around.” The phrase can either have the following meaning: it (the human figure? Khashmal?) seemed all fiery, or inside: the Khashmal had a circular fire visible. – The further words of the verse more accurately describe the radiance of Him who sat on the throne.
In the described way, like hashmal and fire, the One who sat shone “from the sight of his loins and above”; and “from the sight of his loins and below,” the prophet “saw as if ... fire,” alone without hashmal. This whole description is much clearer in Ezekiel 8.2, where the same Image shines below the loins only like fire and above like hashmal and dawn (hence, in the Russian translation, the semicolon should be translated to “him”). The Prophet expresses himself extremely carefully. The luminous body of God splits into two parts; If God is generally represented in human form, then what people call loins (“the appearance of loins”) would be the boundary between the two parts, which shone unequally. Since the image was in a sitting position, the vertical part of it from the waist upward shone like hashmal and fire, and the lower part only like fire. The lower part of the image, located closer to the ground, and primarily open to human eyes, shines with a more moderate light, like fire (but not like simple fire, but “as if it were a kind,” something like fire), perhaps because it is shrouded in clothes falling in wide folds all around (cf.
Isa 6.1); the upper one, probably imagined to be naked, at least partially - on the neck, chest, shines with the most dazzling brilliance that we can imagine (this was that bright radiance that the prophet noticed even when the cloud had just surfaced on the horizon - v. 5); but the upper part, next to the radiance of the hashmal, had the radiance of fire: perhaps He who sat on the throne, shining Himself with a light similar to the radiance of the hashmal, was dressed with fire, like a robe. - “And the radiance is all around Him,” that is, He sat on the throne. The personal pronoun returns the speech to the main subject of the verse, which is also indicated without any explanation by the pronoun “His loins.” Around the entire light image of God there is a bright sphere of light, with which the appearance is more closely described in Art. 28, like rainbow.
Ezekiel 1:28. In what form does a rainbow appear on the clouds during rain, this is the appearance of this radiance all around.
“A rainbow (and exactly like the real one) in the form it appears on the clouds during rain. The inaccessible is separated from the sphere surrounding it. While He Himself shines with an extraordinary light, the circle circled around Him flickers, as it should, with a more softened, gentle light” (Hitzig). The bright light from the throne of God is refracted into the colored radiance of the rainbow, which moderates it. Representing a variety of colors, both the most beautiful, and gradually transforming into others, constituting, as it were, the greatness of God reflected in the sky, the rainbow also appears in other cases in theophany: Rev. 4.3; Rev. 10.1 - mainly for the meaning it acquired after the flood. “This kind” is famous: “this is the standing”, probably the scribe took δρασις for στασις; so only, except for glory. transfer to Venice. code. and the blessed one Theodorit.
The sign and meaning of Ezekiel’s vision on Chebar still remain and will probably remain for a long time as much of a mystery as this prophet’s closely related and even more mysterious vision of a new church (XL-XLIV ch.) and apocalyptic visions. Nevertheless, exegesis presents many attempts to unravel the mystery of the Khovar vision, the most important of which are the following: 1) St. Fathers, although they do not pass by in complete silence the mysterious vision of Chapter 1. Ezekiel, they say little about him, dwelling more on individual dark words and expressions of the prophet than on revealing the thoughts of the entire vision. Nevertheless, we also find in them an attempt, albeit a half-hearted one, to indicate an idea to a vision. In 4 mysterious animal visions, some of them saw the image of 4 evangelists, and considered the whole phenomenon a foretelling of the widespread spread of the kingdom of Christ on earth.
The reasons for this understanding were the following: the evangelists also as animals in vision 4; they have the same number of faces, since each is destined to go into the whole world; they look at each other, since each agrees with the others; they have 4 wings, since they disperse to different countries and at the same speed as if they were flying; in the sound of the wings they saw the gospel that went out to the whole earth; in the 4 different faces of animals they saw an indication of the character and content of each of the Gospels. Besides the blessing. Jerome (who accepts this explanation of Chapter I of Ezekiel in the preface to the interpretation of Matthew, and in the interpretation of Ezekiel is afraid to follow it entirely) and Gregory Dvoeslov, in whom we find a detailed development of this explanation; it was already known to St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against heresies III, 16, 8). From the second it became quite widespread in the Western Church, where it was dominant during the Middle Ages. As for the Eastern Church, its fathers, who were engaged in the explanation of Chapter I. Prophet Ezekiel (St.
Ephraim the Syrian and Macarius the Great, blessed. Theodoret), we do not find any indication of this explanation. The fact that it was not unknown in the Eastern Church can serve as some evidence other than St. Irenaeus, iconographic monuments, sometimes depicting the evangelists in the form of 4 “animals” of Ezekiel and the Apocalypse. Our church charter, assigning Proverbs from Ezek. I-II ch. during Holy Week during the hours when the Four Gospels are read, also has this explanation of ch. I in mind. Ezekiel. – This explanation deserves attention due to its antiquity. It is based on the true idea that the vision of the prophet Ezekiel could not help but point, although in part, to Christian times, from which it was separated by only a few centuries. God, who lived among the Jewish people in the church on the cherubim, from now on seemed to change His residence on earth, not wanting to limit it to one people and one country. He had to reveal himself to the pagans, which happened through the preaching of the Gospel.
All this could be expressed by the removal of the Glory of God on the cherubim from the Jerusalem Temple, described in Chapters X and XI. Ezek., to what description of ch. I. serves as a preparation. But, on the other hand, in the form of mysterious animals the prophet contemplated, as he himself says in Ezekiel 10.20, nothing more than cherubim. Church art had the right to choose these images to represent the evangelists, but this choice does not oblige us to follow such a distant allegorical explanation.
Now they prefer to explain Ezekiel’s vision from immediate historical circumstances and find in it indications primarily of the era of the prophet and the content of his predictions and books. Since this appearance of God to Ezekiel was for him a calling to prophetic preaching, the general content of the sermon also determined the form of the appearance. Ezekiel's sermon revolved around two main subjects: the destruction of the old church (VIII-XI chapters) and the creation of a new one in the renewed Jerusalem (XI-XLIII). From here God appears to Ezekiel in a church-like setting - on cherubim. But since God has to carry out judgment on his people, the consequence of which will be the destruction of the church and captivity, he appears at the same time as a formidable judge. Since this judgment will not end in the complete destruction of the chosen people, but in its restoration, God, in His appearance, surrounds Himself with symbols of mercy. From these three principles all the details of Ezekiel's vision are explained.
It opened with signs of a formidable, destructive nature - a stormy wind, a large cloud (cloud), fire, which indicated the impending invasion of Judea by the Chaldeans (hence the appearance of a vision from the north). The gentle radiance of the ilectra and the rainbow could serve as a sign of God’s propitiation, the cessation of anger. Appearing as a formidable but merciful judge, God appears to the prophet, at the same time as the God of the covenant, although avenging the violation of this covenant, but having no time to restore it. For this purpose, God appears seated on the cherubim, between which He had His sojourn in the church above the Ark of the Covenant. Between the cherubs there were burning coals, which suggest an altar underneath - this main accessory of the church. Even such a minor item as the laver has not been forgotten from the church furnishings: in the Temple of Solomon it was movable and equipped with wheels; therefore, those wheels that were in the charge of Ezekiel near the cherubim point to him.
Thus, God appears to Ezekiel, like Isaiah, in the church, but this church is made movable as a sign that Jehovah has to temporarily withdraw from the Jerusalem temple. This explanation of Ezekiel's vision, with slight variations, is repeated by most interpreters old and new. Although the main points established by this explanation are correct, it does not start from one beginning; all thoughts extracted by this explanation from the vision, even if they are given by the vision, are not the thoughts of the whole vision, but of its individual parts, and must be united in some higher, fundamental thought. Moreover, although these thoughts are lofty and important, they are not new in prophetic literature; Meanwhile, the Khobar vision in the book of Ezekiel gives such an impression that it wants to say something new, to give a new revelation.
From this side, more attractive are those attempts to explain Ezekiel’s vision that try to find one thought in the entire vision. So Kimhi (rabbi of the 13th century) and Maldonat (Jesuit † 1583) think that 4 animals in the prophet Ezekiel, like in Daniel, designate 4 great successive kingdoms; but this explanation obviously reduces the cherubs to the level of mere symbols. Schroeder's explanation has the same drawback, according to which animal visions represent the life of the world in all the integrity of its powers, and God appears in the present vision as the living God, in His glory, which is the life of the world (cf. Chapters XXXVII and XLVII and 1 John 1.2). – An interesting interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision given by the Jesuit Hebrans in the Revue biblique 1894 October, which can be called astronomical. The main components of the vision according to it symbolize the movement of the firmament and various phenomena on it.
The very vault of heaven is represented in the vision under the image of a huge wheel, “galgal” (Ezek. 10.13), which, as the places where this word is used show, is not a wheel in the usual sense of the word, but means something having the spherical shape of a globe (Hebrans, based on Eze. 1.15 in Hebrew, concludes that in the vision there was only one wheel). The stars in the vision are represented by living eyes, with which the tall and terrible rims of the wheels (according to Hebrans of one wheel) looked at the prophet. The animals of Ezekiel's vision are the signs of the zodiac, invented, as we know, by the Chaldeans. To complete the analogy, the fire that walked between the animals corresponded to the sun and its apparent movement in the firmament according to the signs of the zodiac. The purpose of Ezekiel's vision was to show Israel that its God is the true ruler of the sky, stars and luminaries that the Chaldeans idolized (God in the vision sits above the firmament and animals). But not to mention the fact that four wheels are indicated in the vision (Ezek.1.16), and not one, as Hebrans needs, “galgal” (the name of the wheels in the vision according to Ezek.10.13) means a kind of whirlwind (see vol.
X:13), and not a ball at all; The wheels could not personify the vault of heaven because this vault appears later in the vision as a special independent part of it (v. 22). If the wheels in the vision did not mean the firmament, then the eyes on them are not stars. Further, the signs of the zodiac with the animals of Ezekiel’s vision have only this in common, that the first, and not all of them, and the second are animals, figures of animals; signs of the zodiac, carved on one Babylonian table of the 12th century. BC, bear little resemblance to the animals of Ezekiel’s vision: so on this board there is one image of a two-headed animal - “and the animals of Ezekiel, says Hebrans, had 4 heads; another animal has outstretched legs - and the legs of the animals of vision are “straight” (1). Finally, if the Babylonians idolized animals that represented the constellations (they even called them “lords of the gods”), then it turned out that the God of Israel surrounded Himself in His present appearance with images of pagan gods; Is such a view acceptable? But there may be some truth in this explanation: under the movement of the cherubim, which is described in such detail in the vision (v.
9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19–21, 24–25), one cannot help but understand some of the activities of these highest beings; this activity, by the very position of the cherubim at the throne of God, cannot but be world-wide (cosmic), cannot but affect the world at its very foundations, and influence the course of the entire life of the world.
The following can be said with certainty about the thoughts of Ezekiel's vision. The appearances of God, which included the Khobar vision of the prophet Ezekiel, generally occurred at the most important moments in the history of the covenant concluded by God with the Jewish people. They marked its beginning (the epiphany to Abraham, esp. Gen. 15.1, Jacob’s vision of the ladder); then the epiphanies are repeated at the renewal of God’s covenant with the people of Abraham, when the small family of this patriarch became a large people (the appearance in the bush, Sinai), and then whenever the covenant is in danger. Moreover, the magnitude of the danger and, in general, the importance of this or that moment in the history of the covenant determines the greater or lesser majesty of the theophany; So one of the most majestic epiphanies after Sinai was during the time of the prophet Elijah - this prophet - when one could think that only one person remained faithful to the covenant with God in all of Israel.
Since the appearance of God to Ezekiel on Chebar was distinguished among the epiphanies by its majesty, it means that the time of this theophany - the era of Ezekiel - was a particularly important moment in the history of the covenant, perhaps no less important than the era of Moses, a critical moment. At the Sinai covenant, God promised to give part of humanity what He had once deprived all of humanity for violating His commandments, that the gift of the Promised Land to the Jews had such a deep meaning, one can be convinced of this by comparing everything that was connected with such a gift: not only was Palestine by nature seething with honey and milk, God promised to use special acts of providence to influence its abundance and fertility before the Sabbath year, etc. A word for man a new paradise was planted, although no longer in Eden: Lev. 26.4ff, Gen 13.10; Hos. 2.18 and Ezek.36.35; Isa 51.3; Joel 2.3. God wanted to return to Israel almost everything that he had taken from Adam, to make a change in the very conditions of human life created by sin, even in purely natural ones.
Centuries of experience have shown that Israel, like Adam, cannot fulfill its obligations under the covenant with God. The time has come for God, if not to cancel, then at least to limit His great promises to His people, to expel man from paradise a second time. During Ezekiel's time, this turnaround was taking place: God was taking away the Promised Land from His former people. She had to be turned by the invasion of the Chaldeans into the desert (Ezek.VI). And she was never able to fully recover from this invasion; at least, after captivity, she does not surprise everyone, as before, with her fertility and abundance. Ezekiel mourned the end of the land of Israel (ch. VII). God deprived His former people of His immediate proximity: since the time of captivity, Israel has had few prophets; it also does not have the former church with the Ark of the Covenant and the Glory of the Lord above it. Such an important change took place during Ezekiel's time with the Sinai covenant. It is clear why God now appears as majestically as at Sinai, and in a setting reminiscent of the Sinai epiphany.
– Among other epiphanies, Khovarskoye is distinguished by the presence of cherubs, who occupy a very prominent place in it - they are the main figures of the entire phenomenon. Although cherubim appear here not for the first or only time in the economy of human salvation, their appearance in the history of this economy is extremely rare. It is not difficult to list all the cases of this appearance known from the Bible: the first took place at the time of the fall of mankind, when the cherubim (Gen. 3.24: in Hebrew and Greek plural) were entrusted with the protection of paradise taken from people; then, after the conclusion of the Sinai covenant, the cherubim overshadow the Ark of this covenant and are present in the tabernacle, which should be concluded on the basis of their images above both; finally, after appearing in the visions of the prophet Ezekiel, they appear again only in the visions of John the Theologian, which, as we know, have as their subject the last struggle of the church with the forces of the world and its final victory, that is, the end of time.
What all these cases have in common is that they take place at especially important moments of God’s providential influence on the earth, at moments of such or similar importance as the end of the world or the profound upheaval that humanity was about to experience during the Fall. What the prophet Ezekiel contemplated on Chebar thus stood in some relation to the initial history of fallen humanity and to the end of this history and our world. This is also proven by the undoubted connection of this vision with the last vision of the prophet Ezekiel in ch. XLVI-XLVII. And this vision refers to those times when Israel, restored to its former rights, renewed and holy, will live in the Promised Land, completely different from the old land, with a new church. Since the salvation of Israel will take place in the last times, when the fulfillment of tongues comes, then in the last chapters of his book the prophet Ezekiel obviously describes that new earth and that new Jerusalem, which the Apocalypse speaks of.
And now the Glory of God enters the new church that this land will have in the same form in which it appeared on Chebar and in which it came out of the old church destroyed by the Chaldeans. So the appearance of God, described in Chapter I. book Ezekiel, so exceptional that it will have an analogy only in that mysterious time when “there will be no time” (Rev 10.6). At the same time, this theophany had a great analogy with what was accomplished through Moses at Sinai. But this analogy is an analogy of the opposite: the Glory of God, which had been dormant since the time of the Sinai legislation in Israel, in the time of Ezekiel passed “from the threshold of the House to the cherubim” (Ezek.10.18) to be removed from the criminal people. Israel could console itself with the hope that she would return to him in the described chapters XL-XLVIII. Eez.time. For such a turn in the direction of providential activity, which took place during the time of Ezekiel, God needed to “raise up His power,” “shake the heavens and the earth,” and for this to appear on cherubim, which “shakes the world when they walk” (Targum on Ezekiel I, 7). 4
Peshito in Ezekiel 1.4 omits this word, but in v. 27 and Eze. 8.2 puts instead (quid pro quo) “divine form,” obviously considering this word to be a full of mystery designation of God or an angel; the rabbis derived it from the roots “speed” and “peace” (or “speech” and “silence”) and considered it the name of the angel, the teacher of Ezekiel; others of them thought that it was an Angel taking the form of fire or the Spirit of God in the form of fire. Maldonat and Gerard (Roman Catholic interpreters of the 17th century) draw attention to the fact that if you read this word in reverse order of letters. then you get the word “Messiah” with the preposition “le” - “for” in front.
Images of vision I chapter. Ezekiel has remarkable parallels in Eastern mythology. Until recently, the closest mythological creature to the cherub was considered to be the vulture; bearing a consonant name (γρυφ) - “cherub”), it resembles a cherub in both its appearance and functions: vultures are winged creatures with lion claws, eagle beaks and flaming eyes that guard gold in the far north among the Arimaspians (Herod. III, 16; IV, 13, 27) in the land of the gods. But the most striking parallel to the cherubs of Ezekiel is represented by the figures of winged bulls (Sticrcolossen) and lions found during excavations of Assyro-Chaldean cities. These are bulls and lions with human bearded heads in bandages, and some of them with 4 wings (cf. Jer. 1.6), of which 2 are stretched up and 2 are down (Ezek. 1: 9, 11, 24). Most of them were found in Kuyunjik and Khorsabad, in the ruins of ancient Nineveh; the colossi of Korsabad are bulls, and Nimrud are lions; sometimes lions alternate with bulls (in Persepolis). Some copies were brought to the Louvre and British museums.
These figures were placed at the entrances of churches and palaces, serving as their caryatids: in this way, the vaults of palaces and churches rested on them (cf. Ezek. 1.22). The symbolic purpose of these idols was, as some wedge-shaped inscriptions show, to guard the entrances of palaces and churches.
But the drawing on one cylinder found by Tornkins gives reason to think that the creatures depicted by these colossi were considered not only guardians, but also carriers of the deity; Lenormand describes this drawing as follows: “on the waves, depicted, as usual, with trembling lines, a wonderful living ship floats, which ends at the stern and bow with a human bust protruding and half the body; on this vessel two kiroubi or winged bulls are visible, standing with their backs to each other, in profile, turning their human faces towards the viewer; these 2 cherubs necessarily presuppose the existence of two others, which are not visible, but which are needed to carry the other side of the vault, which they support with their shoulders; on this vault is the throne or seat of a bearded god in a long dress with a straight pair or turban on his head, with a short scepter and a wide, unadorned ring in his hand” (Les orig. d. hist 1, 120).
The coincidence of mythological ideas about cherubs with biblical ones (especially Ezekiel’s) is explained by the following: the first came from the same first revelation, but significantly changed by human imagination. More about Chapter I Ezekiel, see M. Skabalanovich. The first chapter of the book of the prophet Ezekiel, Mariupol, 1904.
You might be interested in: