Reference: Cherubim
Hastings
1. The most important passage for determining the origin of the Hebrew conception of the cherubim is Ps 18:10. The poet, in describing a theophany of Jehovah, represents the God of Israel as descending to earth on the black thunder-cloud: 'He rode upon a cheruh and did fly, yea, he soared on the wings of the wind.' According to this passage, the cherub is a personification of the storm-cloud, or, as others prefer to interpret, of the storm-wind which bears Jehovah from heaven to earth.
2. We shall next discuss the part the cherubim play in the religious symbolism of the OT. In the Tabernacle there were two small golden cherubim, one at each end of the mercy-seat. It was these figures that invested the ark with its special significance as an emblem of the immediate presence of Jehovah. Cherubic figures were embroidered on the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place, and on the other tapestries of the sanctuary. In the Temple two huge cheruhim of olive wood, overlaid with gold, overshadowed the ark with their wings (1Ki 6:23-28). Cherubic figures were also found among the other decorations of the Temple (1Ki 6:29,32,35). In both sanctuaries they are figures of religious symbolism; they act as bearers of Deity, and are consequently emblematic of Jehovah's immediate presence. Hence we have the phrase 'Thou that sittest on the cherubim' (Ps 80:1 et al.). In Ezekiel's Inaugural vision (ch. 1) the four composite figures of the living creatures are in a later passage termed cherubim (Ps 10:2). They support the firmament on which the throne of Jehovah rests, and in this connexion we again have them as bearers of Deity. In the Paradise story, the cherubim perform another function; they appear as guardians of the tree of life (Ge 3:24 Jahwist). A different version of this story is alluded to by Ezekiel (Eze 28:14,16); according to this prophet, a cherub expels the prince of Tyre from Eden, the garden of God. In both these passages they perform the function of guardians of sacred things, and in view of this it is probable that, in the Temple and Tabernacle, they were looked upon as guardians of the contents of the ark as well as emblems of the Divine presence.
3. As to the figure of the cherubim in the sanctuaries we have no clue, and Josephus is probably correct when he says that no one knows or can guess their form. The prophet Ezekiel and the results of Babylonian excavations assist us in solving the enigma. The prophet's living creatures were composite figures, each having the face of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. We are not to suppose that these forms corresponded exactly to anything that the prophet had seen, but he worked out these figures in his gorgeous imagination, combining elements Hebrew and Babylonian. The native element is to some extent an unsolved riddle, but of the contribution made by Babylonian art there can be no reasonable doubt. The huge composite figures with human head, eagle's wings, and bull's body, which were placed as guardians at the doors of temples and palaces in Babylonia, supplied the prophet with the material for his vision. The writer of the story of the Garden of Eden had some such figures in mind. Basing his conjecture on Ezekiel's vision, Schultz (OT Theol. ii. p. 236) imagines that the cherubim of the sanctuary were composite figures with feet of oxen, wings of eagles, manes of lions, and human bodies and faces, standing upright and spreading their wings over the ark. This view is somewhat problematic. Cheyne and Dillmann prefer to associate them with the griffin, which so often appears in mythology as a guardian of sacred treasures. The former asserts that the Hebrew cherubim were of Hittite origin. It is not correct to suppose that they were directly borrowed either from the Babylonians or the Hittites, but the Hebrew imagination combined foreign and native elements as they were suited to its purpose. The derivation of the Heb. word from the Babylonian kurubu, a designation of the steer-god, is, although advocated by Delitzsch, exceedingly uncertain and is denied by Zimmern. We are now in a position to judge the three theories as to the nature of the cherubim,