The Cherubim and the Gospels

Part One

The scope of our study

Is there any connection between the Four Gospels and the Cherubim? In Ezekiel 1:10 we are told that the four cherubim each had the faces of a lion, an ox, a man and an eagle. There is a theory, which has a certain amount of support nowadays, that the gospels portray the life of Christ from the four aspects represented by these four faces. But what is the evidence? In these articles I hope to examine the theory, to see if there is enough evidence to support or disprove it. If we do not succeed in our aim we shall at least have studied the gospels more closely, which cannot fail to be of benefit.

Our first question is

“What exactly have people down the ages thought on this subject?”

“What theory have they held?”

This first article will therefore mainly be referring to ideas already published.

Why four gospels?

Almost from the days of the apostles themselves, we can find evidence that there were precisely four records of the life of Christ. F.F. Bruce states “We may be pretty certain that the fourfold gospel, as a single collection, dates from about A.D.100″ (IVF Bible Commentary p. 59), and in the same article he quotes Irenaeus, one of the Early Fathers, who ” writing about A.D.100, regards the fourfold gospel as one of the axiomatic facts of the universe.”

Yet, as we well know, these are not just four similar stories of Christ’s life. Many attempts have been made to combine them into a Harmony, but this has proved remarkably difficult. In fact the evidence for a full chronology of the life of Christ seems to be incomplete. Once again we see, as in so many parts of scripture, that we have a record very different from what man would have liked to have.

If we can see the aim of each gospel it will give more purpose to our daily readings from them. Instead of thinking that we are going over the same ground yet again, we will be on our toes looking for those partic­ular aspects that each writer is stressing. However, finding this aim is far from easy, and it will be the purpose of our study to try to discover it. It seems to me that even if the link with the cherubic faces is tenuous, there must be some definite aspect of Christ which each gospel is stressing. How else do we explain the Very great difference between each gospel? Let me quote Bro. F.Bilton:

“Here (in the cherubim theory) is a sound, satisfying, divine reason for problems otherwise inexplicable: omissions by one narrator and inclusions by others, and diverse records of some incidents by all. Why should Matthew who was present, and Peter (writing through Mark), omit to record the stirring scene of the resurrection of Lazarus, which they both saw, and only John record this, whereas the other miracles of the earthquake, rent rocks, opened graves and resurrection of some, together with the darkening of the sun for three hours and the piercing cry of Jesus from the cross (which John must have heard) are all omitted by John?

How could men, unless under restraint, possibly omit from their record the mighty miracle of the raising of Lazarus after four days in the grave, since it instanced the greatest miracle the world has ever seen, and at the same time demonstrated beyond question the divine claims of Christ? Yet three narrators completely ignore it. What possible human reason could there be for this?” (Apocalypse and Gospels 1955 page 10).

He quotes many other examples like these, and since we all accept that God inspired these records, we look for the reason for their individuality.

Which Cherubim Theory?

Our hopes for the cherubim – gospels link are somewhat dashed when we see the variation that has taken place in the theory down the ages. A brief survey is given in Ellicott’s Commentary (1901) in the Introduction to Matthew’s Gospel;

“When the Church found itself in possession of the four Gospels, and of these alone, as recognized authentic records of the life and teaching of its Lord, when men were finding in them a mystic correspondence with the four elements and the four winds and the four rivers of Paradise, it was natural that the number of the living creatures also should seem to them to have been intended to answer to that of the four precious and sacred books.

It is significant, however, of the somewhat arbitrary character of the symbolism that its application has not been uniform. The earlier writers, beginning with Irenaeus, assign the lion, as the emblem of kingly majesty, to St. John; the calf, as signifying sacrificial or priestly attributes, to St. Luke; the man, as presenting the humanity of Christ, to St. Matthew; the eagle, as answering to the prophetic announcement with which his gospel opens, to St. Mark; and this is reproduced by Juvencus, a Latin poet, circ. A.D. 334.

The Pseudo-Athanasius assigns the man to St. Matthew, the calf to St. Mark, the lion to St. Luke, the eagle to St. John, but without assigning reasons. In Sedulius, a Latin poet of the fifth century, what has since been the received distribution of the symbols makes its first appearance. It was quickly accepted, as having a greater measure of fitness than the earlier interpretations, was adopted by Augustine and Jerome, appears in the early mosaics of the basilicas at Rome and Ravenna, and has since been current, to the entire exclusion of the earlier view.” (i.e. Matthew – the man; Mark – the lion; Luke – the ox; and John – the eagle).

A fairly recent acceptance of this theory is seen in the Penguin Classics translation of the Four Gospels by E.V. Rieu (1952) where wood engravings of the symbols are placed at the start of each gospel, in the order just listed.

Modern writers have little or no time for the theory, and it is not even mentioned in most modern works on-the gospels. It is interesting that the Christadelphian view, where it is held, seems to be fairly consistent, yet different again from the common one. This theory equates Matthew with the Lion, Mark with the ox, Luke with the man, and John with the eagle. Of all the theories it is the one which seems most reasonable to me, and it is the one which I propose to put to the test. The theory is propounded in greatest detail in Apocalypse and Gospels (Sect.2) by bro. F.Bilton (1955) and is also used in Guidebook to the Gospels by bro. H.P. Mansfield (1971). The Companion Bible, with notes by Bullinger, takes this same view (p. 1304), i.e. Matthew – the Lord presented as Jehovah’s king; Mark – as the servant; in Luke as the man; and in John as “Jehovah Himself”, yet Bullinger seems not to link these with the cherubim faces directly.

In Bro. Mansfield’s book there is a chart which I have reproduced here because it seems to be both a useful summary and a basis for further discussion.

The Four-Fold View of Christ In the Four Gospels

Each book presents the subject from a different point of view – JESUS IS:

• King in Matthew
• Servant in Mark
• Man in Luke
• Son of God in John

 

Book	Written for	Illustrating	General Character	Theme	Based On	Dominant Idea	Symbolism	Significance
MATTHEW	Jews	Jesus as Messiah	Prophetical	Kingship	Past revelation	Fulfilled	Lion	Royalty
MARK	Romans	Jesus as all-powerful	Practical	Servant	Present action	Straightway	Ox	Service
LUKE	Greeks	Jesus as the perfect man	Historical	Son of Man	Future Glory	Compassion	Man	Humanity
JOHN	Believers	Jesus as God manifest	Spiritual	Son of God	Eternity	Believe	Eagle	Divinity

Why Use the Cherubim Faces?

It will be my purpose, therefore, to try to test the view of Christ which the gospels present, on the basis of Matthew – Jesus as the King; Mark – Jesus as the servant; Luke – Jesus as the perfect man; John – Jesus as the Son of God. But even if we find this to be reasonable, why should it have any connection with the faces of the cherubim? What in fact do the cherubim represent? While this is very important for our study, it is a whole subject on its own, and can only be briefly treated here.

In general the earliest references to a subject in the scripture guide us to the principle involved. The cherubim are first mentioned in Genesis 3:24:

“So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

As Bro. A.H.Nicholls has commented

“There is a double meaning to this expression; it is not only that the man and his wife were to be kept from the tree of life, but that the way to it was to be preserved for those who will have the right eventually to approach and eat of the tree.” (Christadelphian Jan.1972 p.16 – the start of a valuable series on the cherubim.)

There are thus in the cherubim the dual aspects of judgment and mercy, which are well seen at work in the prophecy of Ezekiel. The nation of Israel was failing to be the people of God, so in effect they were closing the way of the tree of life.

The cherubim are seen at the start of Ezekiel preparing to leave the city of Jerusalem, so that God’s judgments can come upon it. It is here that the four faces of the cherubim are introduced, and the circling wheels within wheels (Ezek.1:10-22). The significance of this has already been discussed in the Apocalypse Series (p.66-70) where it is shown that this relates to the circling of the heavens over the earth during the year, and the monthly movement of the signs of the Zodiac (a word related to ‘living creatures’), all of which betoken God’s rulership over the earth.

Whereas man has chosen the scientific method of enquiry to try to discover the workings of the world and the meaning of life, a far better way is to turn to the scriptures, where we learn that the whole of the physical world is ruled by God for one purpose, which we could sum up as “keeping the way to the tree of life.” The four faces looking north, south, east and west might therefore be expected to fit the four quarters of the year. In fact this seems to be the case, the signs of the zodiac for those months fitting to the faces (Apoc.p69).

Now just as God rules over the earth, so he also ruled Israel, and there is more than just chance that Jacob had twelve sons. The twelve tribes camped in the wilderness around the tabernacle in a north, south, east, west pattern. In the days when men were much closer to nature than we are, they would reckon the date from the movement of the stars in the sky, and the rising of each new constellation of stars with the sun.

Thus it is entirely reasonable to suggest that each of the twelve tribes, and possibly even the families of Jacob’s sons before the Exodus, would look to the sky to see when their month of duty came around. It has often been suggested that the tribes had standards which fitted with the signs of the zodiac. This is hard to prove today, but it is confirmed by Jewish tradition.

We reach the conclusion therefore, on reasonable evidence, that the camp of Israel and the cherubim were arranged in the same way, and represented the rulership of God over the earth for judgment and mercy, all part of God’s redemptive purpose. In a later article in his series (Christadelphian, Sept. 1972 p.391) Bro. Nicholls looks at the scriptural statements about the four pre-eminent tribes, and although the evidence is of varying quality, he reaches the following conclusions :-

JUDAH	East side	Lion	the kingly ruler
REUBEN	South side	Man	divine purpose centred in the Man
JOSEPH	West side	OX	the servant who inherite the birth-right
DAN	North side	Eagle	judgment, producing a kingdom of priests

 

Bro. Nicholls concludes,

“Although there were four faces, they represent­ed but One God in all the aspects of His purpose, which were all comprehended in the one Lord Jesus Christ.”

Jesus was the one who pre-eminently kept the way of the tree of life, and yet was also to be God’s judge. In himself he embodies God’s rulership over the earth, and so it would at least seem not unreasonable that the four gospels should present the four cherubic aspects of him. Whether the evidence shows that they do in fact show Jesus in this way, we now set out to see in the next articles. One writer has said that since each cherub had four faces, there is likely to be something of each aspect of Christ in each of the gospels. Of one thing we are certain, and this should guide us in our gospel studies:

“…. these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:31).