Ezekiel Chapter 10 verse 5 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerses 5, 6. - And the sound of the cherubim. The use of God Almighty (El Shaddai; comp. Exodus 6:3), the name of God as ruling over nature, while Jehovah expressed his covenant relationship to Israel, is, it may be noted, characteristic of the early stage of the religion of Israel (Genesis 17:1; Genesis 28:3; Genesis 43:14; Genesis 48:3). Shaddai alone appears eighty-one times in the Book of Job. Psalm 29. explains the voice of El Shaddai (though there it is "the voice of Jehovah") as meaning the roar of the thunder. The hands of the "living creatures," now recognized as cherubim, had been mentioned in Ezekiel 1:8, and it is one of those hands that gives the fire into the hands of the linen vested minister of wrath. The elemental forces of nature, of which the cherubim are, partly at least, the symbols, are working out the purposes of Jehovah. The two words translated wheels are different in the Hebrew. The first is singular and collective (galgal, the "whirling thing," used of the wheel of a war chariot, Ezekiel 23:24; Isaiah 5:28), and might well be translated "chariot" here. The second, that used in Ezekiel 1:15, 16, also in the singular, is applied to the single wheel of the four by which the angel, ministers stood.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(5) The sound of the cherubims' wings.--This sound indicates that the cherubim were already in motion, for when they stood they "let down their wings" (Ezekiel 1:24). They were now just on the eve of going away, and the movement was a great one, so that the sound was "heard even to the outer court" Throughout this chapter the s in cherubims is quite unnecessary, since cherubim is already the Hebrew plural of cherub.Ezekiel 10:6-7 are not subsequent in time to Ezekiel 10:5, but are simply a more particular account, given parenthetically, of what had already been briefly mentioned in Ezekiel 10:2.Ezekiel 10:8-17 are largely a repetition of the description of the vision in Ezekiel 1, but it is here given in parts, parenthetically, in connection with the progress of the narrative. The course of the narrative itself is as follows :--After the man in linen has gone out (Ezekiel 10:7), a command is issued, "O wheel." They were to set themselves in motion. Then (Ezekiel 10:15) they "were lifted up," and (Ezekiel 10:18-19) "the glory of the Lord departed" from the Temple, and "mounted up from the earth." The repetition of the description of Ezekiel 1 is by no means accidental, but serves partly to connect the various particulars with the course of the symbolic narrative, and mainly to emphasize the identity of the glory departing from the Temple with the Divine glory before seen. There are, however, several variations from the former description. Particularly in Ezekiel 10:12 (as in Revelation 4:6) there is mention of the abundance of eyes, a symbol of vigilance and activity, covering the whole body of the cherubim and the wheels. In Ezekiel 10:14, after saying that "every one had four faces," as in Ezekiel 1, the particular faces are described, but with this important variation :--the first is said to be "the face of a cherub," instead of "the face of an ox," as in Ezekiel 1; more exactly it is "the face of the cherub," since the Hebrew has the definite article. The reason of this variation and the meaning of "the face of the cherub" are both obscure. In Ezekiel 10:22 it is expressly said that their faces were the same as those seen by the Chebar; and again, in Ezekiel 10:15-20, the whole vision is described as the "living creature" seen by the Chebar. It is plain, therefore, that the variation is only in the description, and not in the thing described. The most natural solution of the difficulty in the text as it stands is that a cherub was ordinarily represented with the face of an ox. But there is no evidence of this, and it is not impossible that a slight error may have been introduced into the text. The Greek version did not contain the verse in the time of St. Jerome, and in its Roman form does not now. It was introduced into the Alexandrian copies from the later version of Theodotion, and Theodoret does not recognise it. . . .