 |
| Shame that in this interpretation, the Man looks more like a grandfather than a son. |
The Glory that Ezekiel meets in Ezek.1, is not an impersonal light-bulby type glory, but a personal one who later in Ezek.3:23 stands and talks with him.
In fact, He looks similar to the Man, Daniel sees in Dan.7 and the Man John meets in Rev.1 and given that only God can deal in the impossible - like being eternal - I reckon they are all appearances of the same person. Yet no one has ever seen God (John 1:18)
So no prizes for guessing who I think it is - the eternal second person of the Trinity joyfully and obediently revealing His unseen Father to the world and fulfilling all his Father's purpose (Matt.11:27, Rev.1:17, Heb.1:3).
3 comments:
What do you make of Jim Jordan's suggestion that we have got Daniel 7 wrong - that Jesus is the ancient of days (sitting down = ascension) and that the "one like a son of man" is the saints ascending to heaven (as implied in the explanation). Jesus' use of the term "son of man" to describe himself would then come straight from Ezekiel.
I need to listen to him properly on the subject first, but my shoot from the hip response would be to say that God's prophets are taken into his council (the council of the Son on behalf of the Father) and given by God dominion to establish and overthrow kingdoms. What Ezekiel experienced and Daniel saw in a vision, Jesus fulfilled in an ultimate sense by going in to the presence of his Father - the Ancient of Days and being given dominion which he then passes on to the church. Does that make sense?
In short, I'm happy with Jordan's interpretation, and think it foreshadows a greater reality.
Post a Comment