Listed as creative commons license
Welcome to Between The Stools on Sept 27th 2026. This service is in two parts: firstly looking at a well known writer on ancient aliens in the Bible, and then, moving to one of the most obscure biblical books, which I am sorry to have so rarely heard preached on. I will have a radical view of Ezekiel. Let me open in prayer:
Last month but one’s service research led me to explore The Alien Question more. I came across a few names who are spoken of in golden terms in the ET world. One was Erich van Daniken. I chose him purely because his book Chariots of the Gods was available in the library, when others were not. I was already wary of him due to his self aggrandising introduction to the book of another, whereby he summarised his own work rather than pointed to that of author Philip Coppens (Ancient Alien Question, 2012). I watched a Q&A from 2018 where Eric von Daniken was the special guest of honour at Alien Con to mark the 50th anniversary of his book. He was quick to tell us all how well it had sold. When an audience member raised his hand to tell Erich that he rated among the great men such as Lincoln, I baulked. As a British person, I don’t yet have an opinion on Lincoln, nor raise him high. But to tell this Swiss man that he was a kind of god himself made me think: 1), I bet you enjoyed that, despite your apparent modest reception of the statement, and 2) was this man a stooge? Interesting that remark made it into the public film of the event.
And interesting too is how much the Californian convention had religious overtones: “I want to believe” said a T-shirt available in the merchandise store.
Erich van Daniken claimed that he still has a deep faith in God, albeit implying that it may be far from his Catholic upbringing, although this allowed him to have read the Bible in its original languages, ‘so ‘I know what I’m talking about’ he modestly claimed. Alerts went off within.
Despite his claim of scholarship, his 1968 publication – the first of so many – is filled with unbacked up assertions and a tone that skips from thought to thought, ribbing his critics. His assertion that our duty is to ‘colonize’ the universe was almost enough for me to put the book down. In later chapters, he reads like the all too contemporary clarion panic: that we will soon burst at the seams of our planet, and thus we must reduce our population or leave. I have not believed those overpopulation myths, and I know that those who spout them wish to be among those who remain. But they strongly suggest that others of us are less worthy, and that is such an ugly and dangerous to say: you shouldn’t be here. Let me cancel, delete, and bind and reverse such a statement
I also wondered if Erich was sponsored by someone – perhaps those gods he repeatedly posits – or has an interest in the space program – and by that, I mean fiscal. He tells us that the research is necessary, first to ensure that we as a species have somewhere to go when we overstrain the Earth; and also, for all the mod cons that are side products from the technologies developed. He espouses another view which I reject and critique – that modern life is easier than that of our miserable, short-lived forebears. Now that we have refrigerators, he quipped, and one day, robots will do even more of the work that takes up our time…. He seems chillingly right about the latter.
Erich’s book and film have a single point, made in constant repetition: that we have been visited by aliens of greater technological advancement. Perhaps, I reply. What I don’t agree with is his notion that all the previous, more ignorant and easily impressed cultures assumed that persons with machines – or a beard [when they didn’t] – must be worshipped. He says so of a remote tribe encountering the American airforce in living memory, with a highly dubious (hopefully reconstructed) scene of the tribe looking to the heavens with their wicker aeroplane idol to tempt these higher beings back.
I concur with Erich that mainstream science doesn’t like ideas beyond the dominant group’s own. I believe he is right (yes, a belief) when he asserts that there are holes in their theories, and he claims that according to them, Egypt emerged as a ready made advanced culture, creating items that they had neither the human resources nor natural resources for. I am intrigued as to why cultures who were geographically far apart, and not (as far as we know) able to communicate made comparable structures and drawings. But every mystery is a UFO to Erich; it became an almost risible mantra. And I wondered why he considered their visitation – as the introduction to the 2018 Alien Con video stated – as good news.
I was interested in Erich’s comments on the Bible:
The Ark of the Covenant’s destructive nature was because it was electrical, he says. I was glad at a suggestion that it wasn’t due to God’s merciless, fussy jealousy that people who touched it died (Leviticus 10 and 2 Samuel 6). It does make some sense of the fact that like Noah’s ark, it is described (in Exodus 25) in technical detail. Why else would this be important in a sacred text? It would make sense if it was left as instructions. Erich is not alone in asserting this: it was done in the 1700s by Litchenberg & Michaelis, and Bendavid, onwards, such as 35 years before EvD’s book by Frederick Rogers. Rogers describes it as an electric condenser/capacitor, with cherubim being the opposing poles, lined with the right metals and wood to hold and send out large amounts of electricity, and the woolly curtain was significant too. Thus touching it would incur being struck as a lightning bolt, and thus the keep away/special clothes warning would be apt.
David Kaufman, a modern electrical engineer who makes no reference to to von Daniken, thinks its bolts may impressively consume burnt offerings on the altar (so is this a god-faking device?). The battery proponents suggest that advanced aliens may have used it for phoning home – although I say electric know how doesn’t have to come from aliens. I do think this theory forgets the religious and perhaps esoteric elements in the Judaeo-Christian narrative. Stephen Newman said it was a security feature for this holy object, although most fellow Jewish writers, aware of the popular electric theory, continue to see it as an act of God, and focus on the transgressions of temple practice that led to the zapping. It is just that which I resent – a God who says (like that Genie In A Bottle song), you have to rub me in the right way…or else. Why did God need to be so exact or capricious? Why was he so prickly about how he was approached? Or was it the leaders who used it, as Kauffman suggests, to better manage a large populace, which is more ‘efficiently’ done through mass obedience than having to explain and negotiate, and freewill. I changed my mind whilst writing the above, but I am concerned about a people using shows of strength for conformity, however it is generated. I am otherwise unsure what the ark was really for.
I find the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah extremely difficult to square with the God I believe in. Erich asserts that Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction was an ancient Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that the method of that annihilation was the same weapon, for the description of Sodom matches an atomic bomb. Erich says: why would the ‘angel’ direct Lot and his family to leave so abruptly? Hadn’t a specific hour been set for annihilation? Lot’s wife looked into the atomic sun, and that the ‘angel’s exhortation to get behind the mountains was a protection against the rays. I kept thinking of The Day The Earth Stood Still and the Wonder Woman episode “Judgement from Outer Space” where advanced but cold other civilizations wish to destroy Earth because of our dangerous behavior. Again, there was a sense of relief that this wasn’t my God at work. Were Sodom and Gomorrah really so wicked? Not for its homosexuality, which is utterly irrelevant to loving or even just consensual same sex relationships. Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren’t chosen for destruction because they were bad or deserving and I question the idea that these ancient cities were.
Erich offered that yes, the Flood was to wipe out terrible hybrid beings, as I spoke of in Sept 2021. He summarises The Book of Lamech – Noah’s father – which has a take on his son’s ark escapade which changes the story. Erich’s synopsis of the partial parchment among the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the 1940s is more in line with the similar Book of Enoch, and doesn’t tally with the versions I read. Both books say that Lamech had a son with his wife Bath-Enosh that concerned them, and Lamech worried that the child was born of a hybrid relationship with the Watchers. The two books offer conflicting views of who the Watchers and Nephilim are. The Nephilim are called the enemy in The Book of Lamech which states that the Watchers lived in the land and were natives of it, instructing in the ways of peace and truth, whereas the giant Nephilim were violent wife and child stealers. Lamech went to his father, who went to his own, the wise Enoch for advice. Enoch says that Lamech was told to accept the boy (white in appearance) as his own, to call him Noah, that he is a blessing from God and that he will be a father to many after a coming judgement. Hence it is much like the usual biblical narrative. My only note was the Noah’s age at the Flood was the same as other almost allegorical sounding eras – 500 years, and thus there is the implication that this judgement was planned for some time, and that therefore the wickedness requiring it was allowed to run on for some time.
In The Book of Enoch, I was confused and concerned about the alleged sins of these ‘holy ones’ – cannibalism and resource depletion are mentioned, alongside metalwork, herbalism, and makeup!
It seems that the offence here is sharing sacred knowledge with the uninitiated.
The great contrast between Christianity and mystery schools is that the first can threaten punishment for not sharing the knowledge, and you are encouraged to evangelise and make the message available to all. But mystery schools are about knowledge that remains hidden from the uninitiated, and it’s implied, unworthy and who are strangers. I do not support the latter, and am thus concerned at any god or group who exacts horrible punishments, as planned without appeal on angelic Azazel for sharing these practices. But I am not convinced that the Watchers need be alien in the other planet sense.
I’d like to take a pause before going into my second section tonight. The segue is that, according to The Book of Enoch, among the leaders of the 200 angels was an Ezequiel…
———————
Erich also speaks of Ezekiel. Despite chapter 37 – The Valley of Dry Bones – being a childhood favourite Bible story, I am not happy with what I just re-read, over 40 years on. I hoped to cover the entire book in a service; this probably isn’t possible, although I find the book repeating. I will begin at its beginning and with Erich’s assertion, and possibly come back to Ezekiel in another service.
Erich von Daniken claims that the beings who appear to the prophet are aliens in spaceships. He says that our modern craft are recognisable by descriptions of one who has never seen what we have, and that rather than the One True God appearing to a seer in modern Iraq, it’s an advanced alien race. Erich is right that God wouldn’t need a machine to fly, but is that what we’re looking at here? Erich also questions why God and angels would need wings, although I question why they are extraneous.
I don’t like to assume that colourful, poetic descriptions in the Bible of heavenly things are always ignorant people describing aliens. I like Isaiah 6’s description of God’s train of glory filling the temple, and that in Revelation. But why would God do a spectacular fly by? Is this commensurate with the God who comes to Elijah in a still small voice? (1 Kings 19:11-13). The ‘God’ who appears at the start of Ezekiel seems to be into showing off to make an impression and so that the person chosen to be his agent will do as he is told.
Some context from my biblical research:
Ezekiel (c622-570 BC) is in Babylonian exile – I wonder if that land is key to understanding this strange book? By this I mean that I oft hear New Age/alternative thought speak of the Babylonian empire as still being the ruling superpower of evil. Ezekiel is of a similar time to Daniel, who also sees comparable visions – only really found again in the Book of Revelation. In his 30th year, Ezekiel is on the cusp of being able to serve as a priest. He gives specific dates, which is used to argue that this describing something that actually happened. His name may mean ‘God strengthens’, or, more literally and appropriately I think: ‘God/strength’ – the ‘el’ referring to God, or possibly gods plural, deriving from ‘Elohim’. Names seem especially important in this book, and there are many references to the Name of God. I recall the mediaeval cults of the Holy Name of Jesus, and that today’s evangelicals speak of the power of the Name, a name that makes demons flee, that comforts believers, and performs miracles. Ezekiel’s tomb held is as holy by Muslims and Jews.
Here are my own thoughts on that Old Testament prophecy, from reading from the start:
-God doesn’t name Ezekiel. But God knows us by name and often uses it, as a sign of reassurance, of being God, and of us being known by him. That omission seemed to reveal that ‘god’ isn’t God.
Ezekiel is called ‘mortal man’ by God in the Good News Bible, although in the Jerusalem Bible it’s ‘son of man’; ‘God’ calls himself “Sovereign Lord” and ‘Lord Yahweh’ in the Jerusalem Bible (JB).
Considering the importance in this book of God’s name, the lack of Ezekiel’s is notable and seems to make this ‘mortal man’ seem inferior and unimportant.
‘God’s many words are a horrible bully diatribe: ‘you had no mother, until – at puberty – I showed up, and bought you nice things, and your beauty was admired because it reflected my glory’ (ch 13). It makes me think of Human League’s Don’t You Want Me: I made you, took out of your ordinary pre-existence, and I can bring you back down too! (Note how the former waitress responds in verse 2 of that popular song; I wish for Israel and Ezekiel to do likewise to this bully god!). This ‘god’ can’t be the Creator, because that God would say: ‘I was there in the beginning, I started it all.’ This ‘god’ comes in after Israel was established, and thus sounds like a being who appeared to a people and filled a vacant role. Puberty is the second stage of a human life, assuming that a first stage, of 12 or more years in our time, has taken place already, and thus about a 12th of an average life span has already happened. This is an incoming, usurping being who is trying to control the people of Israel, whom he found at a weak point, and posed as their tribal ‘god’, but is clearly not the real Lord.
The only good bit (for me) in Ezekiel is that Israel is criticised by ‘God’ for
-not taking care of the poor
-child sacrifice
‘God’ often calls Israel – his supposed children – whores, a derogatory term I expect to be beneath a holy God an good parent. But what is a whore but a woman who has many partners, ie isn’t the property of one man? It seems the ‘whoring’ is really not exclusive worship of this Lord Yahweh. ‘God’ doesn’t really explain in Ezekiel what the House of Israel’s ‘filthy’ (JB) things are.
Yahweh speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah as the daughter that Israel copied and exceeded, and also of Samaria. He’s going to break them all down and bring them back up – classic abuse playbook.
‘God’ asks Ezekiel to do odd things – shave his hair and put it in piles, to lie on his side for months, eat a scroll, and a meal that was cooked over human pooh (‘God’ commutes this to animal dung since it was against Ezekiel’s faith). Wouldn’t the God who gave these food laws to Israel know this, and not ask one of his children to break them? The way I read the conversation sounded like this ‘God’ didn’t even know Jewish customs, yet he wants to be their exclusive tribal god?!
Had ‘God’ even done his homework on Ezekiel, watching him before addressing him, singling him out for these odd and dangerous tasks? The real God wouldn’t need to have researched Ezekiel: he would already know the person waiting to train to serve him as priest.
This again is evidence that this ‘god’ is not the Creator who made the first covenant with Israel.
‘God’ says to Ezekiel: ‘if you don’t warn someone whom I’m going to kill, you’ll die too. If you warn them, I’ll still kill them, but I won’t blame you and you may live! I will starve you…’ This may be typical of a tribal god or warlord, but not the behaviour of ‘the Lord’. Ezekiel is the stuff that makes atheists feel justified. Former pastor Dan Barker wrote God is The Most Unpleasant Character in all Fiction based on a Dawkins quote. He could find many incidents of support for his view in Ezekiel; quotes from it appear multiple times in chapter one alone.
Some might already feel uncomfortable, but I am at the notion that this is the God we worship and whose teachings we follow. A minister friend said that the Israelites had to make up a story to explain what happened to them, and their take was that disobedience to ‘God’ caused him to judge and destroy them. I’ve sat with that, and I still feel that I need to conclude that we have a book in the canonical Bible which is not about the real God. I’m sitting with that too – why did God allow Jews and Christians to include this scroll in Scripture? Why hasn’t its veracity been questioned more? Looking up ‘Ezekiel’s is a false god’ or ‘…narcissist’ – for it’s asserted he is one, clinically – I was disturbed that even when I posed my search query as a full sentence, that results were angry preachers asserting that God would punish narcissists and false prophets. Yet the very ‘God’ of this narrative is those things, and I was worried that Christians are untroubled by such vengeance in their deity, and chime in with his threats and punishment, almost delighting in the guilt and carried through threats and curses.
Sadly, it is not only a feature of this biblical book, but I will focus on just Ezekiel tonight. I am wondering how to square half a holy book [ie the Bible] that is taken over by the wrong god…yet the church of that God’s was also usurped, as I’ve been reminded in some other reading recently…
[A prayer pause: Lord, would you really allow, could it be that your Light has been covered and distorted and claimed by another… show us what is true, help us reveal truth, and trust in your nature of being good, loving, wise and powerful…did you allow freewill to go so far? Or has something being usurping you and manipulating us to not see this?]
Is that why this Book of Ezekiel matters? Is this the story of undoing it?
Ascensionists make the biblical book even more complex. It’s gotten mindwarping; with a difficult week and time running out, I am able to only introduce the following: Lisa Renee of Ascension Glossary.com says: Ezekiel was a hierophant, a secret knowledge keeper and interpreter/discloser in the school of Pythagoras. She speaks of this prophet as a man who lived with dates, but also an interdimensional being of many detached parts, in the process of re-membering in these last times. Ascensionists speak much of the alien forces who have tricked and enslaved us for millennia, and it seems, according to Lisa Renee, that this being Ezekiel is key to our restoration.
I think his book may be about deep and layered sacred knowledge, perhaps deliberately obscured and pictorially poetic. (I also wonder if translation and cultural/historical barriers make it hard for many of us to understand.) The implication is that Ezekiel was entering a Mystery School, and perhaps that the knowledge he acquired, or had revealed to him, was not meant for general release and comprehension but intended for an initiated chosen few. A biblical seminar, ironically, gave me a hint to this end when he said that both Ezekiel and Daniel were chosen by Babylonian invaders for their science skills. Why science, I wondered, and what was the meaning of that word in their world? Was it more literally ‘knowledge’, and did it imply advanced or hidden knowledge, even secret arts? Is his 22 year ministry significant as a master number in numerology?
As I tried to picture what I read, especially in that opening vision, I wasn’t getting the visuals of contemporary spacecraft that Erich von Daniken did. I didn’t see that his images matched, and when I saw other suggestions, they fitted Ezekiel’s text better. I am not criticising anyone for reading the Bible literally, but I do note that Erich and other UFO seers do so, matching with the technology of their day. Having read these more New Age commentaries, I feel that the Ancient Alien theory is not suffice. My truth click went off both at the notion that someone trying to show off and pretend to be the True God, but also when I was informed of the spiritual mysteries being revealed in a kind of code, and perhaps altered states, or other planes. Perhaps this Ezekiel was a very advanced soul ascending to higher dimensions.
Although I found the many pages of Ascension Glossary.com dense to read with unfamiliar phrases, I was reassured that Lisa asks readers to use discernment (as I do), and there was a degree of modesty in her work which makes me feel that she has genuine intentions and is on the side of Light. Lisa states that her information was received from her higher being spiritual guides. Her ideas are broadly in agreement with other Ascensionist channels and websites.
The Four Living Creatures? There is query as to whether these beings, also found in Revelation, are correctly identified as the type of angel known as cherubim. Others wisely point out that as the Bible sometimes names its angel types, and chooses not to here, that it is best to call these beings what the text does. I question the notion that the heavenly host shares our worldly hierarchy, and wonder if the type means something other than position of power, or if this hints that they are not the true God’s messengers, but other kinds of being. Their faces match the symbols of the Gospel writers: a man, a cow/ox, a lion, and an eagle. The Ascension Glossary calls these four creatures several dizzying and unfamiliar phrases – they represent global grids, a cosmic clock, God’s faces, guardians of planetary networks, universal prototypes… I think it is suffice to say that this assertion helps me think that literalizing them to what they’d call a ‘3D’ level – that of our ordinary human existence – isn’t helpful, and that they represent something profound and cosmic at a high level.
————
The Book of Ezekiel is understood to be in three parts. Part I is the deity’s diatribe against Israel, sounding scarily like Screaming J Hawkins’ song ‘I put a Spell on you…you got to stop the things you do, I ain’t lying…because you’re mine’. ‘God’ takes a long time about it, and then repeats his repeating threats against all nations (part II). But then, there is the third part, and that is where the interest lies, I think. The last 3rd of the book is about Liberation for Israel. Can it be liberating for anyone? Can we liberate this text from its seemingly abusive diatribe of a controlling overlord?
I think I may be able to.
Skimming through many essays from different perspectives, an idea popped into my head, that wasn’t suggested by anyone else.
What if this whole book is ironic? What if it is speaking truth to power against the Elohim?
I also realised that (perhaps as I said of Job) that Ezekiel’s ideas of God are more advanced than previous notions of him. Ezekiel is told that he won’t be responsible for the sins of those he warns, nor will family members suffer for the misdeeds of their kin. I believe that being punished for the sins of the father was a prevalent ancient world philosophy, which this book liberates from.
Some more Christian commentators seemed to soften ‘God’s threats to Ezekiel by stating that he was telling this Jewish exile what was going to happen to his precious home city, including its locus, the holy temple: Jerusalem wasn’t going to be saved. I immediately thought: how would we feel if we prayed for the safety of someone or where, only to be told: that prayer isn’t going to be answered. I tried to understand the devastation of that from a Jewish perspective (if any Jewish persons are listening/reading, I do love to hear your faith’s perspective).
I also wondered something that is certainly a Christian perspective. After a long era of a fairly exclusive chosen people, God was now changing his relationship with them. The old focus was on a city and a designated holy building as a place to be in God’s presence and receive his blessing. I felt that it was implied that God dwelt exclusively in the temple, and perhaps was bound by it. He was, thus, like other tribal gods – a person of place, and of limitations. This God – is it yet ours? – is saying via Ezekiel: I am coming out of the temple, and even out of the city. I am with you in exile, and perhaps you needed to be in exile to experience that I am not a geographically confined god. I come to you where you are, spectacularly (could the Babylonians see this show?). And although you may feel that the loss of your special city and its place of worship is the worst that can happen, I am here to announce via you that I don’t need the temple anymore. You can commune with me without those rituals you thought that you couldn’t do without. You can be with me in a foreign land. I am preparing a new covenant – I’d prefer him drop the legal contract – but a new way of being with you. And this, I think, prefigures Jesus and the New Testament, when the new temple will again be destroyed, when a dead body will be brought back to life and a new era starts. I think it’s generally agreed that the Book of Ezekiel ends in hope.
I think I would like to end, for now, also in hope, and at the start of a new era as the old falls away. Let’s come back again and talk more on these things. We’ll be with aliens for much of the rest of the year. Next month we go to Portugal for a famous religious anniversary.
Our next service involves a time change, for 25th October is clocks day in Britain, so it’s an hour later, at 8pm GMT (no more British summer time). Do share your thoughts and prayer needs in the meantime to me, Elspeth, on betweenthestool@hotmail.co.uk. Blessings and goodnight.
Other later thoughts – these may be added to or put into another sermon:
Re that opening vision in Ezekiel:
-cf the eyes on the Rainbow portrait of Elizabeth I in Hatfield House – does it reference Ezekiel?
-do those eyes represent CCTV and other kind of surveillence?

























