Board index ‹ Satan

[RyanSeiden]

Hello,

This question begins to seep into disagreements present within denominational divides, so I would much enjoy a solid interpretation of the relevant passages to which I am referencing if it is the case that the text I am highlighting does not mean what I believe it to mean -- or, if you disagree that the texts even address Satan. In fact, this question is nearly contingent on the interpretation of such texts, with a simple "why?" after it. The texts from which I am interpreting are Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:13-19. I believe what exactly it is that I am interpreting (the textual citation and the exegetical conclusion) is evident within the question. If it is not, then I would be happy to clarify. So, without further preface, here is the question:

Satan, having been adorned with stones and anointed as guardian cherub (a prominently high role in the angelic hierarchy, if such a concept exists within a sound theological framework), surely enjoyed the lot that God had cast to him. However, he remained unsatisfied with his role, and became prideful to the point of swearing in his heart to ascend to the preeminence of God. If we assume the rhetoric that Satan was just below God, enjoying all that God enjoys apart from existing unto himself and the consequences that flow from such a notion, then what more did Satan want that is God's? It is impossible for an entity that does not exist unto itself to begin to embody aseity, therefore nothing that flows from God's nature was/is attainable by Satan (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, inability to sin, etc.). Presumably he knew this. Everything else seems trivial in comparison of experiencing God's glory personally. So, if it is/was impossible Satan to literally become God, and Satan relished in the abundant lot that God had cast to him, what precisely motivated him to attempt to overthrow He who cannot be dethroned? In other words, what did Satan see in God's position that he both thought attainable and needing to be attained? The other possibility would be that he wanted exactly what is impossible: to become God Himself. If that is the case, then why would he illogically seek out divinity?

My first guess, if I can answer the question tentatively to clarify the imprecision of the nature that is how I hope for you to respond, is that Satan desired worship. That "thing", the state of being worshiped by all volitional creation, is something that is nontrivial, desirable, and not a direct consequence of an unattainable nature. Of course, the earth itself trembles at God's presence because creation trembles at the Creator, so Satan could never have worship in that capacity, and thus must settle for the worship from the parts of creation endowed with free will.

Hopefully there is sense in my question somewhere. I thank you very much for your time and effort.

-Ryan

[jimwalton]

Ryan,

Thanks for your question. You guessed it right at the beginning: Neither the Isaiah nor the Ezekiel texts refer to Satan. There is actually no textual, contextual, historical, or exegetical reason to read them as referring to Satan. Let me try to break them down, albeit briefly.

Isaiah 14 is clearly a taunt song against the king of Babylon, rejoicing over his downfall. As Oswalt says in his commentary, "it is a powerful particularization of the more general statements of chapter 13. ... The poem makes the destruction of human pride and arrogance much more graphic by personifying it in this way." God is rising up against Babylon and against human haughtiness. But for some reason, traditional biblical scholars saw that in the middle of the chapter, suddenly Isaiah had taken a lurch to the side to talk about Satan for several verses before reverting to the actual king of Babylon. Such an interpretation is unwarranted and unjustified.

If we start at v. 12 where the interpretation of "Satan" or not become pertinent. Obviously everything up to this point has been directed as the king/dynastic line of Babylon. The general context of the chapter is in a group of oracles against a series of nations. Dr. John Walton, in his commentary on Job, says of these verses, "Throughout most of church history, these verses have been applied to Satan. Despite widespread popular support, there is much opposition to this interpretation (including heavyweights such as Luther and Calvin). Lacking support in the author’s intention, we would be hard pressed to sustain the suggestion that the passage refers to Satan."

Barry Webb, in his commentary on Isaiah, says, "The cosmic sweep of the poem led some early interpreters, and many since then, to see here a symbolic description of the fall of Satan. But if this reads too much into the text (and I think it does), it is equally misguided to reduce it to a description of the fall of a particular earthly monarch. The king of Babylon here, like Babylon itself in ch. 13, is a representative figure, the embodiment of that worldly arrogance that defied God and tramples on others in its lust for power. It is this that lies at the heart of every evil for which particular nations will be indicted in the following chapters. It also lies at the heart of all the horrendous acts of inhumanity that human beings and nations still commit against one another today. That is why the tone of this song should not cause us any embarrassment. This is no cheap gloating over the downfall of an enemy, but the satisfaction and delight that God’s people rightly feel at his final victory over evil. The same note of celebration is heard at the very end of the Bible where, again, Babylon is a cipher for all that opposes God and his purposes."

John Oswalt, in his commentary: "The scene shifts from the underworld to heaven and illuminates the pretense of human pride. That pride refuses to brook any rival, even God himself, insisting that all his prerogatives will be its own. While some church fathers took this text to refer to the fall of Satan, the great expositors of the Reformation were unanimous in arguing that the context does not support such an interpretation."

Without just piling on paragraphs to read, I'll leave it at that to assert that the text is not about Satan, but about the king of Babylon, the dynastic line of ungodly Babylon, and therefore symbolic of all ungodly "kings of this world," an idea we see resurrected in the book of Revelation.

We can discuss specific terms or verses in the Isaiah pericope, as you wish.

As far as Ezekiel is concerned, here the king of Tyre is the focus, using similar language and imagery. Ezekiel makes clear from the onset that he is going to use royal and divine imagery to describe the king of Tyre (Ezk. 28.2). When, in v. 2, the king says "I am a god (El)," the king is claiming divinity and divine authority, a common stance in the ancient Near East (ANE).

Verse 12, then, starts a lament against this king. While these words are sometimes dragged to the side and said to refer to Satan, that is unnecessary in the text. "You were the seal of perfection" is a common Assyrian claim. Assyrian royal epithets included “perfect man” and “perfect king” among the titles that were claimed. "Perfect in beauty" echoes 27.3, Tyre's boast.

Moshe Greenberg (The Anchor Bible commentary), says of v. 13: "The text is evocative of Genesis 1-3, and the Genesis story serves as the model of the fatal results of human hubris. Cf. Ps. 82. The real mortal is metaphorized in a superhuman figure who was demoted from divinity to mortality. Taking his departure from the self-apotheosis of Tyre’s king—the quintessence of pride induced by invincibility and prosperity—Ezekiel metaphorized him in allusions to traditional superhuman figures located in traditional sites of splendid isolation and sanctity. Utilizing whatever components of tradition would add color, he tells a simple story of pride or sin going before a fall. Ezekiel drew on a full range of literary material to suit the rhetorical needs of the moment."

Walton, again: " In contrast to Isaiah 14, this passage has more obvious references to a primeval situation. Although it refers contextually to the king of Tyre, mentions of the garden of God (13) and the cherub (14) have given interpreters sufficient basis to move beyond the stated context. Admittedly, it is within the function of metaphor to point to something outside itself, yet the interpreter must still ask what the author intends the metaphor to relate to in this particular context.
Commentators have traditionally stated three reasons to support their claim that the king of Tyre should be understood as Satan:

1. The king is in the garden. And yet there is no indication in the OT that the Israelites believed Satan was in the Garden of Eden. No OT passage equates or relates the serpent and Satan. For this to work as a metaphor, however, it must make reference to well-known information. There is no evidence that Israel would have known that the serpent in Gn. 3 was a tool or representation of Satan. That being the case, they would not have placed Satan in the garden.

2. The king is identified as the cherub. And yet Scripture never suggests that Satan was ever a cherub. The cherubim are a special class of supernatural beings with specific functions. There is no basis for the speculation that Satan was once among their number, and certainly no reason to suggest that the Israelite audience would have recognized such a metaphorical allusion.

3. The passage alludes to a fall from a blameless condition. And yet the OT nowhere portrays Satan as a fallen being. Therefore, the fact that Ezk. 28 refers to a fall would not suggest to the Israelite reader that the author was metaphorically invoking the fall of Satan for comparison to the fate of the king of Tyre.

"As we examine each of these in light of OT theology, however, the interpretation of this being as Satan becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. There is close parallelism in the text (12b-13 vs. 14-15a), suggesting two parallel metaphors (rather than a single one), and that the metaphors don’t extend to the fall, but only refer to the high station of the individual. The king of Tyre enjoyed a lofty status because of all that was entrusted to him; he was the guardian of extensive natural resources, just as the individuals in the two metaphors were. Unfortunately, he was corrupted by them and was found to be treacherous and irresponsible. The metaphor ends where the parallelism ends, and from vv. 15b-19 the king’s conduct and punishment are addressed (though the end of v. 16 refers back to the metaphor). Thus there is no reason to reach beyond the context and its metaphors for a sensible interpretation of the passage."

Again, we can discuss more specifics, but I soundly reject the interpretation that these texts refer to Satan. Therefore, when we get to the bottom line, we don't know what kind of being Satan was before his fall, we don't know what his attitude or aspirations were, and we don't know what caused his fall. All we truly know is the descriptions the Bible makes of him, primarily as an accuser and as a deceiver, one who opposes the things of God and the people of God, and we know his fate and destiny.

Let's talk more.

[RyanS]

Thank you very much for such a profound answer. While you suggest that we talk more, you have answered my question so precisely that I see no room for confusion nor counterarguments. If I may ask one more question, though: are there any books/works that you would recommend that address a biblical view of Satan? Once more, thank you very much.

[jimwalton]

Any systematic theology text should have a chapter on Satan. On my shelf, I have Thiessen, Millard Erickson, and William Stevens.

Besides that, I have two older books:

Demons in the World Today, by Merrill F. Unger
Satan: His Motive and Methods by Lewish Sperry Chafer

...and one new one:

Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology, by John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton (my brother and his son).