References to Satan?

[Bill the Cat]

I have a question on 2 separate passages. I had always been taught that these passages, while referring directly to Nebbuchadnezzar and the King of Tyre, were actually talking about the fall of Satan.

Isa 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Isa 14:13 You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."


and
Eze 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
Eze 28:14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
Eze 28:15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
Eze 28:16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.
Eze 28:17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.



Any input?

[GrayPilgrim]

I will say that I believe that the Ezekiel passage as it borrows language from Genesis 2-3 is the fall of Satan, which I believe is what we see in Genesis 3. I do not think that Satan fell some time before say in between Gensis 1:1 and 2 as some have argued from silence. Thus whenthe seprent is tempting Eve he is setting himself up as superior to God.

The Isaiah passage I would say is probably also an oblique reference to Satan

GP

[Socrates]

I agree with GrayPilgrim both that the Isaiah and Ezekiel passages are oblique references to Satan, and that his fall was NOT in an imaginary gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I have argued for some biblical time constraints at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=56280#post56280

[Bill the Cat]

Anyone here think that it does not refer at all to Satan?

[Robyn Banks]

Bill the Cat:
Anyone here think that it does not refer at all to Satan?
Exegetically there is no reference to Satan here whatsoever.

The concept of Satan as an opposing force to God was only developed after the end of the Old Testament. The idea of the fall of Satan therefore does not appear in the Old Testament.

These verses were incorrectly associated with Satan due to the KJV translation of Morning Star as Lucifer.

[johnnybanano]

I believe that the Ezekiel passage could possibly be referring to Satan.

The verse refers to the person as being in the Garden of Eden, this could only be God, angels, or humans. Adam and Eve were the only humans in the garden as far as the Bible suggests. The prophecy is obviously not referring to God. The only ones left are angels.

Robyn tells us that there is no Old Testament idea of Satan falling. Well, this Ezekiel passage clearly depicts the fall of some angel in its using of the term, cherub(vv.14,16). A cherub, according to my lexicon, is a winged celestial being whose primary function seems to be to guard and protect. If this fallen cherub is not Satan, who is it. The biggest problem here is placing this prophecy on someone else. It obviously is not God. It can’t be any human because cherubs aren’t humans(I can’t back that up, but I think that you’ll agree). The only alternative is an angel, and if it’s not Satan, who is it?

The Isaiah passage is a little different. There are some problems w/ this passage if we are to assume that it is referring to Satan. The first and biggest problem that I see is in verse 13. “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven.’” If this is before Lucifer is kicked out of heaven, how could he ascend to heaven? Now, I understand that this is a bad argument because verse 12 says, “How you have fallen from heaven...” So, obviously there is a problem in placing this prophecy on anyone. How could it be said by someone in heaven, “I will ascend to heaven?” This doesn’t make sense.

However, there are more issues than this. All of the descriptions found in this prophecy are not beyond the characteristics achievable by man(with the exception of “How you have fallen from heaven...). “I will ascend to heaven” is an aspiration that a man could have had. “I will raise my throne above the stars of God” is also an aspiration capable from humans.

Is. 14:14 also says, “I will make myself like the Most High.” Despite how blasphemous this may sound, it’s not. It’s even biblical. 1 Jn. 3:2 says this, “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” The argument is that we may be like him in some ways, but not in every way. I am not going to say at this point just how much like I believe that we will be like Him, that’s not the point. The point is that the same could be said for the verse in Isaiah. Maybe the person about whom this prophecy was written was aspiring to become like the Most High in a certain aspect.

I will not deny that both passages could be referring to Satan. I believe that the Ezekiel passage is much more convincing, but I cannot say that I have either the theological experience or biblical exposure to come to a definite conclusion.

Anyway, I noticed that no one has responed to this before me, since April, I would like more imput.

Love and respect

[mickiel]

04-18-2003 @ 04:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71590#post71590)
Bill the Cat:

I have a question on 2 separate passages. I had always been taught that these passages, while referring directly to Nebbuchadnezzar and the King of Tyre, were actually talking about the fall of Satan.



and



Any input?

When someone is CAST out, that is NOT a fall. The "fall" of satan, and man as well, is not in the bible, it is an invented means of explaining something men just do not understand.

[johnnybanano]

Mickiel,

What is the difference?

I could go with you on Satan's being cast out and his fall as two separate events.

I believe that his fall would then be the moment when he chose evil or unrighteousness, perhaps when the wickedness which "...was found in you(Satan)" had in fact entered him. This acceptance of evil, which I will agree I have not found in the Bible, is the best event that I nominate as Satan's "fall".

His being cast out, on the other hand, I believe probably is in the Bible. It definitely is if the Eze. 28:11 prophecy is referring to Satan. I believe that when God "...drove you in disgrace from the mount of God," and "I(God) expelled you(Satan)" are clear illustrations of Satan's being cast out.

I believe the tricky part is in Eze. 28:17: "So I threw you to the earth." This sounds like God threw Satan to the earth and the image conjured is one of Satan "falling" to earth. I think that this is where the semantical confusion on what the "fall" of Satan is.

Love and Respect

[tizzidale]

The fact remains that Satan is not mentioned in these two texts and any reading into them the idea of Satan is simply that.


The Isaiah text is clearly speaking about a man. Isaiah 14:16 "Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you: Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, 17 who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who would not let his prisoners go home?"

That the text draws upon a Canaanite myth of the gods Helel & shahar (morning star and dawn), only illustrates that the author is writing of Nebbuchadnezzar symbolically.

The Ezekial passage is also symbolically speaking about the King of Tyre. It is clear by reading the first 10 verses of chapter 28, that the passage is directly addressed to this mortal king. The symbolic language used in verses 12-19 draw upon the mythic fall of some "primordial . . . figure"

That this figure can not be the Christian idea of Satan is illustrated in the later verses of the passage: "By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade, you profaned your sanctuaries. So I brought out fire from within you; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all who saw you. All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever."

[mickiel]

Today @ 06:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=110081#post110081)
johnnybanano:

Mickiel,

What is the difference?

I could go with you on Satan's being cast out and his fall as two separate events.

They are not seperate events, there is no such thing as a "fall" of satan, it is not in scripture, only in the minds of men. But the mind of man is stronger than scripture, people believe as they desire. satan didnot fall, he was thrown down, as was Adam.




I believe that his fall would then be the moment when he chose evil or unrighteousness, perhaps when the wickedness which "...was found in you(Satan)" had in fact entered him. This acceptance of evil, which I will agree I have not found in the Bible, is the best event that I nominate as Satan's "fall".

Thats our problem, we nominate scripture to explain our percieved views. We are always wrong, its part of our nature.



His being cast out, on the other hand, I believe probably is in the Bible. It definitely is if the Eze. 28:11 prophecy is referring to Satan. I believe that when God "...drove you in disgrace from the mount of God," and "I(God) expelled you(Satan)" are clear illustrations of Satan's being cast out.

Even though its clear, your mind still holds to "probally". He didnot slip, he was pushed by the power of God, read the description of Lucifer in Ezk. 28, and explain how a being sealed by God, can break Gods seal. It cannot, nothing can break a seal of God, but God himself.



I believe the tricky part is in Eze. 28:17: "So I threw you to the earth." This sounds like God threw Satan to the earth and the image conjured is one of Satan "falling" to earth. I think that this is where the semantical confusion on what the "fall" of Satan is.

It does not sound like it, it plainly states it, but traditional thought is stronger than scripture.



Love and Respect

Love and respect to you also.

[johnnybanano]

Mickiel, what do you mean by the word "fall"?

It sounds like you are saying that when this word is used, it is used by other people trying to explain that Satan, who, when wickedness was found in him, fell out of heaven, making it seem as though God really had no part in it.

I can tell that you disagree with that in this

He didnot slip, he was pushed by the power of God, read the description of Lucifer in Ezk. 28, and explain how a being sealed by God, can break Gods seal.

You are absolutely right. :idea: I completely agree, no one can break a seal of God save God himself. Satan did not fall; he was in fact cast out, expelled, and "...[driven]...from the mount of God"(Eze. 28:16 NIV) I gladly express my humility. :cheers:

What I was referring to when I used the term "probably", was that this passage was "probably" referring to Satan. I use probably because our friends Robyn and Dolemite seem rather convinced that this scripture is not referring to Satan.

Robyn Banks:
Exegetically there is no reference to Satan here whatsoever.

The concept of Satan as an opposing force to God was only developed after the end of the Old Testament. The idea of the fall of Satan therefore does not appear in the Old Testament.

and,

Dolemite:
The fact remains that Satan is not mentioned in these two texts and any reading into them the idea of Satan is simply that.

However, and as I am not an exegesist yet(I am currently enjoying the summer before my first year of a Bachellor's Degree w/ a Religion major, just in case you were interested) I understand that I am to humbly tip my hat to Robyn Banks claims of no exegetical reference to Satan, I believe that there is no one else to whom the Scripture could be referring when it mentions the "being's" presence in Eden.
**I have supported this in an earlier post up there**

To Dolemite,

The Ezekial passage is also symbolically speaking about the King of Tyre. It is clear by reading the first 10 verses of chapter 28, that the passage is directly addressed to this mortal king. The symbolic language used in verses 12-19 draw upon the mythic fall of some "primordial . . . figure"

Honestly, I have no good reason to disagree w/ you here. Provided Robyn's exegetical evaluation of the Ezekiel passage is accurate, I suppose there is no good reason to assume that God wouldn't be speaking symbolicly of the literal earthly King of Tyre.

However, I simply ask you to consider this:

You say that this symbolism is drawn from the "mythic 'fall' of some primordial . . . figure"
(I assume that the elipses denote an implied interval of silent thought)
May I suggest that the symbolism is drawn the "fall" or casting out of some, quite possibly primordial according to Socrates, figure named Satan?

You admit that, assuming this is a symbolic allegory to the King of Tyre, this is the "mythic fall" of someone. What if the symbolism isn't exactly mythic, but based on the actual fall---casting out--- of Satan?

What I am saying is that I think that it is pretty fishy that God gave a lament to Ezekiel talking about someone who was in the Garden of Eden, appointed a guardian cherub, and then cast out from the Mount of God if it didn't literally happen at some point.

I have no problem w/ the theory that the lament was symbolic of the literal earthly King of Tyre.
I have always found it odd that God would randomly place prophecy of Satan in between prophecies of earthly kings as is done in Ezekiel (i.e. Moab, Edon, Philistia, Sidon, and Egypt), but then again the prophecy against the King of Tyre is the only one in this vacinity of Scripture only against a "King" the rest are against the nations and kingdoms.

Anyway, while I have no problem w/ the theory that the lament was symbolic of the literal, earthly King of Tyre, I believe that the symbol used was in fact the casting out Satan.

Love and Respect (and Humility)

[tizzidale]

Anyway, while I have no problem w/ the theory that the lament was symbolic of the literal, earthly King of Tyre, I believe that the symbol used was in fact the casting out Satan.

The problem I have with this take is that there is no reason for you to believe this other than your Christian understanding of Satan - which did not exist when this passage was written.

As I stated in the Isaiah text, the author used a Canaanite myth to illustrate his point about Nebbuchadnezzar. It could be a similar situation here in Ezekial. There is no reason to make the jump to Satan without any reason in the text to do so.

[RevSteve45]

I believe there is an aspect of these passages which have not yet been discussed. That is the aspect of primary & secondary references.

For instance, in Ezekiel 28, the King of Tyre is the person being addresed here. However, Satan is the real power behind the King of Tyre, so Satan is the secondary person being addressed here.

Ezek 28:14-15, Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. (KJV)

No king of Tyre was ever a cherub. Nor was he ever upon the "holy mountain of God." Nor has he ever "walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire." No human being was ever "perfect in all thy ways." Thus, clearly, THIS section, at least, refers to Satan before his fall.

But, according to verse 15, "iniquity was found in thee." Verse 17, "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty (KJV). Also, once again, God calls Satan a "covering cherub."

Ezek 28:13, Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. (KJV)

No king of Tyre was ever in "Eden the garden of God." Only Lucifer/Satan has been there.

In Isaiah 14, there is also a primary/secondary reference. Verse 4 tells us that it is the King of Babylon that is being addressed. Verses 17-20 tell us that this king did not let his captives return to their homes. Nor did he have a proper burial in a tomb like other kings, according to verse 19-20.

This description fits Tiglath-Pileser III, the only Asyrian king to take the title "King of Babylon." Verse 12 makes a refeerence to Lucifer. However, the HEBREW of this verse is "helel," or "morning star." THE KJV translated "morning star" as "Lucifer," borrowing this term from the Latin Vulgate. The term means "light-bearing."

Therefore, we see that the primary reference was to the King of Babylon, who, in his rebellion against God, was like Lucifer. His heart was lifted up in pride, just like Lucifer. He wanted to be like God. So did Lucifer. He fell from an exalted position. So did Lucifer.

I would propose that Satan inspired & motivated Tiglath-Pileser III to take the Israelites captive , brutally oppress them and claim to be greater than God. His self-exaltation was a mirror image of the self-exaltation & rebellion of Lucifer that is seen in Ezekiel 28.

Finally, even if we had NO OTHER references to Satan, we would still know about him from detailed accounts of him in the book of Job. Also, Jesus speaks about Satan, as do some of the apostles.

In His Service,
Steve

[mickiel]

Today @ 07:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111206#post111206)
johnnybanano:

Mickiel, what do you mean by the word "fall"?

It sounds like you are saying that when this word is used, it is used by other people trying to explain that Satan, who, when wickedness was found in him, fell out of heaven, making it seem as though God really had no part in it.

I can tell that you disagree with that in this



You are absolutely right. :idea: I completely agree, no one can break a seal of God save God himself. Satan did not fall; he was in fact cast out, expelled, and "...[driven]...from the mount of God"(Eze. 28:16 NIV) I gladly express my humility. :cheers:

What I was referring to when I used the term "probably", was that this passage was "probably" referring to Satan. I use probably because our friends Robyn and Dolemite seem rather convinced that this scripture is not referring to Satan.



and,



However, and as I am not an exegesist yet(I am currently enjoying the summer before my first year of a Bachellor's Degree w/ a Religion major, just in case you were interested) I understand that I am to humbly tip my hat to Robyn Banks claims of no exegetical reference to Satan, I believe that there is no one else to whom the Scripture could be referring when it mentions the "being's" presence in Eden.
**I have supported this in an earlier post up there**

To Dolemite,



Honestly, I have no good reason to disagree w/ you here. Provided Robyn's exegetical evaluation of the Ezekiel passage is accurate, I suppose there is no good reason to assume that God wouldn't be speaking symbolicly of the literal earthly King of Tyre.

However, I simply ask you to consider this:

You say that this symbolism is drawn from the "mythic 'fall' of some primordial . . . figure"
(I assume that the elipses denote an implied interval of silent thought)
May I suggest that the symbolism is drawn the "fall" or casting out of some, quite possibly primordial according to Socrates, figure named Satan?

You admit that, assuming this is a symbolic allegory to the King of Tyre, this is the "mythic fall" of someone. What if the symbolism isn't exactly mythic, but based on the actual fall---casting out--- of Satan?

What I am saying is that I think that it is pretty fishy that God gave a lament to Ezekiel talking about someone who was in the Garden of Eden, appointed a guardian cherub, and then cast out from the Mount of God if it didn't literally happen at some point.

I have no problem w/ the theory that the lament was symbolic of the literal earthly King of Tyre.
I have always found it odd that God would randomly place prophecy of Satan in between prophecies of earthly kings as is done in Ezekiel (i.e. Moab, Edon, Philistia, Sidon, and Egypt), but then again the prophecy against the King of Tyre is the only one in this vacinity of Scripture only against a "King" the rest are against the nations and kingdoms.

Anyway, while I have no problem w/ the theory that the lament was symbolic of the literal, earthly King of Tyre, I believe that the symbol used was in fact the casting out Satan.

Love and Respect (and Humility)


All things considered, i understand others view of this being not being satan. It could be, i just don't know for sure. But if it is satan, then the text proves to me he was tampered with by God, not self generateing sin from within. I have prayed for more insight, it just has not been given. I will say this, whenever i see a great event involving great power being displayed, i always suspect God. Whatever happen to Lucifer, i strongly suspect it couldnot have happened without Gods involvement. I see the king of Tyre as satan, others do not, but i understand that. The description , in my view, is not human. No human has walked with God in heaven.

[tizzidale]

Here is the legend of Athtar (also known as Ashteroth, et.al.)

Thereupon Athtar the Fierce
Goes up to the crags of Saphon;
He takes his seat on the throne of Ba'al the Mighty.
His feet do not reach the footstool,
His head does not reach the top thereof.
Then Athtar the Fierce declares,
'I may not be king on the crags of Saphon.'
Athtar the Fierce comes down,
Down from the throne of Ba'al the Mighty,
And he becomes King over the whole vast underground.

Couldn't this just as easily be the reference used in Ezekial 28?

No king of Tyre was ever a cherub. Nor was he ever upon the "holy mountain of God." Nor has he ever "walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire." No human being was ever "perfect in all thy ways." Thus, clearly, THIS section, at least, refers to Satan before his fall.

It is not clear. The following verses speak of this character's behavior in trade. Does Satan have bad trade practices? It also speaks of him "being no more." Surely you believe Satan still exist.

Dolemite

[RevSteve45]

Here is the legend of Athtar (also known as Ashteroth, et.al.)

Thereupon Athtar the Fierce
Goes up to the crags of Saphon;
He takes his seat on the throne of Ba'al the Mighty.
His feet do not reach the footstool,
His head does not reach the top thereof.
Then Athtar the Fierce declares,
'I may not be king on the crags of Saphon.'
Athtar the Fierce comes down,
Down from the throne of Ba'al the Mighty,
And he becomes King over the whole vast underground.

Couldn't this just as easily be the reference used in Ezekial 28?

Dolemite,

Tell me something, do you know the difference between the mountain of Ba'al, and the mountain of God?? Do you think God knew, and was able to clarify this distinction to Ezekiel?

Surely you know the difference between cherubim & men, I take it? How about the Garden of Eden? Do you figure it was destroyed in the Flood, millenia before the time of Ezekiel? I surely do. Do you think the King of Tyre, a PAGAN King was "perfect in all his ways"?? And that was in "the day that thou wast created." Did God personally create the King of Tyre? We KNOW God directly created Lucifer & other angels, cherubim, seraphim, etc.

It is not clear. The following verses speak of this character's behavior in trade. Does Satan have bad trade practices? It also speaks of him "being no more." Surely you believe Satan still exist.

It's like I said, Dolemite. It is a double reference. Certain aspects of the prophecy apply only to the King of Tyre. Certain aspects apply only to Lucifer. Certain aspects apply to them both.

In His Service,
Steve

[johnnybanano]

Today @ 09:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111477#post111477)
Dolemite:

Couldn't this just as easily be the reference used in Ezekial 28?

Dolemite

The only problem is that this legend does not refer to Athtar as being
...a cherub, ...upon the "holy mountain of God", "walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire," or ..."perfect in all thy ways."

Besides that, you admit that it is possible that this passage is using the "casting out" of Satan as an allegory to the fall of the earthly King of Tyre. You say that there is no reason to believe that it is, yet it is possible.

Well, bearing that possibility in mind, consider these verses


Lk. 10:18 (NIV)

He replied, 'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.'



Re. 12:9 (NIV)

The great dragon was hurled down --that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.


The fact of the matter is this: there are numerous references to Satan or the Devil in the New Testament. He is real, not a myth.
The lament to the King of Tyre may have been to the literal, earthly king of Tyre, but the symbol used in this lament was the literal "fall", or casting out, of Satan, the Devil.

We know this because there is no other entity in the Bible who was cast out of heaven save Satan, the Devil, and his angels.

Are we to assume that God just made up these events describing this "mythical" expulsion? Certainly not, these events happened at one point and the only entity who fits the description is Satan.


Thanks to Steve for the post, clarifying that the lament is not based on any other event.

Love and Respect

[tizzidale]

It's like I said, Dolemite. It is a double reference. Certain aspects of the prophecy apply only to the King of Tyre. Certain aspects apply only to Lucifer. Certain aspects apply to them both.


It is flowery language meant to describe a human being - the King of Tyre. To insist on another interpretation is reading into the scripture - and should be put on another forum: eisegesis.

Eze 28:12 "Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: "You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

You can twist and turn, but the fact remains that the text is addressing a particular man. That he was described in poetic language does not detract from this simple fact. To illustrate this point, let's look at some of the other language used to address other leaders.

To Egypt:
Eze 29:3 speak, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lies in the midst of his streams, that says, 'My Nile is my own; I made it.'

I could use your own interpretative methods and ask a few question of my own: Do you know the difference between a man and dragon? Don't you think that God does? Isn't this dragon really Satan!? After all he is refered to as such by Revelation - surely God must have known this and given this prophecy to Ezekial.

Eze 29:4 I will put hooks in your jaws, and make the fish of your streams stick to your scales; and I will draw you up out of the midst of your streams, with all the fish of your streams which stick to your scales.

Does Pharoah really, trully have scales? Will God make fish stick to them for real? For really, real?

Eze 31:3 Behold, I will liken you to a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches and forest shade, and of great height, its top among the clouds.

Is Pharaoh really a tree? Doesn't God know the difference between a man and a tree? Do you?

Eze 31:8 The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor the fir trees equal its boughs; the plane trees were as nothing compared with its branches; no tree in the garden of God was like it in beauty.

Was Pharaoh in the Garden of God too? Gosh, this must be another veiled reference to Satan - it couldn't just be symbolic language. Doesn't God know that Pharaoh wasn't in the garden?

Again, if you take the context into consideration, it is plain that the author Ezekial was using emblematic language. Why is it so important to show that Satan is indeed referenced here? Surely not so important that you have to read into the text what simply is not there.

dolemite

[RevSteve45]

Dolemite,

I agree that flowery language is used, both in Ezekiel, as well as in references to Pharoah, I ALSO believe that the rise & fall of the King of Tyre serve as an allegory for the rise & fall of Lucifer/Satan.

Likewise, Isaiah 14 refers DIRECTLY to the fall of the King of Babylon. But it is an allegory for the fall of Lucifer.

Even if they are not, you still cannot take Satan out of the book of Job, the words of Jesus, or the words of the apostles.

In His Service,
Steve

[johnnybanano]

I think that the references that I posted earlier(Lk. 10:18 and Rev. 12:9) support the fact that Satan was indeed expelled from heaven. If the Eze. 28 lamentation does not echo from the expulsion of Satan, then what is the significance of this "flowery language"? I can understand figurative statements such as,

You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

but what significance have specific verses such as these:

You were in Eden, the Garden of God;

You were anointed as a guardian cherub,

I am not completely decided either way, I admit that it is possible that these verses, may not refer to Satan. However, if they do not, it seems a little one-dimensional of God.

Love and Respect

[tizzidale]

STEVE:
Even if they are not, you still cannot take Satan out of the book of Job, the words of Jesus, or the words of the apostles.


Exactly my point. No need to supplement meaning that isn't there.

dolemite

[tizzidale]

but what significance have specific verses such as these:

You were in Eden, the Garden of God;

Well, this is hardly different from the cry against Pharaoh:
"Eze 31:8 The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor the fir trees equal its boughs; the plane trees were as nothing compared with its branches; no tree in the garden of God was like it in beauty."

You were anointed as a guardian cherub
Compared with:

" Eze 32:2 "Son of man, raise a lamentation over Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say to him: "You consider yourself a lion among the nations, but you are like a dragon in the seas; you burst forth in your rivers, trouble the waters with your feet, and foul their rivers."

[GrayPilgrim]

I don't have the time right now to get into this discussion (I'm in the middle of moving out of state), but I would reccomend doing a lexical comparison between Genesis 3 and Ezekiel 28 (using the Hebrew of course) one will find much more than is evident than in the Englsih.

Now one could argue that this is just using a motif to discuss the Tyre, but I cogitate that there is more to it than that.

Sorry I can't get into this one right now.

GP

[tizzidale]

GrayPilgrim
I don't have the time right now to get into this discussion (I'm in the middle of moving out of state), but I would reccomend doing a lexical comparison between Genesis 3 and Ezekiel 28 (using the Hebrew of course) one will find much more than is evident than in the Englsih.

I would be interested in seeing the results of your cogitation.

[dizzle]

I agree with you GP. The words move beyond the earthly ruler to the power behind the earthly ruler.

[tizzidale]

Dee:

Could you explain how you came to this descision? It seems to me that it is plain that in keeping with the pattern throughout Ezekial's address to the nations that he is using symbolic language to address earthly kingdoms. I believe that this if very evident by such references to the King of Tyre's trade practices. Why should we read into this the fall of Satan?