Dear John and Co.

About 10 years ago I worked on a manuscript by the late Dr. Max Wertheimer titled 'Satan'.

There were two primary passages that he used and I would appreciate it if you could clarify if these passages refer to Satan or not.

Here is the book, which I prepared for the internet : Satan by Dr. Max Wertheimer (ex-Rabbi)

I have checked out the Aramaic, and a variation of commentaries, but it seems that since 1934 there has been considerable advancement both in Textual Criticism and the re-exploration of the earliest Hebrew texts.

The passages are; EZEKIEL 28:1-19 and ISAIAH 14:12-16

Once again, please take your time.

Sincerely,
HH.

EZEKIEL 28:1-19

Imprecatory speech against the King of Tyre. Has been applied (via midrashic process) to ha'Satan, and has been claimed as a "type" of ha'Satan, but no indication that the original author meant a comparison to ha'Satan.

ISAIAH 14:12-16

Read starting with v. 3: this is imprecation against the King of Babylon.

This one is interesting, in that it is the source of the name "Lucifer," via Jerome's Vulgate. When Jerome translated this passage into Latin, he simply transliterated it: the actual reference is to the literal "morning star," or Venus as seen in the morning.

It is probable that these passages were applied to ha'Satan during the intertestamental period, as this was a time when the Jewish view of Satan changed, as illustrated by the Chronichler (circa 3rd century bce). Judaism still opposed the Persian dualism and Satan is definitely not a Persian-style "anti-God," but he still has a much larger (and more oppositional) role than he had in Job.

From The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-28 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), by Daniel I. Block:

[D]uring the second temple period, the view developed that Ezekiel 28 was based on a tradition of an angelic "fall," closely associated with the "fall" of humanity. Since the time of Origin many conservative Christians in particular have equated the king of Tyre with Lucifer (= Satan), "Brilliant One, son of the morning" (hêlēl ben-šāḥar), mentioned in Isaiah 14:12. Accordingly, Ezekiel's prophecy is thought to recount the circumstances of the original fall of Satan, who had previously been one of the cherubim attending the throne of God. But those who interpret the article historically reject this approach.¹ Ezekiel's prophecy is indeed couched in extravagant terms, but the primary referent within the context is clearly the human king of Tyre.² In any case, for this prophet and his professional colleagues, as well as for the Hebrew historiographic narrators, human rebellion is problem enough. A detailed treatment of the origin of the demonic is not to be expected from the OT.³

¹Had he got this far in his commentary on Ezekiel, John Calvin's response to the diabolical interpretation would probably have sounded like his comments on Isaiah 14 (Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, W. Pringle [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948], 1:442): "The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians [Tyre in our case]. But we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance that Lucifer [prince/king of Tyre in our case] was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass them by as useless."
²B. S. Childs observes that the mythological motifs are employed for illustrative purposes only, as extended figures of speech (Myths and Reality in the Old Testament SBT 267 [London: SCM, 1960], pp. 70-71).
³Not only is the OT remarkably disinterested in demonology (in stark contrast to the extrabiblical world) there is no connection between the OT figure of Satan and such figures as may be considered demonic. See J. K. Kuemmerlin-McLean, "Demons," ABD 2:138-40; G. J. Riley, "Demon," DDD. 445-55.

The fact that an anointed angel gets cast out of the mountain of God obviously alludes to a Satanic fall or else to the angels in Genesis 6. There would be no point in writing about angels getting thrown out if readers didn't already accept the possibility that such a thing could occur. So it seems to me that Ezekiel is basically saying something along the lines of, "King of Tyre, Look at yourself! You've wound up just like Satan!"

Originally posted by Obsidian

The fact that an anointed angel gets cast out of the mountain of God obviously alludes to a Satanic fall or else to the angels in Genesis 6.

It does to our mind, because we equate "cherub" with "angel," and we use "angel" to mean something far different than even what the apostles would have used "aggelos" for (or the Prophets "kruv"). But to definitively state that the original author referred to ha'Satan as the "King of Tyre" is to impose our meanings on these words--doing so results in an erroneous eisegesis.

Just a gentle reminder.

Read Me: Topics and Guidelines Biblical Languages 301

But to definitively state that the original author referred to ha'Satan as the "King of Tyre" is to impose our meanings on these words--doing so results in an erroneous eisegesis.

I didn't say that Ezekiel was calling Satan the "King of Tyre." I said he was calling the King of Tyre "Satan."

And what else would a cherub be if not an angel? I don't get your point.

Originally posted by Obsidian

I didn't say that Ezekiel was calling Satan the "King of Tyre." I said he was calling the King of Tyre "Satan."

Not really.

Ezekiel quotes ‏אֲדֹנָי יְהוִֹה (’ᵃdōnāy YHWH) as calling the King of Tyre, "a man" ‏‏אָדָם (’ādām)

Ezekiel 28:2 (NET)

Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, ‘This is what the sovereign LORD says:
“‘Your heart is proud and you said, “I am a god;
I sit in the seat of gods, in the heart of the seas”–
yet you are a man and not a god,
though you think you are godlike.

Originally posted by Obsidian

I didn't say that Ezekiel was calling Satan the "King of Tyre." I said he was calling the King of Tyre "Satan."

Unfortunately, that assertion is precisely what I was arguing against, but failed to do so clearly.

No,Ezekiel was not calling the King of Tyre "Satan." Yes, he was using extreme language comparing the King of Tyre with a cherub, or even with God himself--but he was not comparing to Satan the supposed "cherub."

And what else would a cherub be if not an angel? I don't get your point.

The best rendition I have ever seen of one comes from the fortress of Sargon. I believe it's currently housed in the Louvre.

Good grief, John Reece, I think you're missing my point...Ezekiel clearly calls him a cherub. And this is the first time I've heard that "cherubim" in the Bible doesn't refer to a certain type of angel. That creature you showed me, Silent, definitely would seem to be an angel, especially if they had those things carved on the ark of the covenant. You think God was just telling them to carve mythical, non-existent creatures on the ark? The cherubim were clearly angels, and this one fell from God's favor.

The theme of Ezekiel 28:1-19 is that human hubris must be answered by divine judgment.

The text consists of two oracles against Tyre; the primary issue in both units is hubris.

The text begins by calling the king of Tyre what he actually was a man (verse 2):

Ezekiel 28:6-10

⁶“‘Therefore this is what the sovereign LORD says:
Because you think you are godlike,
⁷I am about to bring foreigners against you, the most terrifying of nations.
They will draw their swords against the grandeur made by your wisdom,
and they will defile your splendor.
⁸They will bring you down to the pit, and you will die violently in the heart of the seas.
⁹Will you still say, “I am a god,” before the one who kills you–
though you are a man and not a god–
when you are in the power of those who wound you?
¹⁰You will die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of foreigners;
for I have spoken, declares the sovereign LORD.’”

Everything in the above excerpt from the first oracle applied not to Satan but to the king of Tyre; the entire text makes sense only in reference to a human being.

In the second oracle mythological language is used to supplement the language of the first oracle; in the second oracle the cherub is linked to the first man, ‏‏אָדָם (’ādām). From The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-28 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), by Daniel I. Block:

First, the numerous allusions to Genesis 1-3 link this cherub to the first man, Adam in Gen. 2-3. This is the most obvious in the setting of the second oracle in Eden, the garden of God. But the echoes of the original Adam are evident in the characterization of the prince of Tyre in the first panel and the description of the cherub in the second. Like the king of Tyre, the first man (1) was created by God, (2) was divinely authorized to rule over the garden as king, (3) not being satisfied with the status of ’ādām sought or claimed divinity, (4) was punished for this hubris by humiliation and death.

But Ezekiel does not have only Gen. 2-3 in mind. The twofold reference to creation, using the word ‏bārā’ (verses 13, 15), also links the second panel at least with the first creation account, which is framed by the same verb (Gen. 1:1; 2:4a). Although they play slightly different roles, Ezekiel's cherub is also naturally linked with the sword-wielding cherubim stationed by Yahweh at the entrance to the garden when Adam and Eve are expelled (Gen. 3:24). The LXX reading of verse 14 here suggests that when the man was placed in the garden, a cherub was present as a guardian.

Secondly, see here.

Obviously some people in this thread can't handle mixed metaphors. But aside from the "Eden" reference, it doesn't even call him a "man" in the second part.

Originally posted by Obsidian

Obviously some people in this thread can't handle mixed metaphors. But aside from the "Eden" reference, it doesn't even call him a "man" in the second part.

Nor does it call him 'Satan'; nor is there any scripture in which Satan is referenced as a cherub.

With regard to mixed metaphors, the text indicates that they apply to ‏‏אָדָם (’ādām). The mere fact that there is more than one metaphor does not ipso facto mean there is more than one referent.

Number 14 in D. A. Carson's list of Logical Fallacies in Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996) is Cavalier Dismissal:

The fallacy in this instance lies in thinking that an opponent's argument has been handled when in fact it has merely been written off.

Often what is meant by such cavalier dismissal is that the opposing opinion emerges from a matrix of thought so different from a scholar's own that he finds it strange, weird, and unacceptable (unless he changes his framework). If so, something like that should be said, rather than resorting to the hasty dismissal which is simultaneously worthless as an argument and gratingly condescending.

I think you're being a little obtuse here. Could you answer a few questions, perhaps?

1. Do you think Satan is an angel?
2. Do you think cherubs are real?
3. Do you think cherubs are angelic?
4. Do you think Satan fell from favor with God?
5. Do you think Satan is some type of angel other than a cherub?

Originally posted by Obsidian

Obviously some people in this thread can't handle mixed metaphors.

Mixed metaphors (of the type you are arguing for) are not feature of Hebrew literature or language. Hyperbole certainly is--in this case, the specific hyperbole is the exaggeration of the King of Tyre's high station before the judgment takes place.

Now, if you had argued that the Kin of Tyre was a type for Satan, there is no counterargument--but types in prohecy are postdiction, a later reinterpretation of a passage. Typology is a tricky subject, but this passage has long been interpreted as a type for Satan in mainstream Christian thought.(his passage is not seen as a type for Satan in Judaic thought, but the Judac view of Satan is quite different from the Christian view.)

Originally posted by Obsidian

There would be no point in writing about angels getting thrown out if readers didn't already accept the possibility that such a thing could occur. So it seems to me that Ezekiel is basically saying something along the lines of, "King of Tyre, Look at yourself! You've wound up just like Satan!"

I don't recall suggesting that he actually was Satan, but rather that Ezekiel's figurative language probably alluded to a pre-existing idea of fallen angels -- like Satan.