Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Exodus 24:10 and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Exodus 24:10 and they saw [a manifestation of] the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, just as clear as the sky itself. [Ex 33:20-23; Deut 4:12; Ezek 28:14] |
Subject: What does "saw" mean? |
Bible Note: I am not convinced that ayth before a noun means that it refers to a corporeal being. There is no hint of it in any of my ancient Hebrew lexicons or ancient Hebrew grammars. In ancient Hebrew ayth simply points to a definite object, whether corporeal or not. Perhaps you could cite your authority for the statement that it always refers to a corporeal Being from a RECENT authoritative and recognised scholarly source. I would be very interested to know of it. (I am not talking about modern Hebrew usage which is irrelevant for ancient Hebrew) 'Seeing God' can cover a number of situations Abraham saw, ate and chatted with God in Genesis 18. Jacob actually wrestled with God in person (Gen 32). In both cases God had taken to Himself a human body. In neither case is there any reason for suggesting that it was with the Son of God. There is no reason to think that before He became man the Son was in any way more viewable or approachable than the Father. It is purely supposition on our part. Moses saw God in a burning bush. The Israelites saw God in the pillar of fire at nights. The whole people saw God when 'the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyse of the children of Israel' (Exodus 24.17). But note references to the cloud. Some saw God as the Angel of the LORD (Gen 16; 21; etc). The Angel of the LORD is a manifesation of the LORD. We are not told anything else. Why should He necessarily be the Son? (It is not strictly correct to speak of 'Jesus - Joshua' before the incarnation. 'Jesus' was 'God made man'). Thus 'seeing' the God of Israel was not something new. And in my Bible there is no mention of a corporeal form, any more than there was in the vision of Isaiah 6. The reference to 'under His feet as it were --' may simply indicate 'below whatever they did see of Him'. There are no grounds for necessarily taking literally references to God's arms, hands or feet. They are regularly metaphors. He may have taken on a human form but it does not say so. They may simply have seen 'the appearance of fire' But what none of them had apparently seen was 'His glory' (Exodus 33.18). That was always veiled, either by a human form or by a cloud and smoke, or by some other means (God reveals as much of Himself as He wishes). Clearly we are intended to see that this manifestation to Moses in chapter 33 was like no other. Of course seeing God is never a sin. It is God who chooses whether we see Him or not. It is just that seeing God is so everwhelming that in the fullnes of His glory no human flesh could stand the sight. Dwelling in light which no man can approach to, Whom no man has seen, nor can see' (1 Timothy 6.16). And this applies to both Father and Son in the fullness of their glory. |