Chris quoted a passage from the Bible and asked what it meant to others I will do the same with one of my favorite quotes Ezekiel (1:28) “Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.” doubt anybody will have an interpretation even remotely similar to this heathen commie pinko liberal
Ezekiel 3:23 So I got up and went out to the plain; and behold, the glory of the LORD was standing there, like the glory which I saw by the river Chebar, and I fell on my face. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ezekiel 8:4 And behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there, like the appearance which I saw in the plain. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ezekiel 11:22 Then the cherubim lifted up their wings with the wheels beside them, and the glory of the God of Israel hovered over them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ezekiel 11:23 The glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city and stood over the mountain which is east of the city. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ezekiel 43:4 And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ezekiel 43:5 And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. I won't begin to try to translate, but clearly this was not a one time event with Ezekiel. God chose to have a realtionship with Ezekial and showed certain of His nature to him, partially I suspect in order to convince Ezekiel of His Being. Any of us ever see the glory of God, we will be convinced of it.
When we studied EZ in the grad class I had in theology in 1982 (Old Test. Prophets), what struck us was the thrice removed from "seeing", thus my italics--he doesn't see God at this particular juncture, but the appearance of the likeness of the Glory of the Lord This priest, in exile at the time he reports this experience, doesn't claim that one can truly comprehend or “see” God, but only the appearance of the likeness of the glory of God--to me, it reflects the incomprehensible nature of God. There are two other passages that say something like this, but I can't remember them now. Old Testament--before the appearance of Christ on the scene. I don't have any strong opinion about this, but wondered how others would respond. Oh, I was the only non Christian in the class and most came away with a similar sense of what was said.
i think christians try too hard to find literal meaning to some ot scripture. i had a graduate philosophy class that would spend three hours analyzing one sentence. after the fall of man, god no longer appeared. i believe the glory of god refers to god's presence and it is said to have come in a burning bush, rainbow, etc. i think you have to look at the big picture and why ezekiel was called to be a prophet. what did god want to tell and to whom? ezekiel's message was to the jews in captivity in babylonia. the message was that there was a judgement but also salvation. it set the stage, much like the other prophets, for the coming of jesus.
yes, I agree there is a big picture at which one should look and this certainly isn't the core of Ezekiel's message--the statement meant something to me and would have regardless of the context in which it occurred--just wondered if anybody else would have seen it that way when you say god didn't appear after the fall, I understand that theologically, but the degree to which his presence is seen or felt varies widely among believers, some claiming to have heard his voice (and they are not necessarily psychotic when they make this claim) and scores of others claiming to feel his presence the statement to me reflects this obscure and elusive connection with and comprehension of the creator--even when one is proclaiming the glory of having seen God (one can return to the other verses around this one for context)
i don't see anywhere in the ot that anyone has seen god. they speak of the glory, the hear from god but they don't see him. except before the fall in genesis. when jesus came, things changed. we experienced god on earth in jesus. after jesus completed his sacrifice, we were given god's holy spirit. most christians believe god's holy spirit dwells in us, teaches us, comforts us, and guides us in our walk with god. i do know that certain scriptures jump out at me and not necessarily within context. coincidence? god speaking to me?
Jim, There is no hidden meaning; no thrice removed from seeing. No one can look upon God and survive. So he came to Ezekiel in visions. vs. 28 is the end of a lengthy description of a vision. In that vision an image appeared to Ezekiel. The image was not God, it was the likeness of God's glory. When God's glory was symbollically revealed in the vision, it took the form of brilliant light which radiated around the figure of God like the appearance of a rainbow. That's all vs. 28 is referring to.
to me, that is the point--what I noted in bold in your remarks I am also aware of the notion that no one can look at God and survive so he comes in visions...yes, but to me, it is thrice removed frrom God the translators could have simply put the glory of God, but they used all three terms, appearance of likeness of the glory--nowhere do I suggest hidden meaning, only symbolism, one thing representing another...yes, he sees a light and then describes it with all three terms...why not just say the light was the glory of God? may not seem to be a relevant question, and in fact, although the class discussed it, I don't recall the pastor who taught the class delving into it, but another pastor, years later, did discusss it with me--I don't remember the complete content of the discussions--the pastor likely said what you and Steve have said, but we didn't leave it at that--that pastor, unlike the one teaching the class, did note the significance of the wording--maybe it's an important distinction, maybe it's not
I can't relate this to the trinity--that only comes, unless I am really having a senior moment, with Christ--there may be some reference to it in the places in the OT that are harbingers of the coming of Christ, but what I remember about those prophetic remarks only suggested he was coming and made no reference to the trinity--someone who studies the book a lot more than I have might remember where and what the passages are, but like I said, I don't think the notion of the trinity appears
Ezekiel (1:28) “Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.” Appearance = manifestation Likeness = image, representation. Glory of the Lord = God’s magnificence, greatness, His essence. In other words: God appeared in a representation of Himself.
jim, i guess i'm just seeing it as a fantastic light show god used to get this guy's attention and get him moving with the message.
That is my guess. The purpose of signs and wonders is to confirm the Word of God and to convince those who witness them that they do infact deal with God. The transfiguration of Jesus Christ is another one of these signs and wonders, which was witnessed by James, John and Peter, the most notable of the original disciples. It is written: "After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There He was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, 'Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters - one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.' (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.) Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: 'This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!' Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus. As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead" (Mark 9:2-9). Again, you have the symbolism of thrice used. Jesus is met by two individuals, Moses and Elijah. There were three disciples present. But as I understand it, Hebrew law required testimony by three witnesses to authenticate and event. So Jesus took His three most notable disciples to witness what they saw. But again, just as in the case of Exekiel, the purpose was to confirm that the witnesses had in fact been dealing with God, to strengthen their resolve for the future against what they would have to contend with as they spread the good news of the coming of Jesus Christ. Signs and wonders confirm the Word of God.
I can accept that as a valid interpretation--likely in our heads and hearts, the difference is not semantics, but the way we view the big picture theologically Henry, I understand the notion that those kinds of signs helped the believers know that they were dealing with God--wonder what kind of response we would get today if something similarly dramatic occurred
Well, they do occur. And when they do, the believers believe even more and the disbelievers continue to disbelieve. Just imagine Jesus Christ walking around today healing folks, really healing folks, or even walking on the water. Most folks wouldn't believe it. It was a trick. That's how it was back then too. Nothing has changed. Those to whom the message and the signs and wonders resonate respond. Those to whom they don't, don't. Nothing is new under the sun.
