John Calvin Commentary Ezekiel 1

We see that the Prophet was called to the office of a Teacher in the fifth year after Jehoiachin had voluntarily surrendered himself to the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:15) and had been dragged into exile, together with his mother. For, he says, it was in the thirtieth year. Most commentators follow the Chaldee Paraphrast and understand him to date from the finding of the Book of the Law.

It is quite clear that this year was the eighteenth of King Josiah, but in my computation, I do not subscribe to the opinion of those who adopt this date. For this phrase—the thirtieth year—would then appear too obscure and forced. We nowhere read that succeeding writers adopted this date as a standard.

Besides, there is no doubt that the usual method among the Jews was to begin to reckon from a Jubilee. For this was a starting point for the future. I therefore do not doubt that this thirtieth year is reckoned from the Jubilee. Nor is my opinion a new one, for Jerome mentions it, although he altogether rejects it, being deceived by an opposing opinion.

But since it is certain that the Jews used this method of computation and made a beginning from Jobel, that is, the Jubilee, this best explains the thirtieth year. If anyone should object that we do not read that this eighteenth year of King Josiah was the usual year in which everyone returned to his own lands (Leviticus 25), liberty was given to the slaves, and the entire restoration of the whole people took place, yet the answer is easy. Although we cannot ascertain in what year the Jobel fell, it is sufficient for us to assign the Jubilee to this year because the Jews followed the custom of numbering their years from this institution.

Just as the Greeks had their Olympiads and the Romans their Consuls, and from these their computation of annals, so also the Hebrews were accustomed to begin from the year Jobel, when they counted their years leading up to the next restoration, which I have just mentioned. It is therefore probable that this was a Jubilee year—it is probable, then, that this was the Jubilee. For it is said that Josiah celebrated the Passover with such magnificent pomp and splendor that there had been nothing like it since the time of Samuel (2 Chronicles 35:18).

The conjecture that best explains this is not simply that he celebrated the Passover with such magnificence, but that he was induced to do so by the peculiar occasion when the people were restored and returned to their possessions, and the slaves were set free. Since, then, this was the Jubilee, the pious king was induced to celebrate the Passover with far greater splendor than was usual—indeed, even to surpass David and Solomon.

Again, although he reigned thirteen years afterwards, we do not read that he celebrated any Passover with remarkable splendor. We do not doubt his yearly celebration, for this was customary (2 Kings 23:23). From this we conclude that this particular celebration was extraordinary and that the year was Jobel. But though it is not expressed in Scripture, it is sufficient for us that the Prophet reckoned the years according to the accustomed manner of the people.

For he says that this was the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s captivity (who is also called Jehoiakim); for Jehoiakim succeeded Josiah and reigned eleven years. The thirteen years that remain of Josiah’s reign and these eleven make twenty-four (2 Kings 23:36). Now, his successor, Jehoiachin, passed immediately into the hands of King Nebuchadnezzar, was taken captive at the beginning of his reign, and reigned only three or four months (2 Kings 24:8). After that, the last king, Zedekiah, was set up by the will of the king of Babylon. We see, therefore, that nine years are made up: add the duration of Jehoiachin’s reign, and so it is no longer doubtful that the thirtieth year is reckoned from the eighteenth of King Josiah. It is true that the Law of God was found during this year (2 Chronicles 34:14), but the Prophet here accommodates himself to the received rule and custom.

We must now come to God’s intention in appointing Ezekiel as His Prophet. For thirty-five years Jeremiah had not ceased to cry aloud, but to little effect. Therefore, when this Prophet Jeremiah was so occupied, God wished to give him a colleague. And it was no small relief when Jeremiah, at Jerusalem, became aware that the Holy Spirit was speaking through another mouth in harmony with him, for by this means the truth of his teaching was confirmed.

In the thirteenth year of Josiah, Jeremiah undertook the prophetic office (Jeremiah 1:2): eighteen years of Josiah’s reign remained; add the eleven years of Jehoiakim, and it will make twenty-nine; then add another year, and five more, and we shall have thirty-five years. This then was his hard task: to cry aloud continually for thirty-five years to the deaf, indeed, even to the insane.

God, therefore, so that He might help His servant, gave him an ally who would teach the same things at Babylon that Jeremiah had not ceased proclaiming at Jerusalem. He benefited not only the captives but also the rest of the people who still remained in the city and the land.

As far as the captives were concerned, this confirmation was necessary for them, for they had false prophets there, as we learn from Jeremiah 29:21. There was Ahab the son of Kolaiah, and Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah. They proudly boasted that they were endowed with the Spirit of revelation; they promised the people marvels; they derided the weakness of those who had left their country; they said that they were determined to fight to the very last and to risk their lives rather than voluntarily give up the inheritance of divine promise.

In this way they insulted the captives. After this, there was Shemaiah the Nehelamite (Jeremiah 29:24), who wrote to the high priest Zephaniah and reproached him for being careless and neglectful because he did not severely punish Jeremiah as an impostor, a fanatic, and a false intruder into the prophetic office.

Since, therefore, the Devil had his busy agents there, God stationed His Prophet there, and thus we see how useful, indeed, how necessary it was, that Ezekiel should discharge his prophetic office there. But the usefulness of his instructions extended much further, since those at Jerusalem were compelled to listen to the prophecies that Ezekiel uttered in Chaldea.

When they saw that his prophecies agreed with those of Jeremiah, they would necessarily at least inquire into the cause of this coincidence. For it is not natural that one Prophet at Jerusalem and another in Chaldea should utter their prophecies, as it were, in the same key, just as two singers unite their voices in harmony with each other.

For no melody can be devised more perfectly complete than that which appears between these two servants of God. Now we see the meaning of what our Prophet says concerning “the years.” In the thirtieth year: then in the fourth month, (the word “month” being understood) and in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives.

Before I proceed any further, I will briefly touch on the subjects Ezekiel treats. He has all things in common with Jeremiah, as I have said, with this peculiarity: he denounces the final slaughter against the people because they did not cease to heap iniquity upon iniquity, and thereby inflamed God’s vengeance still more.

He threatens them, therefore, and not just once, because the people’s hard-heartedness was such that it was not enough to utter God’s threats three or four times unless he continually impressed them upon them. But, at the same time, he shows the reasons why God determined to treat His people so severely: namely, because they were contaminated with many superstitions; because they were treacherous, greedy, cruel, and full of plunder; given over to luxury and depraved by lust. Our Prophet unites all these things to show that God’s vengeance is not too severe, since the people had arrived at the utmost height of impiety and all wickedness.

At the same time, he gives them, here and there, some taste of God’s mercy. For all threats are useless unless some promise of favor is extended. Indeed, God’s vengeance, as soon as it is displayed, drives people to despair, and despair hurls them headlong into madness. For as soon as anyone apprehends God’s anger, he is necessarily agitated and then, like a raging beast, wages war with God Himself.

For this reason, I said, all threats are useless without a taste of God’s mercy. The Prophets always argue with people with no other intention than that of stirring them up to penitence, which they could never achieve unless God could be reconciled to those who had been alienated from Him.

This then is the reason why our Prophet, as well as Jeremiah, when they reprove the people, temper their harshness by interspersing promises. He also prophesies against pagan nations, like Jeremiah, especially against the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Tyrians, the Egyptians, and the Assyrians (Jeremiah 26-29). But from the fortieth chapter, he treats more fully and abundantly the restoration of the Temple and the city.

There he openly announces that a new state of the people would arise, in which both the royal dignity would flourish again and the priesthood would recover its ancient excellence. To the end of the book, he unfolds the remarkable benefits of God, which were to be hoped for after the close of the seventy years.

Here it is useful to remember what we observed in the case of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 28): while the false prophets were promising the people a return after three or five years, the true Prophets were predicting what would really happen, so that the people might patiently submit themselves to God, and that the length of time might not interrupt their calm submission to His just corrections.

Now that we understand what our Prophet is addressing, and the tendency as well as the substance of his teaching, I will proceed with the context.

He says: as I was among the captives. While some skillfully explain the Prophet’s words, they think that he was not actually in the midst of the exiles but that this refers to a vision. They argue that because he uses the word “among” (signifying “in the midst”), its sense could be that he was in the assembly of the whole people. But his intention is quite different, for he uses the above phrase to show that he was an exile along with the rest, and yet that the prophetic spirit was granted to him in that polluted land.

Thus, the words “among the captives,” or “in the midst of the captives,” do not mean the assembly, but simply state that, although the Prophet was far from the Sacred Land, the hand of God was extended to him there, so that he might excel in the prophetic gift. Thus, the folly of those who deny our Prophet the possession of any spirit of revelation before he went into exile is refuted.

Although they do not err so much through mistake and ignorance as through willful stupidity, for the Jews resented nothing more than the thought of God reigning beyond the sacred land. To this day, indeed, they are hardened because they are dispersed throughout the whole world and scattered through all regions, and yet they retain much of their ancient pride.

But then, when there was any hope of return, this profanation—God’s truth shining forth elsewhere than in the holy land, especially outside the Temple—seemed scarcely tolerable to them. The Prophet then shows that he was called to the office of instruction when he was in the midst of the exiles, and one of them.

God’s inestimable goodness is conspicuous in this: He called the Prophet, as it were, from the abyss, for Babylon was a profound abyss. Thus, the Spirit of God emerged with His own instrument; that is, He brought forth this man to be the minister and herald of His vengeance as well as of His favor.

We see, therefore, how wonderfully God drew light out of darkness when our Prophet was called to his office during his exile. In the meantime, although his doctrine ought to have been useful to the Jews still remaining in their homeland, God still wished them not to return to Him without some mark of their disgrace.

For, because they had despised all the prophecies that had been uttered at home—in the Temple, the Sanctuary, and on Mount Zion—these prophecies were now to issue forth from that cursed land, and from a teacher who was sunk, as I have said, in that profound abyss. We see then that God chastised their impious contempt of His instructions, not without putting them to shame.

For a long time Isaiah had discharged the prophetic office; then came Jeremiah, but the people always remained just as they had formerly been. Since, then, prophecy flowing freely from the very fountain was despised by the Jews, God raised up a Prophet in Chaldea. Now, therefore, we see the full meaning of the clause.

He says, by the river of Chebar, which many understand to mean the Euphrates. However, they assign no reason for this except that they do not find any other celebrated river in that country. For the Tigris loses its name after flowing into the Euphrates, and on this account, they think the Euphrates is called Chebar.

But we are ignorant of the region to which our Prophet was banished. Perhaps it was Mesopotamia, or else beyond Chaldea. Besides, since the Euphrates has many tributaries, it is probable that each has its own name. But since all is uncertain, I would rather leave the matter in suspense.

Because the Prophet received his vision on the banks of the river, some argue from this that the waters were, as it were, dedicated to revelations. When they assign the cause, they say that water is lighter than earth, and as a prophet must necessarily rise above the earth, so water is suitable for revelations.

Some connect this with ablution and think that baptism is prefigured. But I pass over these subtleties, which vanish of themselves, and I very willingly leave them because in this way Scripture would lose all its solidity. Conjectures of this kind are very plausible, but we ought to seek sure and firm teaching in Scripture, in which we can acquiesce.

Some, for instance, torture this passage, By the rivers of Babylon we sat down and wept (Psalms 137:1), as if the people went to their banks to pray and worship, when only the geography of that country is described, being watered by many rivers, as I have just mentioned.

He says, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. God opens His heavens, not in the sense that they are literally opened, but when, by removing every obstacle, He allows the eye of the faithful to penetrate even to His celestial glory. For if the heavens were split a thousand times, what great brightness would be required to reach the glory of God?

The sun appears small to us, yet it far exceeds the earth in size. Then the other planets, except the moon, are all like small sparks, and so are the stars. Since, therefore, light itself grows dim before our glance penetrates that far, how can our sight ascend to the incomprehensible glory of God?

It follows, therefore, that when God opens the heavens, He also gives new eyesight to His servants to compensate for their natural inability to pierce not only the intervening space but even a tenth or a hundredth part of it. So, when Stephen saw the heavens open (Acts 7:56), his eyes were doubtless illuminated with unusual powers, enabling him to perceive far more than humans can normally behold.

So, at the baptism of Christ, the heavens were opened (Matthew 3:16); that is, God made it appear to John the Baptist as if he were carried above the clouds. In this sense, the Prophet uses the words, the heavens were opened. He adds, I saw visions of God. Some think this means most excellent visions because anything excellent is called divine in Scripture (as lofty mountains and trees are called mountains and trees of God), but this interpretation seems too weak.

I have no doubt that he calls prophetic inspiration visions of God, and thus professes that he was sent by God because he put off, as it were, his human infirmities when God entrusted him with the office of instructor. And we need not wonder that he uses this phrase, because it was thought incredible that any prophet could arise out of Chaldea.

Nathanael asked whether any good thing could come out of Nazareth, and yet Nazareth was in the Holy Land. How then could the Jews be persuaded that the light of celestial doctrine could shine in Chaldea, that any testimony to God’s grace could spring from there, and that God also exercised judgment there by the mouth of a Prophet?

This would never have been believed unless God’s calling had been marked in some striking and special manner. Since he next adds, this was the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s captivity (or Jechoniah, or Jechaniah), it is plain that by these very words he reproves the obstinacy of the people.

For when God afflicts us severely, at first we are much agitated, but by degrees we necessarily become submissive. Since, however, the willfulness of the people was not subdued during these five years, we infer that they persevered in rebellion against God. Nor does he spare those who remained at Jerusalem, for these took credit to themselves for not going into exile with their brethren and so despised them, as we often find in Jeremiah. Since, then, those who remained at home were self-satisfied and thought their lot the best, the Prophet here marks the time because it was necessary to quell their ferocity and, since they resisted Jeremiah’s prophecies, to use a second hammer that they might be completely broken in pieces. This is the reason why he speaks of the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s captivity.

He does not repeat the copula which was placed at the beginning of the first verse, and we may perhaps wonder why the book should begin with a copula. For when he says, “and it came to pass,” it seems to denote something preceding it, and it appears out of place when nothing comes before it.

But an oblique antithesis or comparison is likely intended between those prophecies that had flourished for a long time at Jerusalem—which was their unique and true seat—and the prophecy arising in Chaldea. It is as if he would say, “even among Chaldeans,” for the particle ו (vau) is often used in the sense of gam, meaning “even.” The sense, therefore, is this: after God had tested His servants even to weariness, since many prophets had fulfilled their duties at Jerusalem, He now finally speaks in Chaldea.

He says, therefore, “the word of the Lord came to him.” I do not know why some imagine that Jeremiah is here called “Buzi,” unless it is because of a foolish belief among the Jews that the father of a prophet is never mentioned unless he himself were a prophet. Their ignorance is proven on other occasions. Here, indeed, their curiosity is shameful, for they decide this Buzi must be a prophet and, knowing of no one else, they fix upon Jeremiah. This is as if it were probable that the father was left at Jerusalem while the son was an exile—a notion that is entirely conjectural.

But because he was a priest, he says, “the son of Buzi.” Our Prophet ought to have some reputation, for if he had been of common obscurity, he would scarcely have been listened to. The priestly dignity, then, helped secure attention. Now he expresses what I have previously mentioned, in the land of Chaldea, as if he were saying: although God has not been accustomed to raise up prophets in lands so distant and polluted, yet now His rule is changed, for even among the Chaldeans is one endowed with the prophetic spirit.

And the particle שם (illic, meaning “there”) is emphatically added: “was there upon him,” he says. For otherwise, the Jews would have feared Ezekiel as if he were a monster when they found that the word of God had come from Chaldea. “What,” they would say, “will God pollute and contaminate His doctrine by its originating from such a place as that?

Who are the Chaldeans, that God should establish His seat there? Mount Zion is His dwelling-place; here He is worshipped and invoked. Here His lamp must burn by necessity, as He has often testified through His prophets.” To such taunts the Prophet replies: God has begun to speak in Chaldea—there His power is conspicuous. “The word of the Lord has come to me; for we know that God alone is to be heard, and that prophets are only to be listened to insofar as they utter what comes from Him.” Therefore, it is required that all teachers of the Church should first have been learners, so that God alone may retain His own rights and be the only Lord and Master.

Since, then, supreme authority resides in God alone, when prophets desire to be heard, they do not claim to offer their own comments but faithfully to deliver a message from God. Our Prophet does likewise. I touch on these points rather lightly now, as I have discussed them more fully elsewhere.

Finally, he adds, the hand of the Lord was upon him. Some explain the word “hand” as “prophecy,” but this seems weak and inadequate to me. I take “hand” to mean divine power, as if Ezekiel had said that he was endowed with divine power, so that it would be quite clear that he was chosen as a Prophet.

The hand of God, then, was a proof of new favor, so that Ezekiel might bring all the captives under his authority, since he carried with him the authority of God. This may also be referred to the efficacy of his doctrine. For the Lord not only suggests words to His servants but also works by the secret influence of His Spirit and does not allow their labors to be in vain.

The passage, then, may be understood in this sense. But since the Prophet only assumes for himself what was necessary, and so claims for himself the position and standing of a Prophet, when he uses the word “hand,” I do not doubt his meaning to be an inward operation. It is admitted that there is an inward efficacy of the Holy Spirit when He pours out His power upon hearers, so that they may embrace a discourse by faith. So also, even if all hearers were deaf and God’s word were to evaporate like smoke, there is still an intrinsic virtue in the prophecies themselves. Ezekiel points out this virtue as given to him by God. I will finish here, because I would be compelled to break off immediately, and we will be coming to the vision, which is the most difficult of all.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, since You blessed Your people with the continued grace of Your Spirit when it was cast out of its inheritance, and You raised up a Prophet even from the lowest depths, who should recall it to life when it had almost despaired—O grant that, although the Church in these days is miserably afflicted by Your hand, we may not be destitute of Your consolation. But show us, through Your pity, that life may be looked for even in the midst of death, so that we may bear all Your chastisements patiently, until You show Yourself to be our reconciled Father. And thus, at last, may we be gathered into that happy kingdom, where we will enjoy our full felicity, in Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[Exposition continues from the previous day's lecture]

A vision will now occupy our attention. Its obscurity so deterred the Jews that they forbade any attempt to explain it. But God appeared to His Prophet either in vain or not in vain. It is most absurd to suppose the former. Therefore, if the vision is useful, it is necessary for us to attain at least a partial understanding of it.

If anyone objects that the vision was exclusively intended for the Prophet, the objection is easily answered: what the Prophet wrote was clearly for the use of the whole Church. Now, if anyone asks whether the vision is lucid, I confess its obscurity, and I can scarcely understand it. But yet, it is not only lawful and useful but necessary to inquire into what God has set before us. Indeed, our sloth would be shameful if we willingly closed our eyes and did not attend to the vision. We will perhaps only skim the surface of what God intends, yet this is of no small importance, and even a slight, not just a moderate, degree of understanding may be sufficient for this. Thus, I briefly finish my preface and come to the words of the Prophet.

We must first consider the intention of this Vision. I have no doubt that God wished first to invest His servant with authority, and then to inspire the people with terror. When therefore a formidable form of God is here described, it ought first to be referred to reverence for the teaching conveyed. For, as we have remarked before, and shall further observe as we proceed, the Prophet’s duty lay among a hard-hearted and rebellious people; their arrogance required to be subdued, for otherwise the Prophet would have spoken to the deaf.

But God had another end in view. An analogy or resemblance is to be seen between this vision and the Prophet’s doctrine. This is one purpose. Then, as to the vision itself, some understand by the four animals the four seasons of the year, and think that the power of God in the government of the whole world is here celebrated.

But that sense is far-fetched. Some think that the four virtues are represented—because, as they say, the image of justice is conspicuous in man, that of prudence in the eagle, of fortitude in the lion, of endurance in the ox. Yet although this is a shrewd conjecture, it has no solidity.

Some take the contrary view, and think that four passions are here intended, namely, fear and hope, sorrow and joy. Some think that three faculties of the mind are denoted. For in the soul, τὸ λόγικον is the seat of reason; θύμικον, that of the passions; ἐπιθυμήτικον, that of the lusts; and συντέρεσις, that of the conscience.

But these guesses are also puerile. It was formerly the received opinion that under this figure were depicted the four Evangelists: they think Matthew was compared to a man, because he begins with the generation of Christ; Mark to a lion, because he begins at the preaching of John; Luke to an ox, because he begins his narrative by mentioning the priesthood; and John to an eagle, because he penetrates, as it were, to the secrets of heaven.

But in this fiction there is no stability, for it would all vanish if it were to be properly examined. Some think it a description of the glory of God in the Church, and that the animals are here to be taken for the perfect who have already made greater progress in faith, and the wheels for the weak and undisciplined.

But they afterwards heap together many trifles, which it is better to bury at once, and not spend our time unprofitably refuting them. All these, then, I reject; and now we must see what the Prophet really does mean. I have already said that it was the Almighty’s plan, in giving commands to His Prophet, to honor him so that his doctrine should not be open to contempt.

But the special reason which I touched upon must be considered—namely, that God shortly points out by this symbol for what purpose He sends His Prophet. For the visions have as great a likeness to the doctrine as possible. For this reason, in my opinion, Ezekiel says, behold! a whirlwind came out of the north. The people had already experienced the vengeance of God, when He had used first the Assyrians and then the Babylonians to chastise them.

Jeconiah, as we have seen, had gone into voluntary exile. The Jews thought that they would still have a quiet home in their city and country, and laughed at the simplicity of those who had so quickly gone into exile. The Prophet therefore says that he saw a stormy wind from the north. This rush of the wind or tempest ought to be referred to the judgment of God, for He wished to strike terror into the Jews, that they should not grow torpid in their security.

After he has spoken concerning the storm or tempest, he adds—I saw four living creatures and four wheels connected together, to signify that their motion had not originated from chance but from God. These two things ought to be joined together, namely, that the storm sprang up out of the north, and that God, the author of the storm, was seen upon His throne.

But in the meanwhile, that God’s majesty might awe the Jews, he says—I saw four living creatures and four wheels connected together. By the four living creatures he understands cherubim. We need no other explanation, for he explains it so in Ezekiel 10, where, when he saw God in the temple, the four living creatures were under His feet, and he says they are cherubim.

Now we must see why four animals are here enumerated, when two cherubim only embraced the Ark of the Covenant; and next, why he describes four heads to each. For if he wished to accommodate his language to the rites of the Sanctuary, why did he not place two cherubim, with which God was content?

For he seems here to depart from the command of God Himself (Exodus 20:18; Numbers 7:89). Now, four heads and round feet do not suit the two cherubim by whom the Ark of the Covenant was surrounded. But the solution is at hand: the Prophet so alludes to the Sanctuary, or, at the same time, to adapt his discourse to the dullness of the people.

For their religion had become so obsolete, and their contempt of the law so great, that the Jews were ignorant of the use of the Sanctuary. Then they so worshipped God as if He were at a distance from them, and entirely rejected His providential care over human affairs. Here, then, we see how gross was their stupor, so that though often struck, they never were aroused.

Because the Jews were thus completely torpid, it became necessary to propose to them a new form. So the Prophet chooses half of it from the Sanctuary itself, and assumes the other half, as it was required for so dull a people; although he did not invent anything from his own mind, for I am now speaking of the counsel of the Holy Spirit.

God was, therefore, unwilling to drive the Jews away from the sanctuary, for that was the foundation of all correct understanding of truth. But because He saw that the legal form was not sufficient, He therefore added a new element; and as He gave each cherub four heads, so He wished their number to be four.

With regard to their number, I do not doubt that God wished to teach us that His influence is diffused through all regions of the world, for we know the world to be divided into four parts. And that the people might know that God’s providence rules everywhere throughout the world, four cherubim were set up.

Here also it is fitting to repeat that angels were represented by cherubim and seraphim. For those who are called cherubim here and in Ezekiel 10 are called seraphim in Isaiah 6:2. And we know that angels are called principalities and powers (Ephesians 3:10) and are made conspicuous by these titles, while Scripture calls them the very hands of God Himself (Colossians 1:16).

Since, therefore, God works by angels and uses them as ministers of His power, then when angels are brought forward, there the providence of God is conspicuous, and His power in the government of the world. This, then, is the reason why not two cherubim only were placed before the Prophet’s eyes, but four: because God’s providence ought to be evident in earthly things, for the people then imagined that God was confined to heaven. Hence the Prophet teaches not only that He reigns in heaven, but that He rules over earthly affairs.

And for this reason, and with this purpose, He extends His power over the four quarters of the globe. Why, then, has each animal four heads? I answer, that by this, angelic virtue is proved to reside in all the animals. Yet a part is put for the whole, because God by His angels works not only in man and other animals, but throughout creation. And because inanimate things have no motion in themselves, as God wished to instruct an ignorant and dull people, He sets before them the image of all things under that of animals.

With reference, then, to living creatures, man holds the first place, because he was formed after the image of God. The lion reigns over the wild beasts, but the ox, because he is most useful, represents all domestic animals, or, as they are usually called, tame animals. Since the eagle is a royal bird, all birds are comprehended under this word. And here I am not fabricating allegories, but only explaining the literal sense, for it seems to me sufficiently plain that God signifies angelic inspiration by the four cherubim and extends it to the four regions of the earth.

Now, as it is equally clear that no creature moves by itself, but that all motions are by the secret instinct of God, therefore each cherub has four heads. It is as if it were said that angels administer God’s empire not in one part of the world only, but everywhere; and next, that all creatures are so impelled as if they were joined together with angels themselves.

The Prophet then ascribes four heads to each, because if we can trust our eyes when observing the manner in which God governs the world, that angelic virtue will appear in every motion. It is then, in fact, just as if angels had the heads of all animals: that is, comprehended within themselves openly and conspicuously all elements and all parts of the world. This much, then, concerning the four heads.

As to the four wheels, I do not doubt that they signify those changes which we commonly call revolutions. For we see the world continually changing and putting on, as it were, new faces, each being represented by a fresh revolution of the wheel, effected by either its own or by some external impulse.

Since, then, there exists no fixed condition of the world, but continual changes are discerned, the Prophet joins the wheels to the angels. It is as if he would assert that no changes occur by chance, but depend upon some agency, namely, that of angels; not that they move things by their inherent power, but because they are, as we have said, God’s hands.

And because these changes are really contortions, the Prophet says, I saw wheel within wheel; for the course of things is not continuous. But when God begins to do anything, He seems, as we shall again perceive, to recede. Then many things mutually concur, from which the Stoics fancied that fate arose from what they called a connection of causes.

But God here teaches His people far otherwise: namely, that the changes of the world are so connected together that all motion depends upon the angels, whom He guides according to His will. Hence the wheels are said to be full of eyes. I think that God opposed this form of the wheels to the foolish opinion of men, because men fancy Fortune blind, and that all things roll on in a kind of turbulent confusion.

God, then, when He compares the changes which happen in the world to wheels, calls them full of eyes, to show that nothing is done with rashness or through the blind impulse of fortune. This imagination surely arises from our blindness: we are blind in the midst of light, and therefore when God works, we think that He turns all things upside down. And because we dare not utter such gross blasphemy against Him, we say that Fortune acts without consideration, but in the meantime we transfer the empire of God to Fortune itself.

Seneca tells a story of a jester belonging to his father-in-law who, when he lost the use of his eyes through old age, exclaimed that he had done nothing to deserve being cast into darkness—for he thought that the sun no longer gave light to the world; but the blindness was in himself.

This is our condition: we are blind, as I have already said, and yet we wish to throw the cause of our blindness upon God Himself. And because we do not dare openly to bring a charge against Him, we impose upon Him the name of fortune; and for this reason the Prophet says the wheels have eyes.

We now understand the scope of the vision, and we must next approach its several parts. After he has said, a wind sprung up from the north, and a great cloud, he adds, there was also a fire folding round itself. Moses, in Exodus 9:24, uses the same word when he speaks of the storm which He caused in Egypt.

There was fire en-folded or entwined, and the splendor of fire. Some shrewdly expound this splendor of the fire, as if God’s judgments were not obscure, but exposed to the eyes of all. I cannot agree in this meaning, nor do I think it correct. Here the majesty of God is described to us according to the usual scriptural method.

He says, the fire was splendid in its circuit, and then there was as it were the appearance of “Hasmal” in the midst of the fire. Many think Hasmal to be an angel or an unknown phantom, but, in my opinion, without reason, for Hasmal seems to me a color.

Jerome, following the Greek, uses the word electrum, but surprises me by saying that it is more precious than gold or silver. For electrum is composed of gold, with a fifth part of it silver; hence, as it does not exceed them both in value, Jerome was mistaken.

But whether it was electrum or any remarkable color, it so clearly portrayed to the Prophet the majesty of God that he ought to be rapt in admiration, although the vision was not offered for his sake personally, but, as I have said before, for the Church at large.

The color differed from that of fire, that the Prophet might understand that the fire was heavenly and, as a symbol of God’s glory, had a form unlike that of common fire. Now follows:

I have already explained why God showed four angels to his Prophet in the form of four animals. It was necessary to turn a little aside from the sanctuary, since the whole legal worship was offensive to the profane. God therefore descends, as it were, from heaven and appears familiarly on earth. It is as if he would say that he not only reigned above among his angels but also exercised his power here, because angels are engaged on earth and are connected with all regions of the globe. And the conclusion is that God’s providence is diffused everywhere.

He says, these animals have the likeness of a man, which does not seem in accordance with the rest of the context. He will immediately say that each animal had four heads and that their feet were round or like those of a calf, as some interpret it.

But here he says they have the form of a man. The solution is that their foremost feet are like those of a man, although different in some respects. Nor is it doubtful that the Prophet beheld cherubim as angels of God.

Wings also do not suit human nature. However, he means that they had the usual human stature. Although they are not entirely like human beings, there is still much likeness in their general appearance. And now we understand why it is said that the likeness was human.

He now comes to the heads and wings themselves. Many suppose that each animal had four heads, and then that four appearances belonged to each head. Others extend the wings much further, because they assign four wings to each of the four heads, and others even sixteen. However, this does not seem to be in accordance with the Prophet’s words.

He simply says each had four heads, and then four wings. The wings and the heads correspond. Since one animal was endowed with only four heads, I do not think that it had more than four wings. This will again be evident from the context. He adds afterwards—