Satan and that Ezekiel Passage

[TK]

On the old forum, I raised the question of whether Satan may have been in his "unfallen" state up until the time he tempted adam and eve. I mentioned these verses from Ezekiel:

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

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.

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.

I understand that many hold that these verses are not talking about satan, but about an earthly king. Sean brought up the verses before and after those quoted above which do in fact seem to be talking about an actual king, namely the king of tyre.

what i dont understand, then, is how the above verses are explained. was the king of tyre in Eden? was he anointed as a guardian cherub? the above verses seem not to fit with the rest of the narrative. might it not be a prophetic "aside" commenting on Lucifer? If the answer is that it is a poetic device, and not to be taken literally, then why do we take other poetic devices, like those in the psalms, as being prophetic references to Jesus?

TK

[Sean]

what i dont understand, then, is how the above verses are explained. was the king of tyre in Eden? was he anointed as a guardian cherub? the above verses seem not to fit with the rest of the narrative. might it not be a prophetic "aside" commenting on Lucifer? If the answer is that it is a poetic device, and not to be taken literally, then why do we take other poetic devices, like those in the psalms, as being prophetic references to Jesus?

TK

I think one reason to approach this text with caution is that it is from the book of Ezekiel.
Different books use different types of speech, in general. The prophetic books are the hardest for me to grasp. All I can suggest is you should read through the entire book of Ezekiel and see if there is some kind of pattern to the way this book uses figures of speech. Read Ezekiel 31. It speaks of Assyria as "a cedar in Lebanon" and of Pharaoh it says:

18 " 'Which of the trees of Eden can be compared with you in splendor and majesty? Yet you, too, will be brought down with the trees of Eden to the earth below; you will lie among the uncircumcised, with those killed by the sword." 'This is Pharaoh and all his hordes, declares the Sovereign LORD.' "

Refering to eden does not seem to be literal (or Assyria being a tree). Nor would it seem to make sense that the anointed cherub (from Ezekiel 28:14) is a reference to Satan. Satan is said to be a serpent and is never called a cherub. Nor does the bible say an angel is a synonym for cherubim or seraphim. Specifically, in the garden of eden we have record of Adam, Eve, the serpent and a cherub who guards the entrance to eden once they are cast out of it.

Gen 3:24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

It would seem most logical that if Ezekiel 28 is pointing to a cherub in the garden it's the one (or ones) guarding the way to the tree of life, not Satan.

That's my $0.02 anyway.

[TK]

here's a sermon by John Macarthur regarding some of this:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-237.htm

TK

[Jason]

TK, I just read the sermon you posted. He just gives the standard view of the fall of Satan and uses the same old proof texts. There's nothing even remotely new there. I call this "going beyond what is written." What he says very well may be true, but we have no way of knowing. He, like most preachers, take these verses and then fill in the details with ample speculation.

[TK]

Hi JC-

yeah- that was the main reason i posted it- to demonstrate what he and the great majority of preachers/teachers would say. it seems most mainstream commentators agree as well.

of course, this doesnt mean they are right.

perhaps this raises another question- why do mainstream preachers have such a vested interest in not exploring alternative views of satan and his origins? surely they have come across other ideas, but honestly i have never heard of the alternative theories before I heard steve g's lecture, and i am glad i did.

do you have any idea what Greg Boyd thinks on this issue?

TK

[Jason]

TK, Greg Boyd agrees with the traiditonal view. I've actually debated him on this issue through e-mail and was not convinced. His main arguement was that the oldest Rabbinc tradition interpreted those passages as being about Satan and the fact that the Prince of Persia reference in Daniel 10 seems to give us some parallel. I don't find that very convincing. I actually think Satan IS a fallen angel but I don't base it on any passage of scripture, just deduction and reasoning.

[TK]

thanks for the info, JC!

[MoGrace2u]

But isn't Ezekiel being shown the spirit at work behind the man? This seems to occur commonly enough in scripture to show us who these beasts are like. The Satanic influence at work in the spiritual realm is what is being revealed. When we get to Revelation, that dragon is clearly revealed to be who is working in the beast and the false prophet.

[psychohmike]

I personally believe that this passage is speaking of Adam.