The Call of Ezekiel (1:1-3:21). 

        In the height of summer 592 B.C., Ezekiel was transported in a trance (3:12, 14) to the banks of the river Chebar, a canal south of Babylon. As he stood there he saw a great storm-cloud being borne down on him out of the North (1:4). As it drew nearer he saw that it was the chariot-throne of God (1:5-28). We shall make no effort either to clarify Ezekiel’s description or to expound its symbolism. For the former, recourse should be had to a commentary, if the study is felt to be profitable. As regards the latter, seeing that the rabbis themselves declared that he who had come to understand the Chariot knew all the mysteries of creation, and restricted its study to those over thirty, it is clear that for them, too, the symbolism presented the very greatest difficulties.

        Ezekiel no more explains the living creatures or cherubim (10:20) than Isaiah the seraphim (Isa. 6:2); for us to attempt the task would lead us far beyond the limits of this book (but see note on 28:14 below). Note that in 41:19, probably for ease in reproduction, the cherubim have only two faces.

        It is widely claimed by scholars that the cherubim of the vision show strong traces of the winged figures so common in Mesopotamian temples. While we consider the claim to be exaggerated, we have no interest in denying it. In the vision, the Chariot comes from the North, though Jehovah’s residence in Zion is to the West (10:4, 19; 11:23; 43:2ff). The simplest explanation is that the home of the Babylonian gods was in the North (Isa. 14:13). If the Chariot comes from the North, it is because Jehovah has met and defeated the gods of Baby­lonia on their own ground; if the bearers of His Chariot re­mind us of the Babylonian temple guardians, it is because they have become His slaves. We are not suggesting that Ezekiel believed in the objective existence of the Babylonian deities, but simply that in such symbolical visions the details may carry implications which are far from obvious at first con­sideration.

        If we find Ezekiel’s symbolism over-elaborate and far­fetched, we must not forget that the whole of the priestly ritual was symbolic, as indeed was the lay-out of the Temple, and so symbolism had become second nature to him. It is essential for our study of Ezekiel to remember this, and also to bear in mind that there are Christians for whom Ezekiel is one of the most precious of the books of the Old Testament just because of its symbolism. The greatest difficulty of ch. 1 lies in the fact that when it comes to the glories of Deity, symbolism is as inadequate as direct description, and more difficult.