Part 5
Some Final Thoughts
It would be presumptuous of me to call this article a ‘Conclusion’, because I have not reached a point where I can be sure in my own mind that the link between the Cherubim and the Gospels is proven. However, I do end the year with better ideas on the subject than before, and I feel sure that there is enough in the theory to make it worth investigating further. To end the series I would like to make a few comments about what I see as the most significant aspects of the study, and also summarize the most important conclusions of the previous articles.
The number of books or articles on this topic is very limited, and it seems to me that it is the sort of subject that appeals to writers who also like such things as types, the Law of Moses, the significance of numbers, and so on. Unfortunately, writings on these subjects are not characterized by very concise and objective arguments. All too often a tenuous link is made, and a homily or exhortation is then built upon shaky foundations.
Nineteenth Century authors are particularly prone to do this, and while we applaud their generally favorably view of Scripture, we must guard against woolly exposition which merely ‘sounds nice’. Here is an example from Jukes, whom we have used extensively in this study:
“But some may ask, Where is the proof that this difference really exists? May I answer, proof is not so much needed as an opened eye. The Jews of old asked signs, instead of the removal of the veil. They could see no proof that Christ was a Divine person.”
There is a lot more on that page in the same style. It sounds good, but before we have the sentiment we must have the facts, and while a reverent and humble approach to Scripture is needed, there must be a willingness to weigh the evidence for and against an interpretation before accepting it. Likewise, later authors have leaned heavily, and too uncritically at times, upon earlier workers such as Jukes or Bullinger.
Once someone has stated a theory, such as the one under investigation, it is easier for later generations to have a vague feeling that it is a ‘nice theory’ than to go back to Scripture and really work it out for themselves, which would be much more satisfactory. This is why simple errors get perpetuated. We have used Brother F. Bilton’s book in previous articles, so here is an example from him. On page 3 he reproduces a diagram from Bullinger’s Companion Bible to show that the Twelve Tribes of Israel in their camp are related to the twelve signs of the Zodiac.
Yet in the diagram Naphtali is linked with Capricorn, while Issachar next to it is linked with Cancer. Now we have already shown that the tribes relate to the circling of the year, and the Zodiac certainly does. How then can Cancer be next to Capricorn, when they are at opposite sides of the Zodiac (Capricorn is Dec/Jan, and Cancer is Jun/Jul)? The point of saying all this is to remind you that,however nice the Cherubim/Gospels link sounds, the one question should be, Is it right? The only way to find out is by study of the sources themselves – the Gospels.
A Summary
Here are the main points made in the earlier articles:
- There are just four Gospels.
They are very selective in their treatment of the life of Christ, even to omitting incidents the writers saw. Unfortunately, different Cherubim theories have been advanced over the years.
The Cherubim represent God’s rulership over the earth for His redemptive purpose, which is, of course, centered in Christ.
- The theory effectively overcomes the problem of gospel discrepancies.
The gospel writers’ backgrounds accord with their gospel message. Matthew quite convincingly portrays Christ as King.
- There must be much in the gospels which is about other things than this study, so we should not look for agreement in every word.
Mark shows Jesus active as a servant.
- The order of the gospels is the same as the order of the Cherubim listed in Revelation.
Luke shows Jesus as the true man, Lord of all creation, but the evidence is less convincing, and much is omitted.
- John is clearly a different type of gospel.
It shows Jesus as the Son of God, but proof is tenuous that this has any link with the eagle cherub.
An Objection
It may be objected that the theory is obviously false, because we have only one life of Christ, in which the events all took place in a certain order. However, we very clearly do have four gospels, and these are very hard to harmonise. It must be self-evident that the writers were trying to give different emphases to their stories. Also we can see that the same incident could have different meanings according to the theme being developed.
“And just as in the self-same act of dying on the cross, our Lord was at the same moment a sweet-savour offering, willingly offering to God a perfect obedience, and also a sin-offering, penally bearing the judgment due to sin, and as such made a curse for us; so in the selfsame acts of his life, each act may be seen in different aspects, for each act has a Divine fullness. It is this fullness which God in mercy presents to our view in the diversities of the Four Gospels” (Jukes p.7).
So whether we accept the Cherubim theory or not, we are certainly looking for a theme in each gospel, because they are so strikingly different.
Further Study
If you are interested enough to take this further, you might like to collect in a notebook a list of evidence for and against the theory, for each gospel, as you do the readings. Another possibility is to get a Gospel Parallels and, comparing incidents as recorded by each gospel, colour in a distinctive colour the ‘lionlike aspects’, the ‘ox-like aspects’ etc. This will then show how much any gospel upholds the theory, and how much of the characteristics of other gospels are in it.
However, the main consideration to bear in mind is, what is the value of this knowledge? I am not fully convinced that there is a cherubim-gospels link, but there is enough evidence to keep me looking. If this study helps us to see more clearly how God wishes us to view His son, and if it helps us to be careful and discriminating in our Bible reading, then it will be worth while.
The Solution