The Typology of Scripture

The Typology of Scripture

By Patrick Fairbairn
Published by Smith & English, 1854

VOLUME II.

p. 221-247

CHAPTER THIRD.

THE CHERUBIM (AND THE FLAMING SWORD).

The truths symbolized by man's new relation to the tree of life have still to be viewed in connection with the means appointed by God to fence the way of approach to it, and the creaturely forms that were now planted on its borders. "And the Lord God," it is said, "placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim, and a flaming sword, which turned every way. to keep the way of the tree of life." We can easily imagine that the sword, with its flaming brightness and revolving movements, might be suspended there simply as the emblem of God's avenging justice, and as the instrument of man's exclusion from the region of life. In that one service the end of its appointment might be fulfilled, and its symbolical meaning exhausted. Such, indeed, appears to have been the case. But the cherubim, which also had a place assigned them toward the east of the garden, must have had some farther use, as the sword alone would have been sufficient to prevent access to the forbidden region. The cherubim must have been added for the purpose of rendering more complete the instruction intended to be conveyed to man by means of the symbolical apparatus here presented to his contemplation. And as these cherubic figures hold an important place also in subsequent revelations, we shall here enter into a somewhat minute and careful investigation of the subject. The view we mean to exhibit cannot be said to differ radically from that presented in our former edition; but it will certainly differ considerably in the mode of investigation pursued, and in some also of the results obtained. We leant formerly too much upon the representations of Bahr, which we now perceive to be in themselves, as well as in the purpose to which they are applied, of a more fanciful and objectionable nature than they at first appeared.

There is nothing to be expected here from etymological researches. Many derivations and meanings have been ascribed to the term cherub; but nothing certain has been established regarding it; and it may now be confidently assigned to that class of words, whose original import is involved in hopeless obscurity. [1] In the passage of Genesis above cited, where the word first occurs, not only is no clue given in regard to the meaning of the name, but there is not even any description presented of the objects it denoted they are spoken of as definite forms or existences, of which the name alone afforded sufficient indication. This will appear more clearly if we adhere to the exact rendering: "And he placed (or, made to dwell) at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim"--not certain unknown figures or imaginary existences, but the specific forms of being, familiarly designated by that name.

In other parts of Scripture, however, the defect is in great measure supplied; and by comparing the different statements there contained with each other, and putting the whole together, we may at least approximate, if not absolutely arrive at, a full and satisfactory knowledge of the symbol.

But in ascertaining the sense of Scripture on the subject, there are two considerations which ought to be borne in mind, as a necessary check on extreme or fanciful deductions. The first is, that in this, as well as in other religious symbols (those, for example, connected with food and sacrifice), there may have been, and most probably was, a progression in the use made of it from time to time. In that case, the representations employed at one period must have been so constructed as to convey a fuller meaning than those employed at another. Whatever aspects of divine truth, therefore, may be discovered in the later passages which treat of the cherubim, should not, as a matter of course, be ascribed in all their entireness to the earlier. Respect must always be had to the relative differences of place and time. Another consideration is, that whatever room there may be for diversity in the way now specified, we must not allow any representation that may be given in one place--a specific representation--to impose a generic meaning on the symbol, which is not borne out, but possibly contradicted by representations in others. Progressive differences can only affect what is circumstantial, not what is essential to the subject; and all that is properly fundamental in the cherubic imagery, must be found in accordance, not with a partial, but with the complete testimony of Scripture respecting it.

With these guiding principles in our eye, we proceed to exhibit what may be collected from the different notices of Scripture on the subject--ranging our remarks under the following natural divisions: the descriptions given of the cherubim as to form and appearance, the designations applied to them, the positions assigned them, and the lands of agency with which they are associated.

1. In regard to the first of these points--the descriptions given of the cherubim as to form and appearance--there is nothing very definite in the earlier Scriptures, nor are the accounts in the later perfectly uniform. Even in the detailed narrative of Exodus respecting the furniture of the tabernacle, it is still taken for granted, that the forms of the cherubim were familiarly known; and we are told nothing concerning their structure, besides its being incidentally stated, that they had faces and wings (Ex. xxv. xxxvii.) It would seem, however, that while certain elements were always understood to enter into the composition of the cherub, the form, given to it was not absolutely fixed, but admitted of certain variations. The cherubim seen by Ezekiel beneath the throne of God, are represented as having each four faces and four wings (ch. i. 6), while in the description subsequently given by him of the cherubic representations on the walls of his visionary temple (ch. xli. 18, 19), mention is made of only two faces appearing in each. In Revelation, again, (ch. iv. 7, 8) while four composite forms, as in Ezekiel, are adhered to throughout, the creatures are represented as not having each four faces, but having each their several face different; and the number of wings belonging to each is also different--not four but six. [2] In the Apocalyptic vision the creatures themselves appear full of eyes, before and behind, as they do also in Ezek. x. 12, where "their whole flesh, and their backs, and their hands, and their wings," are said to have been full of eyes; but in Ezekiel's first vision, the eyes were confined only to the wheels connected with the cherubim (ch. i. 18.) It is impossible, therefore, without doing violence to the accounts given in the several delineations, to avoid the conviction, that a certain latitude was allowed in regard to the particular forms; and that, as exhibited in vision at least, they were not altogether uniform in appearance. They were uniform, however, in two leading respects, which may hence be regarded as the more important elements in the cherubic form. They had, first, the predominating appearance of a man--a man's body and gesture--as is evident, first, from their erect posture; then from Ezek. i. 5, "they had the appearance of a man;" and also, from the peculiar expression in Rev. iv. 7, where it is said of the third, "that it had a face as a man;"--which is best understood to mean, that while the other creatures were unlike man in the face, though like in the body, this was like in the face too. The same inference is still further deducible from the part taken by the cherubim in the Apocalypse, along with the elders and the redeemed generally, in celebrating the praise of God. The other point of agreement is, that in all the descriptions actually given, the cherubim have a composite appearance--with the form of a man, indeed, predominating, but with other animal forms combined--those, namely, of the lion, the ox, and the eagle.

Now, there can be no doubt that these three creatures, along with man, make up together, according to the estimation of a remote antiquity, the most perfect forms of animal existence. They belong to those departments of the visible creation which constitute the first in rank and importance of its three kingdoms--the kingdom of organic life. And in that kingdom they belong to the highest class--to that which possesses warm blood and physical life in its fullest developement. Nay, in that highest class they are again the highest; for the ox in ancient times was placed above the horse, on account of the useful purposes in husbandry which he was made to serve. And hence the old Jewish proverb, "Four are the highest in the world--the lion among wild beasts, the ox among tame cattle, the eagle among birds, man among all (creatures); but God is supreme over all," The meaning is, that in these four kinds are exhibited the highest forms of creature-life on earth, but that God is still infinitely exalted above these, since all creature-life springs out of his fulness, and is dependent on his hand. So that a creature compounded of all these--bearing in its general shape and structure the lineaments of a man, but associating with the human the appearance and properties also of the three next highest orders of animal existence--might seem a kind of concrete manifestation of created life on earth--a sort of personified creaturehood.

But the thought naturally occurs, why thus strangely amalgamated and combined? If the object had been simply to afford a representation of creaturely existence in general by means of its higher forms, we would naturally have expected them to stand apart as they actually appear in nature. But instead of this they are thrown into one representation; and so, indeed, that however the representation may vary, still the inferior forms of animal life constantly appear as grafted upon, and clustering around, the organism of man, There is thus a striking unity in the diversity--a human ground and body, so to speak--in the grouped figures of the representation, which could not fail to attract the notice of a contemplative mind, and must have been designed to form an essential element in the symbolical instruction. It is an ideal combination; no such composite creature as the cherub exists in the actual world and we can think of no reason why the singular combination it presents of animal forms, should have been set upon that of man as the trunk and centre of the whole, unless it were to exhibit the higher elements of humanity in some kind of organic connection with certain distinctive properties of the inferior creation. The nature of man is immensely the highest upon earth, and towers loftily above all the rest by powers peculiar to itself. And yet we can easily conceive how this very nature of man might be greatly raised and ennobled by having superadded to its own inherent qualities, those of which the other animal forms now before us stand as the appropriate types.

Thus, the lion among ancient nations generally, and in particular among the Hebrews, was the representative of king-like majesty and peerless strength. All the beasts of the field stand in awe of him, none being able to cope with him in might; and his roar strikes terror wherever it is heard. Hence the lion is naturally regarded as the king of the forest, where might is the sole ground of authority and rule. And hence, also, lions were placed both at the right and left of Solomon's throne, as symbols of royal majesty and supreme power.--As the lion among quadrupeds, so the eagle is king among birds, and stands pre-eminent in the two properties that more peculiarly distinguish the winged creation--those of sight and flight. The term eagle-eyed has been quite proverbial in every age. The eagle perceives his prey from the loftiest elevation, where he himself appears scarcely discernible; and it has even been believed, that he can descry the smallest fish in the sea, and look with undazzled gaze upon the sun. His power of wing, however, is still more remarkable: no bird can fly either so high or so far. Moving with king-like freedom and velocity through the loftiest regions and the most extended space, we naturally think of him as the fittest image of something like angelic nimbleness of action. It is this more especially, or, we should rather say, this exclusively, which is symbolically associated with the eagle in Scripture. No reference is made there to the eagle's powers of vision, but very frequent allusion to his extraordinary power of flight (Deut. xxviii. 49; Job ix. 26; Prov. xxiii. 5; Hab. i. 8, &c.) And hence, too, in Rev. iv. 7, the epithet flying is attached to the eagle, to indicate that this is the quality to be made account of.--Finally, the ox was among the ancients the common image of patient labour and productive energy. It naturally came to bear this signification from its early use in the operations of husbandry--in ploughing and harrowing the ground, then bearing home the sheaves, and at last treading out the corn. On this account the bovine form was so frequently chosen, especially in agricultural countries like Egypt, as the most appropriate symbol of Deity, in its inexhaustible productiveness. And if associated with man, the idea would instinctively suggest itself of patient labour and productive energy in working.

Such, then, not by any conjectural hypothesis or strained interpretations, but by the simplest reading of the descriptions given in the Bible, appear to have been the generic form and idea of the cherubim. It is absolutely necessary, that we should apply the light furnished by those passages, in which they are described, to those also in which they are not, and that what are expressly named and described as the cherubim, when seen in prophetic vision, must be regarded as substantially agreeing with those which had a visible appearance, and a local habitation on earth--for, otherwise, the subject would be involved in inextricable confusion by Scripture itself. Assuming these points, we are warranted to think of the cherubim, wherever they are mentioned, as presenting in their composite structure, and having, as the very basis of that structure, the form of man--the only being on earth that is possessed of a rational and moral nature; yet combining, along with this, and organically uniting to it, the animal representatives of majesty and strength, winged velocity, patient and productive labour. Why united and combined thus, the mere descriptions of the cherubic appearances give no intimation; we must search for information concerning it in the other points that remain to be considered. So far, we have been simply putting together the different features of the descriptions, and viewing the cherubic figures in their individual characteristics and relative bearing. [3]

2. We named, as our second point of inquiry, the designations applied to the cherubim in Scripture. The term, cherubim itself being the more common and specific of these, would naturally call for consideration first--if any certain key could be found to its correct import. But this we have already assigned to the class of things over which a hopeless obscurity may be said to hang. There is another designation, however, originally applied to them by Ezekiel, and the sole designation given to them in the Apocalypse, from which some additional light may be derived. This expression is in the original ***, animantia, living ones, or living creatures. The Septuagint uses the quite synonymous term ***; and this, again, is the word uniformly employed by St John, when speaking of the cherubim. It has been unhappily rendered by our translators beasts in the Revelation; thus incongruously associating with the immediate presence and throne of God mere bestial existences, and identifying in name the most exalted creaturely forms of being in the heavenly places, with the grovelling symbolical head of the antichristian and ungodly elements of the world. This is what bears, in the Apocalypse the distinctive name of the least (***); and the name should never have been applied to the ideal existences, which derive their distinctive appellation from the fulness of life belonging to them---the living ones. The frequency with which this name is used of the cherubim is remarkable. In Ezekiel and the Apocalypse together it occurs nearly thirty times; and may consequently be regarded as peculiarly expressive of the symbolical character of the cherubim. It presents them to our view as exhibiting the property of life in its highest state of power and activity; therefore, as creatures altogether instinct with life. And the idea thus conveyed by the name is further substantiated by one or two traits associated with them in Ezekiel and the Apocalypse. Such, especially, is the very singular multiplicity of eyes attached to them, appearing first in the mystic wheels that regulated their movements, and afterwards in the cherubic forms themselves. For, the eye is the symbol of intelligent life; the living spirit's most peculiar organ and index. And to represent the cherubim as so strangely replenished with eyes, could only be intended to make them known to us as wholly inspirited. Accordingly, in the first vision of Ezekiel, in which the eyes belonged immediately to the wheels, "the spirit of the living creatures" is said to have been in the wheels (ch. i. 20)-- where the eye was, there was the intelligent, thinking, directive spirit of life. Another, and quite similar trait, is the quick and restless activity ascribed to them by both writers--by Ezekiel, when he represents them as "running and returning" with lightning speed; and by St John, when he describes them as "resting not day or night." Incessant motion is one of the most obvious symptoms of a plenitude of life. We instinctively associate the property of life even with the inanimate things that exhibit motion--such as fountains and running streams, which are called living, in contradistinction to stagnant pools, that seem comparatively dead. And in the Hebrew tongue, these two symbols of life-- eyes and fountains--have their common symbolical meaning marked by the employment of the same term to denote them both (***). So that creatures which appeared to be all eyes and all motion, are, in plain terms, those in which the powers and properties of life were quite peculiarly displayed.

We believe there is a still further designation applied to the same objects in Scripture--the seraphim of Isaiah (ch. vi.) It is in the highest degree improbable, that the prophet should by that name, so abruptly introduced, have pointed to an order of existences, or a form of being, nowhere else mentioned in Scripture; but quite natural that he should have referred to the cherubim in the sanctuary, as the scene of the vision lay there; and the more especially, as three characteristics--the possession by each of six wings, the position of immediate proximity to the throne of God, and the threefold proclamation of Jehovah's holiness--are those also which re-appear again, at the very outset, in St John's description of the cherubim. That they should have been called by the name of seraphim (burning ones) is no way inconsistent with this idea, for it merely embodies in a designation the thought symbolized in the vision of Ezekiel under the appearance of fire, giving forth flashes of lightning, which the cherubim presented (ch. i. 13). In both alike the fire, whether connected with the name or the appearance, denoted the wrath, which was the most prominent feature in the divine manifestation at the time. But as, in thus identifying the cherubim with the seraphim, we tread on somewhat doubtful ground, we shall make no further use of the thoughts suggested by it.

It is right to notice, however, that the designation we have more particularly considered, and the emblematic representations illustrative of it, belong to the later portions of Scripture, which treat of the cherubim; and while we cannot but regard the idea thus exhibited, as essentially connected with the cherubic form of being, a fundamental element in its meaning, it certainly could not be by any means so vividly displayed in the cherubim of the tabernacle, which were stationary figures. Nor can we tell distinctly how it stood in this respect with the cherubim of Eden; we know not what precise form and attitude were borne by them. But not only the representations we have been considering---the analogy also of the cherubim in the tabernacle, with their outstretched wings, as in the act of flying, and their eyes intently directed toward the mercy-seat, as if they were actually beholding and pondering what was there exhibited, may justly lead us to infer, that in some way or another a life-like appearance was also presented by the cherubim of Eden. Absolutely motionless or dead-like forms would have been peculiarly out of place in the way to the tree of life. Yet of what sort this fulness of life might be, which was exhibited in the cherubim, we have still had no clear indication. From various things that have pressed themselves on our notice, it might not doubtfully have been inferred to be life in the highest sense--spiritual and divine. But this comes out more prominently in connection with the other aspects of the subject which remain to be contemplated.

3. We proceed, therefore, to the point next in order--the positions assigned to the cherubim in Scripture. These are properly but two, and, by having regard only to what is essential in the matter, might possibly be reduced to one. But as they ostensibly and locally differ, we shall treat them apart. They are the garden of Eden, and the dwelling-place, or throne of God.

The first local residence in which the cherubim appear, was the garden of Eden--the earthly paradise. What, however, was this, but the proper home and habitation of life? of life generally, but emphatically of the divine life? Every thing there seemed to breathe the air, and to exhibit the fresh and blooming aspect of life. Streams of water ran through it to supply all its productions with nourishment, and keep them in perpetual healthfulness; multitudes of living creatures roamed amid its bowers, and the tree of life, at once the emblem and the seal of Immortality, rose in the centre, as if to shed a vivifying influence over the entire domain. Most fitly was it called by the Rabbins "the land of life." But it was life, we soon perceive, in the higher sense--life, not merely as opposed to bodily decay and dissolution, but as opposed also to sin, which is the soul's death. Eden was the garden of delight, which God gave to man as the image of himself, the possessor of that spiritual and holy life which has its fountainhead in God. And the moment man renounced his part in this divine property of life, and yielded himself as an instrument of unrighteousness, he lost his heritage of blessing, and was driven forth as a child of mortality and corruption from the hallowed region of life. When, therefore, the cherubim were set in the garden to occupy the place which man had forfeited by his transgression, it was impossible but that they should be regarded as the representatives, not of life merely, but of the life that is in God, and in connection with which evil cannot dwell. This they were by their very position within the sacred territory--whatever other ideas may have been symbolized by their peculiar structure, and more special relations.

The other and more common position assigned to the cherubim is in immediate connection with the dwelling-place and throne of God. This connection comes first into view when the instructions were given to Moses regarding the construction of the tabernacle in the wilderness. As the tabernacle was to be, in a manner, the habitation of God, where he was to dwell and manifest himself to his people, the whole of the curtains forming the interior of the tent were commanded to be inwoven with cherubic figures. But as the inner sanctuary was more especially the habitation of God, where he fixed his throne of grace, Moses was commanded, for the erection of this throne, to make two cherubims, one at each end of the ark of the covenant, and to place them so, that they should stand with outstretched wings, their faces toward each other, and toward the mercy-seat, the lid of the ark, which lay between them. That mercy-seat, or the space immediately above it, bounded on either side by the cherubim, and covered by their wings (Ex. xxv. 20), was the throne of God, as the God of the old covenant, the ideal seat of the divine commonwealth in Israel. "There" said God to Moses, "will I meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment to the children of Israel" (Ex. xxv. 22.) This is the fundamental passage regarding the connection of the cherubim with the throne of God; and it is carefully to be noted, that while the seat of the divine presence and glory is said to be above the mercy-seat, it is also said to be between the cherubim. And the same form of expression is used in another passage in the Pentateuch, which may also be called a fundamental one, Numb. vii. 89, "And when Moses was gone into the tabernacle of the congregation (more properly, the tent of meeting) to speak with him, then he heard the voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy-seat, that was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubim," Hence the Lord was spoken of as the God "who dwelleth between the cherubims," according to our version, and correctly as to the sense; though as the verb is used without a preposition in the original, the more exact rendering would be, the God who dwelleth-in (inhabitest, ***), or occupies (*** viz. as a throne or seat) the cherubim. These two verbs are interchanged in the form of expression, which is used with considerable frequency (for example, 1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 2; Ps. Ixxx. 1; xcix. 1 &c.); and it is from the use of the first of them that the Jewish term Shekinah (the indwelling), in reference to the symbol of the divine presence, is derived. The space above the mercy-seat, enclosed by the two cherubim with their outstretched wings, bending and looking toward each other, was regarded as the precise local habitation which God possessed as a dwelling-place, or occupied as a throne in Israel. And it is entirely arbitrary, and against the plain import of the two fundamental passages, to insert above, as is still very often done by interpreters ("dwelleth," or "sitteth enthroned above the cherubim"), still more so to make anything depend, as to the radical meaning of the symbol, on the seat of God being considered above, rather than between the cherubim.

Hengstenberg is guilty of this error, when he represents the proper place of the cherubim, as being under the throne of God., and holds that to be their first business--though he disallows the propriety of regarding them as material supports to the throne (Comm. on Rev. iv. 6). The meaning he adopts of the symbol absolutely required them to be in this position; since only by their being beneath the throne of God, could they with any fitness be regarded as imaging the living creation below, as subject to the overruling power and sovereignty of God. Hofmann and Delitzsch go still farther in this direction; and, adopting the notion repudiated by Hengstenberg, consider the cherubim as the formal bearers of Jehovah's throne. Delitzsch even affirms, in defiance (we think) of the plainest language, that wherever the part of the cherubim is distinctly mentioned in Old Testament Scripture, they appear as the bearers of Jehovah and his throne, and that he sat enthroned upon the cherubim in the midst of the worldly sanctuary (Die Genesis Ausgelegt, p. 145). There are in fact only two representations of the kind specified. One is in Ps. xviii. 10, where the Lord is described as coming down for judgment upon David's enemies, and in doing so, "riding upon a cherub, and flying upon the wings of the wind''--obviously a poetical delineation, in which it would be as improper to press closely what is said of the position of the cherub, as what is said of the wings of the wind. The one image was probably introduced with the view merely of stamping the divine manifestation with a distinctively covenant aspect, as the other for the purpose of exhibiting the resistless speed of its movements. But if the allusion is to be taken less ideally, it must be borne in mind, that the manifestation described is primarily and pre-eminently for judgment, not as in the temple, for mercy; and this may explain the higher elevation given to the seat of divine Majesty. The same holds good also of the other representation, in which the throne or glory of the Lord appears above the cherubim. It is in Ezekiel, where, in two several places (ch. i. 26, x. 1), there is first said to have been a firmament upon the heads of the living creatures, and then above the firmament the likeness of a throne. The description is so palpably different from that given of the Sanctuary, that it would be absurd to make the one rule the other. We must rather hold, that in the special and immediate object of the theophany exhibited to Ezekiel, there was a reason for giving such a position to the throne of God--one so much apart from the cherubim, and elevated so distinctly above them. And we believe that reason may be found, in its being predominantly a manifestation for judgment, in which the seat of the divine glory naturally appeared to rise to a loftier and more imposing elevation, than it was wont to occupy in the Holiest. This seems to be clearly indicated in ch, x. 4, where, in proceeding to the work of judgment, the glory of the Lord is represented as going up from the cherub, and standing over the threshold of the house; immediately after which the house was filled with the cloud--the symbol of divine wrath and retribution. We may add, that the statement in Rev. iv. 6, where the cherubic forms are said to have appeared "in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne," is plainly at variance with the idea of their acting as supports to the throne. The throne itself is described in v. 2, as being laid (***) in heaven, which excludes the supposition of any instruments being employed to bear it aloft. And from the living creatures being represented as at once in the midst of the throne, and round about it, nothing further or more certain can be inferred beyond their appearing in a position of immediate nearness to it. The elders sat round about the throne; but the cherubim appeared in it, as well as around it--implying that theirs was the place of closest proximity to the divine Being, who sat on it.

The result, then, which arises, we may almost say, with conclusive certainty from the preceding investigation, is, that the kind of life which was symbolized by the cherubim, was life most nearly and essentially connected with God--life as it is, or shall be held, by those who dwell in his immediate presence, and form, in a manner, the very inclosure and covering of his throne;-- pre-eminently, therefore, spiritual and holy life. Holiness becomes God's house, in general; and of necessity it rises to its highest creaturely representation in those who are regarded as compassing about the most select and glorious portion of the house--the seat of the living God himself. Whether His peculiar dwelling were in the garden of Eden, or in the recesses of a habitation made by men's hands, the presence of the cherubim alike proclaimed him to be One, who indispensably requires of such as are to be round about Him, the property of life, and in connection with that with the beauty of holiness, which is, in a sense, the life of life, as possessed and exercised by his intelligent offspring.

4. Our last point of scriptural inquiry, was to be respecting the kinds of agency attributed to the cherubim.

We naturally revert, first again, to what is said of them in connection with the garden of Eden, though our information there is the scantiest. It is merely said, that the cherubim were made to dwell at the east of the garden, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way to the tree of life. The two instruments--the cherubim and the sword--are associated together, in regard to this keeping; and, as the text draws no distinction between them, it is quite arbitrary to say, with Bahr, that the cherubim alone had to do with it, and to do with it precisely as Adam had. It is said of Adam, that "God put him into the garden to dress it and to keep it" (Gen. ii. 15)--not the one simply, but both together. He had to do a twofold office in respect to the garden--to attend to its cultivation, as far as might then be needful, and to keep or preserve it, namely, from the disturbing and desolating influence of evil. The charge to keep plainly implied some danger of losing. And it became still plainer, when the tenure of possession was immediately suspended on a condition, the violation of which was to involve the penalty of death. The keeping was to be made good against a possible contingence, which might subvert the order of God, and change the region of life into a charnel-house of death. Now, it is the same word that is used in regard to the cherubim and the flaming sword: These now were to keep--not, however, like Adam, the entire garden, but simply the way to the tree of life; to maintain in respect to this one point the settled order of Heaven, and that more especially by rendering the way inaccessible to fallen man. There is here also, no doubt, a present occupancy--but the occupancy of only a limited portion, a mere path-way, and for the definite purpose of defending it from unhallowed intrusion.

Still, not simply for defence; for occupancy as well as defence. And the most natural thought is, that as in the keeping there was a twofold idea, so a twofold representation was given to it; that the occupancy was more immediately connected with the cherubim, and the defence against intrusion with the flaming sword. One does not see otherwise, what need there could have been for both. Nor is it possible to conceive how the ends in view could otherwise have been served. It was, beyond all doubt, for man's spiritual instruction, that such peculiar instruments were employed at the east of the garden of Eden, to awaken and preserve in his bosom right thoughts of the God with whom he had to do. But an image of terror and repulsion was not alone sufficient for this. There was needed along with it an image of mercy and hope. And in what was actually exhibited man had both. When his eye looked to the sword, with its burnished and fiery aspect, he could not but be struck with awe at the thought of God's severe and retributive justice. But when he saw, at the same time, in near and friendly connection with that emblem of Jehovah's righteousness, living or life-like forms of being, cast pre-eminently in his own mould, but bearing along with his the likeness also of the choicest species of the animal creation around him--when he saw this, what could he think, but that still for creatures of earthly rank, and for himself most of all, an interest was reserved by the mercy of God in the things that pertained to the blessed region of life? That region could not now, by reason of sin, be actually held by him; but it was ideally held--by composite forms of creature-life, in which his nature appeared as the predominating element. And for what end? if not to teach, that when that nature of his should have nothing to fear from the avenging justice of God, it should regain its place in the holy and blissful haunts from which it had meanwhile been excluded? So that, standing before the eastern approach to Eden, and scanning with intelligence the appearances that there presented themselves to his view, the child of faith might say to himself, That region of life is not finally lost to me. It has neither been blotted from the face of creation, nor entrusted to natures of another sphere. Earthly forms still hold possession of it. The very natures that have lost the privilege continue to have their representation in the new and unreal-like occupants that are meanwhile appointed to keep it. Better things, then, are doubtless in reserve for them; and my nature, which stands out so conspicuously above them all, fallen though it be at present, is assuredly destined to rise again, and enjoy in the reality what is there representatively assigned to it.

There is nothing surely unnatural or far-fetched in such a line of reflection. It manifestly lay within the reach of the very earliest members of a believing seed; especially, since the light it is supposed to have conveyed, did not stand alone, but was only supplementary to that embodied in the first grand promise to the fallen, that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent. The supernatural machinery at the east of the garden merely shewed how this bruising was to proceed, and in what result it might be expected to issue. It was to proceed, not by placing in abeyance the manifestation of divine righteousness, but by providing for its being exercised without the fallen creature being destroyed. Nor should it issue in a partial, but in a complete recovery--nay, in the possession of a state higher than before. For, the creaturehood of earth, it would seem, was yet to stand in a closer relation to the manifested glory of God, and was to become capable of enduring sights and performing ministrations, which were riot known in the original constitution of things on earth.

It might not be possible, perhaps, for the primeval race of worshippers to go farther, or to get a more definite insight into the purposes of God, by contemplating the cherubim. We scarcely think it could. But we can easily conceive, how the light and hope therewith connected would be felt to grow, when this embodied creaturehood--or, if we rather choose so to regard it, this ideal manhood--was placed in the sanctuary of God's presence and glory, and so as to form the immediate boundary and covering of his throne. A relation of greater nearness to the divine was there evidently won for the human and earthly, And not that only, but a step also in advance toward the actual enjoyment of what was ideally exhibited. For, while at first men in flesh and blood were not permitted to enter "into the region of holy life occupied by the cherabirn, but only to look at it from without, now the way was at length partially laid open, and in the person of the high-priest, through the blood of atonement, they could make an approach, though still only at stated times, to the very feet of the cherubim of glory, The blessed and hopeful relation of believing men to these singular attendants of the divine majesty, rose thus more distinctly into view, and in more obvious connection also with the means, through which the ultimate realization was to be attained. But the information in this line, and by means of these materials, reaches its farthest limit, when, in the Apocalyptic vision of a triumphant church, the four and twenty elders, who represent her, are seen sitting in royal state and crowned majesty close beside the throne, with the cherubic forms in and around it. There, at last, the ideal and the actual freely meet together--the merely symbolical representatives of the life of God, and its real possessors, the members of a redeemed and glorified church. And the inspiring element of the whole, that which at once explains all and connects all harmoniously together, is the central object appearing there of "a Lamb, as if it had been slain, in the midst of the throne, and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders," Here the mystery resolves itself; in this consummate wonder all other wonders cease, all difficulties vanish. The Lamb of God, uniting together heaven and earth, human guilt and divine mercy, man's nature and God's perfections, has opened a pathway for the fallen to the very height and pinnacle of created being. With him in the midst, as a sun and shield, there is ground for the most secure standing, and the closest fellowship with God.

We must glance, however, at the other kinds of agency connected with the cherubim. In the first vision of Ezekiel, it is by their appearance, which we have already noticed, not by their agency, properly speaking, that they convey instruction regarding the character of the manifestations of himself, which the Lord was going to give through the prophet. But at ch. x. 7, where the approaching judgment upon Jerusalem is symbolically exhibited by the scattering of coals of fire over the city, the fire is represented as being taken from between the cherubim, and by the hand of one of them given to the ministering angel to be cast forth upon the city. It was thus indicated--so far we can easily understand the vision--that the coming execution of judgment was not only to be of God, but of him in connection with the full consent and obedient service of the holy powers and agencies around him. And the still more specific indication might be intended to be given, that as the best interests of humanity required the work of judgment to be executed, so a fitting human instrument should be found for the purpose. The wrath of God, represented by the coals of fire, should be put in force by an earthly agency, represented by the cherub's hand that ministered them.

An entirely similar action, differing only in the form it assumes, is connected with the cherubim in ch. xv. of Revelation, where one of the living creatures is represented as giving into the hands of the angels the seven last vials of the wrath of God. The rational and living creaturehood of earth, in its state of alliance and fellowship with God, thus appeared to go along with the concluding judgments, which were necessary to bring the evil in the world to a perpetual end. Nor is the earlier and more prominent action ascribed to them materially different---that connected with the seven-sealed Book. This book, viewed generally, unquestionably represents the progress and triumph of Christ's kingdom upon earth over all that was there naturally opposed to it. The first seal, when opened, presents the divine king riding forth in conquering power and majesty; the last exhibits all prostrate and silent before him. The different seals, therefore, unfold the different stages of this mighty achievement; and as they successively open, the living creatures successively proclaim, Come and see. The work, in its fundamental character, was the going forth of the energetic and judicial agency of Grod upon the sinfulness of the world, for the purpose of subduing it to himself, of establishing righteousness and truth among men, and bringing the actual state of things on earth into conformity with what is ideally right and good. Who, then, should announce and herald such a work, if not the ideal creatures, in which earthly forms of being appeared replete with the life of God, and in closest contact with his throne? Such might be said to be their special interest and business. And hence, though there were only four of them in the vision, (with some reference, perhaps, to the four corners of the earth), [4] and so one for but the first four seals of the book; yet rather than introduce any less fitting agency, it was deemed better to leave the three remaining seals without any separate heralding of their own.

We can discern the same leading characteristics in the further use made of the cherubic imagery in the Apocalypse. They are represented as ceaselessly proclaiming, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was and is, and is to come," thereby shewing it to be their calling to make known the absolute holiness of God, as infinitely removed, not merely from the natural, but also, and still more, from the moral imperfections and evils of creation. In their ascriptions of praise, too, they are represented not only as giving honour and glory, but also thanks to Him that sitteth on the throne, and as joining with the elders in the new song that was sung to the Lamb for the benefits of his salvation (Rev. iv. 9; v. 8). So that they plainly stand related to the redemptive as well as the creative work of God. And yet in all, from first to last, only ideal representatives of what pertains to God's kingdom on earth, not as substantive existences themselves possessing it. They belong to the imagery of faith, not to her abiding realities. And so, when the ultimate things of redemption come, their place is no more found. They hold out the lamp of hope to fallen man through the wilderness of life, pointing his expectations to the better country. But when this country breaks upon our view--when the new heavens and the new earth supplant the old, then also the ideal gives way to the real. We see another paradise, with its river and tree of life, and a present God, and a presiding Saviour, and holy angels, and a countless multitude of redeemed spirits rejoicing in the fulness of blessing and glory provided for them;--but no sight is anywhere to be seen of the cherubim of glory. They have fulfilled the end of their temporary existence; and when no longer needed, vanish like the guiding stars of night before the bright sunshine of eternal clay.

To sum up, then: The cherubim were in their very nature and design artificial and temporary forms of being--uniting in their composite structure the distinctive features of the highest kinds of creaturely existence on earth--man's first and chiefly. They were set up for representations to the eye of faith of earth's living creaturehoocl, and more especially of its rational and immortal, though fallen head, with reference to the better hopes and destiny in prospect. From the very first they gave promise of a restored condition to the fallen; and by the use afterwards made of them, the light became clearer and more distinct. By their designations, the positions assigned them, the actions from time to time ascribed to them, as well as their own peculiar structure., it was intimated, that the good in prospect should be secured, not at the expense of, but in perfect consistence with the claims of God's righteousness,-- that restoration to the holiness must precede restoration to the blessedness of life; and that only by being made capable of dwelling beside the presence of the only Wise and Good, could man hope to have his portion of felicity recovered. But all this, they further betokened, it was in God's purpose to have accomplished, and in the process to raise humanity to a higher than its original destination; in its standing nearer to God, and greatly ennobled in its powers of life and capacities of working.

Before passing from the subject of the cherubim, we must briefly notice some of the leading views that have been entertained by others respecting them. These will be found to rest upon a part merely of the representations of Scripture to the exclusion of others, and most commonly to a neglect of what we hold it to be of especial moment to keep prominently in view--the historical use of the cherubim in Scripture. That such must be the case with an opinion once very prevalent both among Jews and Christians, and not without its occasional advocates still, [5] which held them to be celestial existences, or more specifically angels, is obvious at first sight. For, the component parts of the cherubic appearance being all derived from the forms of being which have their local habitation on earth, it is terrestrial, as contradistinguished from celestial objects, which we are necessitated to think of. And their original position at the east of Eden would have been inexplicable, as connected with a religion of hope, if celestial and not earthly natures had been represented in them. The natural conclusion in that case must have been, that the way of life was finally lost for man. In the Apocalypse, too, they are expressly distinguished from the angels; and in ch. v. the living creatures and the elders form one distinct chorus (v. 8), while the angels form another (v. 11). There is more of verisimilitude in another, and at present more prevalent opinion, that the cherubim represent the church of the redeemed. This opinion has often been propounded, and quite recently has been set forth in a separate work on the cherubim. [6] It evidently fails, however, to account satisfactorily for their peculiar structure, and is of a too concrete and specific character to have been represented by such ideal and shifting formations as the cherubim of Scripture. These are more naturally conceived to have had to do with natures than with persons. Besides, it is plainly inconsistent with the place occupied by the cherubim in the Apocalyptic vision, where the four-and-twenty crowned elders obviously represent the church of the redeemed. To ascribe the same office to the cherubim, would be to suppose a double and essentially different representation of the same object. To avoid this objection, Vitringa (Obs. Sac. i. 846) modified the idea so as to make the cherubim in the Revelation (for he supposed those mentioned in Gen. iii. 24, to have been angels) the representatives of such as hold stations of eminence in the church, evangelists and ministers, as the elders were of the general body of believers. But it is an entirely arbitrary notion, and destitute of support in the general representations of Scripture; as indeed is virtually admitted by the learned author, in so peculiarly connecting it with the vision of St John, An opinion which finds some colour of support only in a single passage, and loses all appearance of probability when applied to others, is self-confuted.

It was the opinion of Michaelis, an opinion bearing a vivid impress of the general character of his mind, that the chembim were a sort of "thunder-horses" of Jehovah, somewhat similar to the horses of Jupiter among the Greeks. This idea has so much of a heathen aspect, and so little to give it even an apparent countenance in Scripture, that no further notice need be taken of it. More acceptance on the continent has been found for the view of Herder, who regards the cherubim as originally feigned monsters, like the dragons or griphins, which were the fabled guardians among the ancients of certain precious treasures. Hence, he thinks, the cherubim are represented as first of all appointed to keep watch at the closed gates of paradise; and for the same reason were afterwards placed by Moses in the presence-chamber of God, which the people generally were not permitted to enter. Latterly, however, he admits they were differently employed, but more after a poetical fashion, and as creatures of the imagination. This admission obviously implies, that the view will not stand an examination with all the passages of Scripture bearing on the sub- ject. Indeed, we shall not violate the truth if we say, that it can stand an examination with none of them. The cherubim were not set up even in Eden as formidable monsters to fray sinful man from approaching it. They were not needed for such a purpose, as this was sufficiently effected by the flaming sword. Nor were they placed at the door, or about the threshold of the sanctuary, to guard its sanctity, as on that hypothesis they should have been, but formed a part of the furniture of its innermost region. And the later notices of the cherubim in Scripture, which confessedly present them in a different light, are not by any means independent and arbitrary representations; they have a close affinity, as we have seen, with the earlier statements; and we cannot doubt that the same fundamental character is to be found in all the representations.

Spencer's idea of the cherubim was of a piece with his views generally of the institutions of Moses: they were of Egyptian origin, and were formed in imitation of those monstrous compounds which played so prominent a part in the sensuous worship of that cradle of superstition and idolatry. Such composite forms, however, were by no means so peculiar to Egypt as Spencer represents. They were common to heathen antiquity, and are even understood to have been more frequently used in the East than in Egypt. Nor is it unworthy of notice, that of all the monstrous combinations which are mentioned in ancient writings, and which the more successful investigations of later times have brought to light from the remains of Egyptian idolatry, not one has an exact resemblance to the cherub; the four creature-forms combined in it seem never to have been so combined in Egypt; and the only thing approaching to it yet discovered, is to be found in India. It is quite gratuitous, therefore, to assert that the cherubim were of Egyptian origin. But even if similar forms had been found there, it would not have settled the question, either as to the proper origin, or the real nature of the cherubim. If they were placed in Eden after the fall, they had a known character and habitation in the world many centuries before Egypt had a being. And then, whatever composite images might be found in Egypt, or other idolatrous nations, these, in accordance with the whole character of heathen idolatry, which was essentially the deification of nature, must have been representations of the Godhead itself, as symbolized by the objects of nature, while the cherubim are uniformly represented as separate from God, and as ministers of righteousness before him. So well was this understood among the Israelites, that even in the most idolatrous periods of their history, the cherubim never appear among the instruments of their false worship. This separate and creaturely character of the cherubim is also fatal to the opinion of those who regard them as "emblematical of the ever-blessed Trinity in covenant to redeem man," which is, besides, utterly at variance with the position of the cherubim in the temple--for how could God be said to dwell between the ever-blessed Trinity? [7] And the same objections apply to another opinion, closely related to this, according to which the cherubim represent, not the Godhead personally, but the attributes and perfections of God; are held to be symbolical personifications of these as manifested in God's works and ways. This view has been adopted with various modifications by persons of great name, and of very different tendencies--such as Philo, Grotius, Bochart, Bosenmiiller, De Wette; but it is not supported, either by the fundamental nature of the cherubim, or by their historical use. We cannot perceive, indeed, how the cherubim could really have been regarded as symbols of the divine perfections, or personifications of the divine attributes, without falling under the ban of the second commandment. It would surely have been an incongruity to have forbidden, in the strongest terms and with the severest penalties, the making of any likeness of God, and, at the same time, to have set up certain symbolical images of his perfections in the very region of his presence, and in immediate contact with, his throne. No corporeal representation could consistently be admitted there of any thing but what directly pointed to creaturely existences, and their relations and interests. And the nearest possible connection with God, which we can conceive the cherubim to have been intended to hold, was that of shadowing forth how the creatures of his hand, and (originally) the bearers of his image'on earth, might become so replenished with his spirit of holiness as to be, in a manner, the shrines of his indwelling and gracious presence.

Bahr, in his Symbolik, approaches more nearly to this view than any of the preceding ones, and theoretically avoids the more special objection we have urged against it; but it is by a philosophical refinement too delicate, especially without some accompanying explanation, to catch the apprehension of a comparatively unlearned and sensuous people. The cherubim, he conceives, were images of the creation in its highest parts--combining, in a concentrated shape, the most perfect forms of creature-life on earth--and, as such, serving as representatives of all creation. But the powers of life in creation are the signs and witnesses of those which, without limit or imperfection, are in God; and so, the relative perfection of life exhibited in the cherubim symbolized the absolute perfection of life that is in God--his omniscience, his peerless majesty, his creative power, his unerring wisdom. The cherub was not an image of the Creator, but it was an image of the Creator's manifested glory. We say, this is far too refined and shadowy a distinction to lie at the base of a popular religion, and to serve for instruction to a people surrounded on every hand by the gross forms and dense atmosphere of idolatry. It could scarcely have failed, in the circumstances, to lead to the worship of the cherubim, as, reflectively at least, the worthiest representations of God which could be conceived by men on earth. But, if this evil could have been obviated, which we can only think of as an inseparable consequence, there is another and still stronger attaching to the view, which we may call an inseparable ingredient. For, if the cherubim w^ere representatives of created life, and thence factitious witnesses of the Creator's glory--if such were the sum and substance of what was represented in them, then it was, after all, but a symbol of things in nature; and, unlike all the other symbols in the religion of the Old Testament, it would have borne no respect to God's work, and character, and purposes of grace. That religion was one essentially adapted to the condition, the necessities, and desires of fallen man; and the symbolical forms and institutions belonging to it bear respect to God's nature and dealings, not so much in connection with the gifts and properties of creation, as with the principles of righteousness and the hopes of salvation. If the cherubim are held to be symbolical only of what is seen of God in nature, they stand apart from this properly religious province; they have no real adaptation to the circumstances of a fallen world; they have to do simply with creative, not with redemptive manifestations of God; and, so far as they are concerned, the religion of the Old Testament would after all have been, like the different forms of heathenism, a mere nature-religion. No further proof, surely, is needed of the falseness of the view in question; for, in a scheme of worship so wonderfully compact, and skilfully arranged toward a particular end, the supposition of a heterogeneous element at the centre necessarily carries its own refutation along with it.

We have already referred to the view of Hengstenberg, and shewn its incompatibility to some extent with the scriptural representations. His opinions upon this subject, indeed, appear to have been somewhat fluctuating. In one of his earlier productions, his work on the Pentateuch, he expresses his concurrence with Bahr, and even goes so far as to say, that he regarded Bahr's treatment of the cherubim as the most successful part of the Symbolik. Then in his Egypt and the Books of Moses, he gave utterance to an opinion, at variance with the radical idea of Bahr, that the cherubim had a connection, both in nature and origin, with the sphinxes of Egypt. And in his work on the Revelation, he expressly opposes Bahr's view, and holds that the living forms in the cherubim were merely the representation of all that is living on the earth. But representing the higher things on earth, they also naturally serve as representations of the earth itself; and God's appearing enthroned above the cherubim symbolized the truth, that he is the God of the whole earth, and has every thing belonging to it, matter and mind, subject to his control. As mentioned before, this view, if correct, would have required the position of the cherubim to be always very distinctly and manifestly below the throne of God--which, however, it does not appear to have been, except when the manifestation described was primarily for judgment. It leaves unexplained also the prominence given in the cherubic delineations to the form and likeness of man, and the circumstance that the cherubim should, in the Revelation, be nearer to the throne than the elders--placing, according to that view, the creation merely as such, nearer than the church. But the representation errs, rather as giving a partial and limited view of the truth, than maintaining what is absolutely contrary to it. It approaches, in our judgment, much nearer to the right view than that more recently set forth by Delitzsch, who considers the cherubim as simply the bearers ot Jehovah's chariot, and as having been placed originally at the eastern gate of Paradise, as if to carry him aloft to heaven for the execution of judgment, should mankind proceed farther in the course of iniquity. A poetical notion certainly! but leaving rather too much to the imagination for so early an age, and scarcely taking the form best fitted for working either on men's fears or hopes! What Adam dreaded when he sinned, was not God's going to heaven to inflict punishment, but his coming down from heaven to reckon with him for his guilt. And though, in later times, the cherubim are represented as leaving the temple, preparatory to the execution of judgment, yet this was only to indicate that the temple had now become a common place--a doomed, because a corrupt habitation; and so abandoned to the destroying influences that were ready to alight on it. But the view seems altogether of an arbitrary and fanciful character, and it is unnecessary to enter more minutely into its refutation.

Notes

1. Hofmann has lately revived the notion, that *** (cherub), is simply *** (chariot), with a not unusual transposition of letters; and conceives the name to have been given to the cherubim on account of their being employed as the chariot or throne of Jehovah (Weissagung und Erfullung, i. p. 80). Delitzsch, too, is not disinclined to this derivation and meaning, though he would rather derive the term from *** to lay hold of, and understands it of the cherubim as laying hold of and bearing away the throne of Jehovah (Die Genesis Ausgelegt, p. 46). Thenius in his Comm. on Kings also adopts this derivation, but applies it differently. Both derivations, and the ideas respecting the cherubim they are intended to support, are quite unsupported.

2. Vitringa justly remarks as to the difference between St John's representation and Ezekiel's respecting the faces, that "it is not of essential moment; for the beasts most intimately connected together form, as it were, one beast-existence, and it is a matter of indifference whether all the properties are represented as belonging to each of the four, or singly to each."

3. Hengstenberg, In his remarks on Rev. iv. 7, regarding the cherubim as simple representations of the animal creation on earth, objects to any symbolical meaning being attached to the separate animal forms, on the special ground that in that passage of Revelation it is the calf, not the ox, which is mentioned in the description--as it is also found once in the description of Ezekiel, ch. i, 7. He thinks this cannot be accidental, but must have been designed to prevent our attributing to it the symbolical meaning of productiveness, or such like; as no one would think of associating that idea with a calf. We are surprised at so weak an objection from such a quarter. There can be no doubt-- and it is not only admitted but contended for by Hengstenberg himself in his Beitrage, i. p. 161, sq.--that in connection with that symbolical meaning the ox-worship of Egypt was erected, and from Egypt was introduced among the Israelites at Sinai, and again by Jeroboam at a later period. Yet in Scripture it is always spoken of, not as ox, or bull, or cow, but as calf-worship. This conclusively shews that, symbolically viewed, no distinction was made between ox and calf. And in the description of such figures as the cherubim, calf might very naturally be substituted for ox, simply on account of the smaller and more delicate outline which the form would present. It is possible the same appearance may partly have contributed to the idols at Bethel and Dan being designated calves rather than oxen.

4. We say only perhaps; for though Hengstenberg and others lay much stress upon the number four, as the signature of the earth, yet there being only two in the tabernacle, would seem to indicate that nothing material depends on the number. We think, that the increase from the original two to four may, with more probability of truth, be accounted for historically. When the temple was built, two cherubim of immense proportions were put into the most Holy Place, and under these were placed the ark with its old and smaller cherubim: So that there were henceforth actually four cherubim over the ark. And as the form of Ezekiel's vision, in its leading elements, was evidently taken from the temple, and John's again from that, it seems quite natural to account for the four in this way.

5. Elliott's Horae Apoc. Introd.--partially adopted also, and especially in regard to the cherubim of Eden, by Mr Mills in his recent work on Sacred Symbology, p. 136.

6. Doctrine of the Cherubim, by George Smith, F.A.S.

7. It is Parkhurst, and the Hutchinsonian senoolf who are the patrons of this ridiculous notion. Horsley makes a most edifying Improvement upon it, with reference to modern times: "The cherub was a compound figure, the calf (of Jeroboam) single. Jeroboam, therefore, and his subjects were Unitarians!"--(Works, vol. viii. 241). He forgot, apparently, that there were four parts in the cherub; so that not a trinity, but a quaternity, would have been the proper co-relative under the Gospel.