7<\/strong>. The description of these living creatures does not exactly agree with any of the O. T. parallels: in Ezekiel 1<\/span>, which is the nearest, the four Cherubim, as they are called, have human figures, calves’ feet, and each<\/em> has four faces, of the same four animals as these: also they have each four wings, while these have six, like the Seraphim of Isa 6:2<\/span>. Probably the meaning is, that these four represent the Cherubim and<\/em> Seraphim who “continually do cry ‘Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth’.” We have no reason to suppose that the Angels, or these super-angelic Beings, have proper bodies or invariable forms: they appear in such forms as may please God, or may be appropriate to the purpose for which He bids them appear. For further discussion as to their meaning, see Excursus I.<\/p>\n And the first beast was like a lion – <\/B>A general description has been given, applicable to all, denoting that in whatever form the divine government is administered, these things will be found; a particular description now follows, contemplating that government under particular aspects, as symbolized by the living beings on which the throne rests. The first is that of a lion. The lion is the monarch of the woods, the king of beasts, and he becomes thus the emblem of dominion, of authority, of government in general. Compare Gen 49:9<\/span>; Amo 3:8<\/span>; Joe 3:16<\/span>; Dan 7:4<\/span>. As emblematic of the divine administration, this would signify that He who sits on the throne is the ruler over all, and that his dominion is absolute and entire. It has been made a question whether the whole body had the form of a lion, or whether it had the appearance of a lion only as to its face or front part. It would seem probable that the latter only is intended, for it is expressly said of the third beast that it had the face of a man, implying that it did not resemble a man in other respects, and it is probable that, as these living creatures were the supports of the throne, they had the same form in all other particulars except the front part. The writer has not informed us what was the appearance of these living creatures in other respects, but it is most natural to suppose that it was in the form of an ox, as being adapted to sustain a burden. It is hardly necessary to say that the thing supposed to be symbolical here in the government of God – his absolute rule – actually exists, or that it is important that this should be fairly exhibited to people.<\/P> And the second beast like a calf – <\/B>Or, more properly, a young bullock, for so the word – <\/SPAN><\/span> moschos – means. The term is given by Herodotus (ii. 41; iii. 28) to the Egyptian god Apis, that is, a young bullock. Such an emblem, standing under a throne as one of its supports, would symbolize firmness, endurance, strength (compare Pro 14:4<\/span>); and, as used to represent qualities pertaining to him who sat on the throne, would denote stability, firmness, perseverance: qualities that are found abundantly in the divine administration. There was clearly, in the apprehension of the ancients, some natural fitness or propriety in such an emblem. A young bullock was worshipped in Egypt as a god. Jeroboam set up two idols in the form of a calf, the one in Dan and the other in Bethel, 1Ki 12:28-29<\/span>. A similar object of worship was found in the Indian, Greek, and Scandinavian mythologies, and the image appears to have been adopted early and extensively to represent the divinity.<\/P> The above figure is a representation of a calfidol, copied from the collection made by the artists of the French Institute at Cairo. It is recumbent, with human eyes, the skin flesh-colored, and the whole after-parts covered with a white and sky-blue drapery: the horns not on the head, but above it, and containing within them the symbolical globe surmounted by two feathers. The meaning of the emblems on the back is not known. It is copied here merely to show that, for some cause, the calf was regarded as an emblem of the Divinity. It may illustrate this, also, to remark that among the sculptures found by Mr. Layard, in the ruins of Nineveh, were not a few winged bulls, some of them of large structure, and probably all of them emblematic. One of these was removed with great difficulty, to be deposited in the British Museum. See Mr. Layards Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii. pp. 64-75. Such emblems were common in the East; and, being thus common, they would be readily understood in the time of John.<\/P> And the third beast had a face as a man – <\/B>There is no intimation as to what was the form of the remaining portion of this living creature; but as the beasts were in the midst of the throne, that is, under it as a support, it may be presumed that they had such a form as was adapted to that purpose – as supposed above, perhaps the form of an ox. To this living creature there was attached the head of a man, and that would be what would be particuLarly visible to one looking on the throne. The aspect of a man here would denote intelligence – for it is this which distinguishes man from the creation beneath him; and if the explanation of the symbol above given be correct, then the meaning of this emblem is, that the operations of the government of God are conducted with intelligence and wisdom. That is, the divine administration is not the result of blind fate or chance; it is founded on a clear knowledge of things, on what is best to be done, on what will most conduce to the common good.<\/P> Of the truth of this there can be no doubt; and there was a propriety that, in a vision designed to give to man a view of the government of the Almighty, this should be appropriately symbolized. It may illustrate this to observe, that in ancient sculptures it was common to unite the head of a man with the figure of an animal, as cobining symbols. Among the most remarkable figures discovered by Mr. Layard, in the ruins of Nineveh, were winged, human-headed lions. These lions are thus described by Mr. Layard: They were about twelve feet in height, and the same number in length. The body and limbs were admirably portrayed; the muscles and bones, although strongly developed, to display the strength of the animal, showed, at the same time, a correct knowledge of its anatomy and form. Expanded wings sprung from the shoulder and spread over the back; a knotted girdle, ending in tassels, encircled the loins. These sculptures, forming an entrance, were partly in full, and partly in relief. The head and forepart, facing the chambers, were in full; but only one side of the rest of the slab was sculptured, the back being placed against the wall of sun-dried bricks (Nineveh and its Remains, vol. i. p. 75).<\/P> The following engraving will give an idea of one of these human-headed animals, and will serve to illustrate the passage before us alike in reference to the head, indicating intelligence, and the wings, denoting rapidity. On the use of these figures, found in the ruins of Nineveh, Mr. Layard makes the following sensible remarks – remarks admirably illustrating the view which I take of the symbols before us: I used to contemplate for hours these mysterious emblems, and muse over their intent and history. What more noble forms could have ushered the people into the temple of their gods? What more subblime images could have been borrowed from nature by people who sought, unaided by the light of revealed religion, to embody their conceptions of the wisdom, power, and ubiquity of a Supreme Being? They could find no better type of intellect and knowledge than the head of a man; of strength, than the body of the lion; of rapidity of motion, than the wings of a bird. These winged, human-headed lions were not idle creations, the offspring of mere fancy their meaning was written upon them. They had awed and instructed races which flourished 3000 years ago. Through the portals which they guarded, kings, priests, and warriors had borne sacrifices to their altars, long before the wisdom of the East had penetrated into Greece, and had furnished its mythology with symbols long recognized by the Assyrian votaries (Nineveh and its Remains, vol. i. p. 75, 76).<\/P> And the fourth beast was like a flying eagle – <\/B>All birds, indeed, fly; but the epithet flying is here employed to add intensity to the description. The eagle is distinguished, among the feathered race, for the rapidity, the power, and the elevation of its flight. No other bird is supposed to fly so high; none ascends with so much power; none is so majestic and grand in his ascent toward the sun. That which would be properly symbolized by this would be the rapidity with which the commands of God are executed; or this characteristic of the divine government, that the purposes of God are carried into prompt execution. There is, as it were, a vigorous, powerful, and rapid flight toward the accomplishment of the designs of God – as the eagle ascends unmolested toward the sun. Or, it may be that this symbolizes protecting care, or is an emblem of that protection which God, by his providence, extends over those who put their trust in him.<\/P> Thus, in Exo 19:4<\/span>, Ye have seen how I bare you on eagles wings. Hide me under the shadow of thy wings, Psa 17:8<\/span>. In the shadow of thy wings will I rejoice, Psa 63:7<\/span>. As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: so the Lord alone did lead him, Deu 32:11-12<\/span>, etc. As in the case of the other living beings, so it is to be remarked of the fourth living creature also, that the form of the body is unknown. There is no impropriety in supposing that it is only its front aspect that John here speaks of, for that was sufficient for the symbol. The remaining portion in the midst of the throne may have corresponded with that of the other living beings, as being adapted to a support. In further illustration of this it may be remarked, that symbols of this description were common in the Oriental world.<\/P> Figures in the human form, or in the form of animals, with the head of an eagle or a vulture, are found in the ruins of Nineveh, and were undoubtedly designed to be symbolic. On the earliest Assyrian monuments, says Mr. Layard (Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii., p. 348, 349), one of the most prominent sacred types is the eagle-headed, or the vulture-headed, human figure. Not only is it found in colossal proportions on the walls, or guarding the portals of the chambers, but it is also constantly represented in the groups on the embroidered robes. When thus introduced, it is generally seen contending with other mythic animals – such as the human-headed lion or bull; and in these contests it is always the conqueror. it may hence be inferred that it was a type of the Supreme Deity, or of one of his principal attributes. A fragment of the Zoroastrian oracles, preserved by Eusebius, declares that God is he that has the head of a hawk. He is the first, indestructible, eternal, unbegotten, indivisible, dissimilar; the dispenser of all good; incorruptible; the best of the good, the wisest of the wise; he is the father of equity and justice, self-taught, physical and perfect, and wise, and the only inventor of the sacred philosophy. Sometimes the head of this bird is added to the body of a lion.<\/P> Under this form of the Egyptian hieracosphinx it is the conqueror in combats with other symbolical figures, and is frequently represented as striking down a gazelle or wild goat. It also clearly resembles the gryphon of the Greek mythology, avowedly an Eastern symbol, and connected with Apollo, or with the sun, of which the Assyrian form was probably an emblem. The following figure found in Nimroud, or ancient Nineveh; may furnish an illustration of one of the usual forms. If these views of the meaning of these symbols are correct, then the idea which would be conveyed to the mind of John, and the idea, therefore, which should be conveyed to our minds, is, that the government of God is energetic, firm, intelligent, and that in the execution of its purposes it is rapid like the unobstructed flight of an eagle, or protective like the care of the eagle for its young. When, in the subsequent parts of the vision, these living creatures are represented as offering praise and adoration to Him that sits on the throne Rev 4:8<\/span>; Rev 5:8<\/span>, Rev 5:14<\/span>, the meaning would be, in accordance with this representation, that all the acts of divine government do, as if they were personified, unite in the praise which the redeemed and the angels ascribe to God. All living things, and all acts of the Almighty, conspire to proclaim his glory. The church, by her representatives, the four and twenty elders, honors God; the angels, without number, unite in the praise; all creatures in heaven, in earth, under the earth, and in the sea Rev 5:13<\/span>, join in the song; and all the acts and ways of God declare also his majesty and glory: for around his throne, and beneath his throne, are expressive symbols of the firmness, energy, intelligence, and power with which his government is administered.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 7<\/span>. The first beast<\/B><\/I> was <\/B>like a lion<\/B><\/I>] It is supposed that there is a reference here to the four standards<\/I> or ensigns<\/I> of the four divisions<\/I> of the tribes in the Israelitish camp, as they are described by Jewish writers.<\/P> <\/P> The first living creature was like a lion<\/I>; this was, say the rabbins, the standard of JUDAH on the east<\/I>, with the two tribes of Issachar<\/I> and Zabulon<\/I>. The second, like a calf<\/I> or ox<\/I>, which was the emblem of EPHRAIM who pitched on the west<\/I>, with the two tribes of Manasseh<\/I> and Benjamin<\/I>. The third, with the face<\/I> of a man<\/I>, which, according to the rabbins, was the standard of REUBEN who pitched on the south<\/I>, with the two tribes of Simeon<\/I> and Gad<\/I>. The fourth which was like a flying<\/I> (spread) eagle<\/I>, was, according to the same writers, the emblem on the ensign of DAN who pitched on the north<\/I>, with the two tribes of Asher<\/I> and Naphtali<\/I>. This traditionary description agrees with the four faces<\/I> of the cherub in Ezekiel’s vision. See my notes<\/I> and diagrams<\/I> on Num. 2<\/span>.<\/P> <\/P> Christian tradition<\/I> has given these creatures as emblems of the four<\/I> evangelists. To John<\/I> is attributed the EAGLE; to Luke<\/I> the OX, to Mark<\/I> the LION, and to Matthew<\/I> the MAN, or angel<\/I> in human<\/I> form. As the former represented the whole Jewish Church<\/I> or congregation<\/I>, so the latter is intended to represent the whole<\/I> Christian Church<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n It is observed concerning these four living creatures, (for so they were, not beasts in a strict sense, as it is opposed to flying things, for the fourth was a fowl): <\/P> 1. That they were the same mentioned in Ezekiels vision, Eze 1:10<\/span>; only each one there is said to have had the four faces of these creatures, here each one had a single face proper to it. <\/P> 2. That these were the four creatures whose portraitures were in the four ensigns of the Israelites as they were marshalled into four companies, allotting the men of three tribes to each company. <\/P> Judahs standard had a lion in its colours, according to Jacobs prophecy of that tribe, Gen 49:9<\/span>, Ephraim had an ox, Reuben had a man, Dan an eagle. This the learned Mede proves from the Rabbins, who, though fabulous enough, yet in such a thing may be credited. It is also thought they answered the four cherubims in the temple. <\/P> Question.<\/B> But what is signified by these four living creatures? <\/P> Solution.<\/B> Some say the four evangelists; others, four apostles, &c. But certainly they judge best who say, that by them is signified the various gifts with which God blesseth his ministers, giving to some more courage and fortitude, that they are like lions; to others more mildness and meekness, that they are like oxen or calves; others have more wisdom and prudence, which most adorn a man; others a more piercing insight into the mysteries of Gods kingdom, rendering them like eagles. <\/P> <\/p>\n 7. calf<\/B>“a steer”[ALFORD]. The Septuagint<\/I>often uses the Greek<\/I> term here for an ox<\/I> (Exo 22:1<\/span>;Exo 29:10<\/span>, &c.). <\/P> as a man<\/B>The oldestmanuscripts have “as of a man.”<\/P><\/p>\n And the first beast [was] like a lion<\/strong>,…. And this figure expresses the strength of the ministers of the word, the lion being the strongest among beasts, Pr 30:30<\/span>, to do the work they are called to, to endure hardness, as good soldiers of Christ, and to bear the infirmities of the weak; and also it denotes their courage and boldness in preaching the Gospel of Christ, without fearing the faces of men, or of being afraid of their revilings:<\/p>\n and the second beast like a calf<\/strong>; or “ox”, for so the word here used signifies in the Hellenistic language, and with the Septuagint interpreters, and agrees with Eze 1:10<\/span>, and designs the laboriousness of Christ’s faithful ministers in treading out the corn of Gospel truth, who labour in the word and doctrine, and are labourers with God; as also their humility, meekness, and patience in bearing insults, reproaches, and sufferings for Christ, and instructing those that oppose themselves:<\/p>\n and the third beast had a face as a man<\/strong>; and points at the humanity and tender heartedness, the wisdom, prudence, knowledge, and understanding, and the use of the reasoning faculty, together with a manly spirit in abiding by the Gospel at any rate; all which are so necessary in the ministers of the word.<\/p>\n And the fourth beast [was] like a flying eagle<\/strong>; which sets forth the sagacity and penetration of Gospel ministers into the deep things of God, and mysteries of grace, and their readiness and swiftness to do the will of God, in publishing the everlasting Gospel; see Re 14:6<\/span>.<\/p>\n Like a lion <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Associative-instrumental case again. In Rev 1:6<\/span>; Rev 1:10<\/span>) each <\/SPAN><\/span> has four faces, but here each has a different face. “The four forms represent whatever is noblest, strongest, wisest, and swiftest in nature” (Swete). But it is not necessary to try to find a symbolism in each face here like the early baseless identification with the Four Evangelists (the lion for Mark, the man for Matthew, the calf for Luke, the eagle for John). <\/SPAN><\/span> is first a sprout, then the young of animals, then a calf (bullock or heifer) as in Luke 15:23<\/span>; Luke 15:27<\/span>; Luke 15:30<\/span>, or a full-grown ox (Eze 1:10<\/span>).<\/P> Had <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Masculine singular (some MSS. <\/SPAN><\/span> neuter singular agreeing with <\/SPAN><\/span>) present active participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>, changing the construction with the <\/SPAN><\/span> almost like a finite verb as in verse 8<\/span>.<\/P> A face as of a man <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Shows that the likeness in each instance extended only to the face.<\/P> Like an eagle flying <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Present middle participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>, to fly, old verb, in N.T. only in Rev 4:7<\/span>; Rev 8:13<\/span>; Rev 12:14<\/span>; Rev 14:6<\/span>; Rev 19:17<\/span>. The <\/SPAN><\/span> in Matt 24:28<\/span>; Luke 17:37<\/span> may be a form of vulture going after carrion, but not in Rev 8:13<\/span>; Rev 12:14<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n Lion, calf, man, eagle. From this passage is derived the familiar symbolism of the four Evangelists; Mark seated on a lion, Luke on a steer, Matthew on a man, and John on an eagle. These are varied however. Irenaeus attributes the lion to John, and the eagle to Mark. Augustine the lion to Matthew, the man to Mark. <\/P> Lion. See on 1Pe 5:8<\/span>. <\/P> Calf [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Compare Luk 14:23<\/span>. In the Septuagint for an ox or steer. Exo 22:1<\/span>; Eze 1:10<\/span>. <\/P> Eagle [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. See on Mt 24:28<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1 ) “And the first beast,”<\/strong> (kai to zoon to proton) “And the first living creature (beast like one),” the first in order of the four living creatures, before the throne of God in heaven.<\/p>\n 2) “Was like a lion,”<\/strong> (homoron leonti) “Was (in appearance) like a lion;- symbolizing strength and courage; as Ezekiel and Daniel beheld four living creatures symbolizing four World Gentile Powers so it appears that these similar four living creatures before the throne appear to represent the redeemed from among the Gentiles Eze 1:1-28<\/span>; Dan 2:37-43<\/span>; Dan 7:3-7<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “And the second beast like a calf,”<\/strong> (kai to deuteron zoon homoion mascho) “And the second (in order) living creature (was) in appearance, similar to a calf,” or an ox steer symbolizing patience and work, of respectful merit, Deu 25:4<\/span>; 1Co 9:9-10<\/span>; 1Ti 5:18<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “And the third beast had a face as a man,”<\/strong> (kai to triton zoon echon to prosopon hos anthropou) “And the third living creature (in appearance as a beast) was having or holding the face-likeness as of a man,” a face of intelligence, Eph 5:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n 5) “And the fourth beast was like a flying eagle,” <\/strong>(kaito tetarton zoon homoion aeto petomeno) “And the fourth living creature (in appearance as a beast) was similar to a flying eagle,” It soared high, had velocity in flight and could see afar, Pro 30:19<\/span>; Eze 17:3<\/span>. The flying eagle was also a Bible symbol of deliverance of God’s people from bondage (Israel) in Egypt especially, Exo 19:4<\/span>; Psa 103:5<\/span>.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n (7) And the first beast <\/strong>(better, in each case, living being)<\/em> was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf <\/strong>(comp. Eze. 1:7<\/span>; Eze. 1:10<\/span>), and the third beast had a face as a man <\/strong>(or, its countenance as of a man),<\/em> and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.<\/strong>These are living beings<\/em>, not beasts, as in the Authorised version. The rendering beasts introduces confusion of thought, and violates the laws of Apocalyptic, indeed of Bible imagery. The evil powers are described under the emblem of wild beasts; for thus brute force, and unrestrained passion, and self-will, &c., are symbolised. (See Rev. 11:7<\/span>; Rev. 13:1-2<\/span>; Rev. 16:2<\/span>; Rev. 17:3<\/span>; Rev. 17:7<\/span>; Rev. 19:19-20<\/span>; Rev. 20:10<\/span>.) But these living beings do not represent the evil element in the world. They are representative of animated nature. They are four in numberas there are four beings which hold a primacy in the world: among created beings, man; among birds, the eagle; among cattle, the ox; among untamed animals, the lion. The characteristics of these four chiefs of creation unite to make a perfect picture of the spirit of true service, which should be brave as the lion, patient as the ox, aspiring as the eagle, intelligent as man. It may here be noted that the number four in the Apocalypse is almost always associated with the earth. (See Rev. 7:1<\/span>.) We need only call to mind the four quarters, four elements, four seasons, to see its fitness. (Comp. Rev. 21:13<\/span>; Rev. 21:16<\/span>.) The living creatures are full of eyes. This strong expression is used again in the next verse. Twice used, its meaning must be significant. The same idea is found in the later prophets of the Old Testament. The wheels of Ezekiel and their tires (Eze. 1:18<\/span>; Eze. 10:12<\/span>) were full of eyes. The stone of Zechariah had seven (the perfect number) eyes (Zec. 3:9<\/span>). The thought is emphasised again in Rev. 5:6<\/span>, where the Lamb is said to have seven eyes. Multiplicity of eyes may symbolise vitality and vigilance. Some have thought, inappropriately enough, that it signifies the unceasing praise of Gods works. A better interpretation is given by Dr. Currey. The power of nature is no blind force, it is employed in the service of Gods providence, and all over it the stamp of reason is impressed. (See Speakers Commentary<\/em> on Eze. 1:18<\/span>). May we not add that the force of nature is always observant of Gods will? Its myriad eyes are fixed on Him, as the eyes of a servant on his master (Psa. 123:2<\/span>); doing His commandment, hearkening unto the voice of His word (Psa. 103:20-21<\/span>); the eyes too of all creation wait on God, who gives them meat in due season (Psa. 104:27<\/span>, Prayer Book version)<\/p>\n His state<\/p>\n Is kingly; thousands at His bidding speed And post oer land and ocean without rest; The beasts, or cherubim; the four and twenty elders<\/strong>, Rev 4:7-11<\/span>.<\/p>\n 7<\/strong>. <\/strong> Lion calf man eagle<\/strong> These four are the cherubim, <\/em> the precedent of which will be found in the first chapter of Ezekiel. But the old prophet’s cherubim had each one the four faces and the four wings. This, and the fact that in Rev 5:8<\/span>, they “fell down before the Lamb,” suggests that these were human in form and animal only in face. They thus symbolize the living creation in its highest aspects and its relations to its Creator.<\/p>\n Cognate to this interpretation was the view of the early Church writers, that the cherubim represent the four Gospels. These Gospels are an earth-wide gospel; a gospel to be preached to every creature. They are to be spread to the “four corners of the earth.” That the four cherubim represent the four Gospels is an idea, as Wordsworth well remarks, coming from the school of John, being found in Irenaeus, the pupil of the pupil of John. It may be more than a coincidence that the Gospels are the creational number, four. <\/em> But when writers have proceeded to assign either one of the four symbols to either one Gospel the want of individual resemblance has produced a variety of assignments. Irenaeus makes the lion, John; the steer, Luke; the man, Matthew: and the eagle, Mark. Augustine makes the lion, Matthew; the man, Mark; the ox, Luke; and the eagle, John. We suppose that most modern critics would concede the eagle to the soaring John; to Luke, the broad, Pauline, humanitarian friend of the Gentiles, if not himself a Gentile, most would concede the man; to the concise and vigorous Mark, the lion; and to plain, substantial, ultra-Jewish Matthew, both the sturdiness and the sacrificial character of the ox.<\/p>\n Rev 4:7<\/span> . While, in Ezekiel, [1783] the forms of the four cherubim [1784] bear in wonderful combination the fourfold faces of the lion, the ox, the man, and the eagle, John with more distinct clearness has so seen the four beings that in each of them only a part of that fourfold form is expressed. In this, also, he is distinguished from Ezekiel, that he represents his “four beings,” not each with four but with six wings, as the seraphim in Isa 6<\/span> .; yet, on the other hand, John agrees with Ezekiel, that in him the wings, as well as the whole body, appear full of eyes (Rev 4:8<\/span> ).<\/p>\n The second being is like a , i.e., not a “calf” in distinction from a grown ox, but, as is already required in an aesthetic respect, the ox. The LXX. have , Eze 1:10<\/span> , for ; [1785] also Ezek. 21:37; [1786] Lev 22:23<\/span> . But they render thus also the words , [1787] [1788] and [1789] By , therefore, only some animal of that class is designated; the more precise determination is given by the context.<\/p>\n The third has [1790] <\/em><\/strong> . In Ezekiel the chief form of the cherubim is human; this has been adopted also by Vitr. and Hengstenb. for the Apoc. [1791] On the contrary, Beng. infers from the words <\/em><\/strong> . <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> . <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> , <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> : “So it did not have in other respects the form of a man.” Ebrard is right in being contented with not knowing more than is said in the text. In the third being, however, the human face<\/em> is characteristic; just as in the eagle, to which the fourth being is like, not so much the form in itself, as the flying, is significant, and therefore marked.<\/p>\n [1783] Ch. Rev 1:10<\/span> .<\/p>\n [1784] Cf. E. Riehm, De Natura et Notione Symbolica Cheruborum<\/em> , Bas. et Ludov., 1864, p. 23. Cf. also Stud. u. Krit<\/em> ., 1871, p. 399 sq.; Lmmert, D. Cherubim der H. Schrift<\/em> ., Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theologie, Gotha, 1867, p. 587 sq., 609 sq.; L. Seeburg, Die Sage von den Greifen bei den Alten; James 1 : Ueber d. Ursprung der Sage und ihre Verbreitung im Oriente<\/em> , Gttinger Inaugural-Dissertat. (1867), pp. 7, 32 sq.<\/p>\n [1785] Eze 1:7<\/span> , as it refers to the feet of the cherubim, does not belong here.<\/p>\n [1786] LXX., Rev 22:1<\/span> .<\/p>\n [1787] Exo 29:10<\/span> .<\/p>\n [1788] Exo 32:4<\/span> .<\/p>\n [1789] Gen 12:16<\/span> .<\/p>\n [1790] . See Critical Remarks.<\/p>\n [1791] Cf. Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
They also serve who only stand and wait.<\/p>\nFuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n