Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Ezekiel
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Ezekiel 28 - is this Satan?
by Count Sudoku » Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:24 pm
Was Ezekiel speaking of Satan when he talks about the Prince of Tyre (the anointed cherub who covers) in Ezekiel 28; or is it metephorical?
- Count Sudoku
Re: Ezekiel 28 - is this Satan?
by jimwalton » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:40 pm
No, he's talking metaphorically about the king of Tyre. Scholars who say it's Satan usually state 3 reasons to support their case.
1. The king is in a 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. 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. 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.
Dr. John Walton comments, "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."
1. The king is in a 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. 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. 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.
Dr. John Walton comments, "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."
Last bumped by Anonymous on Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:40 pm.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests