Friday, September 18, 2020

"glorious cherubs" (Hebrews 9:5)

Greek: ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς Χερουβεὶν δόξης κατασκιάζοντα τὸ ἱλαστήριον· περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἔστιν νῦν λέγειν κατὰ μέρος.

NWT 2013:
"and above it were the glorious cherubs overshadowing the propitiatory cover. But now is not the time to speak of these things in detail."

NET Bible:
"And above the ark were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Now is not the time to speak of these things in detail."

This image is the textual commentary of Zerwick-Grosvenor for Hebrews 9.




Zerwick-Grosvenor understand δόξης as a reference to the divine glory manifested "in the cloud" above the Ark of the Covenant. Compare Hebrews 1:3. Maybe translate as "cherubs of glory."

ESV
renders "
cherubim of glory"

Gareth Cockerill (Hebrews Commentary in the NICNT Series, page 508 of the electronic version):
"The Cherubim were two figures made of gold whose wings overshadowed the 'Place of Atonement' or 'Mercy Seat' covering the Ark (Exod 25:10–22; 37:1–9). They were Cherubim of 'Glory' because it was between them that the 'Glory' of the divine presence dwelt among God’s people (cf. Exod 25:22).³⁴ This was the earthly 'throne' of God (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; Pss 80:2; 99:1). It was the place where the high priest came annually on the Day of Atonement to sprinkle sacrificial blood before the 'Mercy Seat' in atonement for sin (Lev 16:1–19)."

Footnote 34: "Thus 'Cherubim of Glory' does not mean 'glorious Cherubim' but the 'Cherubim' between whom the 'Glory' of God dwelt. See Koester 396, REB. So also Kistemaker, 240; Westcott, 249."

I also found an Exodus commentary online by George Bush (not the former US President!), and he points to the cherubs overshadowing the propitiatory cover , which also interested me: the cherubs on the Ark assumed a position of submissive worship before YHWH and they figuratively protected the propitiatory cover (mercy seat or place of atonement) with their overarching wings.

However, Bush makes an additional point:



I do not accept Bush's remarks uncritically; he makes some good observations about the overshadowing and the "cherubs of glory." His remarks about God's Son need to be qualified, but I think it's likely that the "glory" mentioned in Hebrews 9:5 just might be the divine glory that was manifested above the Ark (Leviticus 16:1-2; Numbers 7:89; Psalm 80:1).

John Chrysostom:
"What is 'the Cherubim of glory'? He either means 'the glorious,' or those which are under God."

Henry Alford:
"The δόξα is the Shechinah, or bright cloud of glory, in which Jehovah appeared between the cherubic forms, and to which, as attendants, and watchers, and upholders, they belonged. The want of the art. before δόξης is no argument for the other view, as δόξα is often used thus anarthrous for the Shechinah: cf. Exodus 40:28 (34), κ. ἐκάλυψεν ἡ νεφέλη τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου, κ. δόξης κυρίου ἐπλήσθη ἡ σκηνή: 1Kings 4:22: Ezekiel 9:3; Ezekiel 10:18 al. On the Cherubim, see further Winer, Realw. sub voce) overshadowing (casting shadow down upon, causing to be κατάσκιον: see reff. Exod. χερουβίν here, as usually, is neuter: cf. Genesis 3:24: Exodus 25:18 al.: sometimes the LXX have used it masc.: e. g. Exodus 25:20; Exodus 28:23 al. There seems to be a reason for the variation: the neut. being employed when they are spoken of merely as figures, the masc. when as agents."

17 comments:

Duncan said...

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/image-gallery/t/tutankhamuns-throne

Edgar Foster said...

The article makes some good points. There were likely similarities and differences between the sacred Ark, portrayed as being a chest in Tanakh, and secular thrones from the Ancient Near East. Jehovah's throne was also associated with his merkabah. See 1 Chron. 28:18. Psalm 80:1 has the throne imagery.

Duncan said...

Just came across this paper from 2013:-

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:7e6701bd-90ae-4fa3-b269-79e1dad9f504/download_file?safe_filename=THESIS01&file_format=application%2Fpdf&type_of_work=Thesis

Edgar Foster said...

Thanks, Duncan. Lots to mull over.

Roman said...

For some reason Bush's comments arn't readable for me on the blog post...

Edgar Foster said...

When I first posted the picture, it was clickable and readable. I edited the post, but it may/may note help. Google Books also has Bush's commentaries for free: https://books.google.com/books?id=Jk70LEZJFA8C&pg=PA94&dq=george+bush+exodus+cherubs&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjk3MPlu_rrAhUIwFkKHUDIBYAQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=george%20bush%20exodus%20cherubs&f=false

Duncan said...

The Hittite connection rears its head again on page 21.

Also the possibility of the term keruv being a sword or plough is evident.

Edgar Foster said...

Gesenius was probably right when he said the etymology for cherub is obscure. Hey another suggestion has been that it derived from Akkadian and means to pray or to bless.

Duncan said...

I cannot get past the wordplay of the flaming sword.

Edgar Foster said...

That wordplay could be something in favor of the sword etymology: I'm open to the idea.

I saw this article a while back or you might have sent it: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/of-cherubim-and-the-divine-throne-rev-56-in-context/ADD2D38AB741253313B7CE01DAB78C9A

See also https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1341.2015.2739#metadata_info_tab_contents

Duncan said...

Don't remember that first paper but it is interesting.

The second paper has a big problem chronologically speaking.

https://www.gordondoherty.co.uk/writeblog/bronze-age-lightsabers

This is not an achademic paper but imo makes a valid point regarding differing technology and materials from place to place at any given time. How they might be interpreted.

Edgar Foster said...

I'm not necessarily endorsing the conclusions of the paper on Gen. 3:24, but I don't think it has a big problem with chronology either. See page 5.

There is a place in historical work for interpretation or for reporting the interpretations of others. On the other hand, some ideas are probably just wrong although Doherty seems to maintain a balance when it comes to assertions.

Duncan said...

Just for clarity I am referring to murray h. lichtenstein.

"The question of any direct influence on the passage in Genesis must rest with whether its author could possibly have seen or known of the Persian chariot wheel. Indeed, positing the dependence of the biblical imagery on this novel modification of Persian chariots necessarily implies a mid-fifth-century BCE date for the composition of Gen 3:24, which raises questions of its own."

IMO this should have been at the beginning of the paper rather than the end.

Duncan said...

This page is useful:-

It really explains why iron became preferable in many places, after copper.
They were running out of smelt energy - trees

I have read more than one paper that Greece bronze age period all but stripped the country of trees.

Edgar Foster said...

I'm glad you clarified your remarks on the article because I originally took your comments to mean something else. Also, you referred to a page above, but I don't see a link. Thanks!

Duncan said...

Not sure what happened above. See:-

https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/what-is-the-embodied-energy-of-materials.html

Edgar Foster said...

Another article about early iron swords: https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_2_3.html

It's written by an "amateur," but he points toward scholarly sources.