Unlocking Ezekiel 28

[Hiddenthings]

This thread is a discussion (@Wick Stick) on Ezekiel 28 focusing in on the symbols and their interpretation.

This passage is typically used to prove that Satan is a fallen angel although neither are mentioned in the chapter.

Let's begin.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Let’s examine some key aspects of the chapter before diving deeper.

Because there is no clear origin story for a fallen angel, scholars have had to turn to challenging passages like Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 in an attempt to support the fallen angel doctrine.

However, these passages rely on inference, as they do not directly mention "devil," "satan," or "fallen angel."

Acknowledging this doesn’t mean these concepts aren’t present, but it does weaken the argument for those who seek to validate them.

 

[Wick Stick]

You went minimalist... probably a good starting place.

Eze 28 is a prophecy directed against the King of Tyre, a Phoenician city-state. (That isn't so interesting.)

But it gets interesting when Ezekiel relates it to Genesis. According to Ezekiel, the "Prince of Tyrus" was IN Eden. He WAS the "covering cherub" - the angel with the flaming sword who prevented Adam & Eve from accessing the Tree of Life.

And that means Ezekiel doesn't interpret Adam & Eve literally. He treats the characters there as symbols to be interpreted. That's already a departure from modern church doctrine.

 

[Hiddenthings]

You went minimalist... probably a good starting place.

Eze 28 is a prophecy directed against the King of Tyre, a Phoenician city-state. (That isn't so interesting.)

But it gets interesting when Ezekiel relates it to Genesis. According to Ezekiel, the "Prince of Tyrus" was IN Eden. He WAS the "covering cherub" - the angel with the flaming sword who prevented Adam & Eve from accessing the Tree of Life.

And that means Ezekiel doesn't interpret Adam & Eve literally. He treats the characters there as symbols to be interpreted. That's already a departure from modern church doctrine.

First audience interpretation is required Wick...hope you can keep up.

The anointed cherub is named in the passage, but not as a rebellious angel: "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre..." (verse 2).

Chapters 26 and 27 contain prophecies concerning the imminent destruction of the city of Tyre.

Context is everything!

So, chapters 26 and 27 of Ezekiel record the prophecy of Tyre’s destruction, which is quite literal, as the ancient site of Tyre today resembles "the top of a rock... a place to spread nets upon" and has never been rebuilt (Ezek 26:14).

I assume you wholeheartedly agree with this...well I hope so!

The rest of chapter 28 shifts focus to a prophecy against Sidon and the future restoration of Israel.

1. Given this context, why would the prophet suddenly introduce a “revelation” about the origin of Satan?

2. And if Satan is indeed a rebel angel, why is he referred to as “a man”?

I don’t mind if your answers are vague or dismissive, that won’t offend me at all. Right now, it’s about asking the questions and forming opinions that may or may not be accurate.

For what it’s worth, my answer is that I’m already suspicious before even looking at the text, which isn’t a good starting point if you’re trying to prove something like a fallen angel.

If Satan did exist, he wouldn’t be called a man, unless he was disguising himself as one, but the context here doesn’t support that idea.

 

[Wick Stick]

So, chapters 26 and 27 of Ezekiel record the prophecy of Tyre’s destruction, which is quite literal, as the ancient site of Tyre today resembles "the top of a rock... a place to spread nets upon" and has never been rebuilt (Ezek 26:14).

I assume you wholeheartedly agree with this...well I hope so!

It doesn't seem controversial.... ancient Tyre is today a ruin. Anyone can Google this and see that it's true

The rest of chapter 28 shifts focus to a prophecy against Sidon and the future restoration of Israel.

1. Given this context, why would the prophet suddenly introduce a “revelation” about the origin of Satan?

Ezekiel makes a lot of references to Genesis but doesn't mention ever actually mention Satan.

I don't think Ezekiel "introduces" new revelations - he assumes that his reader understands Genesis apocalyptically, the same as he does. He understands the King of Tyre to be an enemy. But it wasn't always so... Ezekiel remembers a time when Tyre followed God. But he's an enemy now, and Ezekiel pronounces judgment on him for his apostacy.

2. And if Satan is indeed a rebel angel, why is he referred to as “a man”?

I don’t mind if your answers are vague or dismissive, that won’t offend me at all. Right now, it’s about asking the questions and forming opinions that may or may not be accurate.

I don't see it as "a man" so much as it's "a position" - the king of Tyre. At any given moment, that's a man, but over the course of time, it's a series of people - a dynasty.

For what it’s worth, my answer is that I’m already suspicious before even looking at the text, which isn’t a good starting point if you’re trying to prove something like a fallen angel.

If Satan did exist, he wouldn’t be called a man, unless he was disguising himself as one, but the context here doesn’t support that idea.

The prophets see "Satan" as the head of an evil empire. In Ezekiel, that's the Canaanites and Tyre their head. But Daniel sees a succession of empires - Babylon, Persia, etc. It's less a single person, and more a position. "Satan" is the head of the world's leading empire - an empire built on commerce, trade... the love of money.

 

[Hiddenthings]

It doesn't seem controversial.... ancient Tyre is today a ruin. Anyone can Google this and see that it's true

Agree

Ezekiel makes a lot of references to Genesis but doesn't mention ever actually mention Satan.

Agree

I don't think Ezekiel "introduces" new revelations - he assumes that his reader understands Genesis apocalyptically, the same as he does. He understands the King of Tyre to be an enemy. But it wasn't always so...

Correct and we will look at this.

Ezekiel remembers a time when Tyre followed God.

Agree

But he's an enemy now, and Ezekiel pronounces judgment on him for his apostacy.

Yes

I don't see it as "a man" so much as it's "a position" - the king of Tyre. At any given moment, that's a man, but over the course of time, it's a series of people - a dynasty.

I'm happy to accept this

The prophets see "Satan" as the head of an evil empire.

The prophets did not see satan at all...they did see various adversaries but there is no Angelic Arch Enemy of God taught anywhere in all the OT.

In Ezekiel, that's the Canaanites and Tyre their head. But Daniel sees a succession of empires - Babylon, Persia, etc. It's less a single person, and more a position.

Agree.

"Satan" is the head of the world's leading empire - an empire built on commerce, trade... the love of money.

Disagree...unless you are able to identify the Satan (adversary).

Let's continue...

 

[Hiddenthings]

After going through these questions, we will find the lessons either fit perfectly with the King of Tyre or they don't as the King is the context.

Does Satan the devil truly deal in wealth, gold, and silver (verses 4–5)? Isn’t his supposed focus meant to be on influencing people, not trading in material riches?

Note: this context is really important for future refence.

 

[Hiddenthings]

In the same vein many Christians claim that Satan rebelled due to a growing desire for power over humanity. However, how does this align with verses 4 and 5, which state, “your heart became proud because of your wealth”?

I believe it’s not only important to challenge popular beliefs about this being, but also to critically examine the assumptions underlying those beliefs.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Jesus said that angels cannot die, “neither can they (the children of the resurrection) die any more, for they are equal to the angels” (Luke 20:36) how, then, is Satan said to die “by the hand of strangers” (in verse 10), to be consumed by fire and reduced “to ashes” (verse 18), and to become “no more forever” (verse 19)?

 

[Hiddenthings]

@Wick Stick

""You have been in Eden the garden of God" (Ezekiel 28:13).

It is often argued that this must refer to Satan, since the king of Tyre could not have lived at the same time as Adam and Eve. However, the passage does not require that he lived contemporaneously with them, only that he had been “in Eden, the garden of God,” without specifying a particular time.

In fact, Eden appears to have been an extensive region, with the garden planted specifically “in the east” (Genesis 2:8). Furthermore, Ezekiel 27:23 mentions locations tied to Eden in a geographical context, supporting the idea that it may symbolise a region or idealised setting, not just the original garden.

Symbolic use of Eden is also seen in Ezekiel 31, where Pharaoh, king of Egypt, is portrayed as a mighty tree:

“Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon… the cedars in the garden of God could not hide him… nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty” (Ezekiel 31:3, 8). To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden?” (Ezekiel 31:18).

Here, “trees” represent nations or rulers, and “Eden” is used symbolically. No one assumes Pharaoh literally lived in Eden with Adam and Eve, so the same reasoning should apply in Ezekiel 28. The reference to Eden is figurative, emphasizing splendor or privilege, not literal geography or history.

Wick, this is very important information as we open the prophecy especially when considering #7

 

[Wick Stick]

The prophets did not see satan at all...they did see various adversaries but there is no Angelic Arch Enemy of God taught anywhere in all the OT.

Those various adversaries ARE satans (plural, small-s, no definite article).

I think there's an argument to be made that most of them are all tied together by a certain spirit. I identified it above as the love-of-money. These cities and their rulers move in the same ways - they are cities of merchandise, they defraud the people through "unfair scales," and foment violence among the people by promoting greed.

Disagree...unless you are able to identify the Satan (adversary).

Mammon, greed, the love-of-money - take your pick of title.

 

[Wick Stick]

Does Satan the devil truly deal in wealth, gold, and silver (verses 4–5)?

Yes

Isn’t his supposed focus meant to be on influencing people, not trading in material riches?

No, but that misconception is pretty common. The church misreads the New Testament with regard to temptation. Modern eyes read that to mean he tries to entice us. The underlying word doesn't mean enticement, though - it means a test (krisis).

The NT's devil doesn't try to sweet-talk anyone. He's an accuser (false accuser) whose aim is to destroy people.

 

[XtraPercept]

Ezekiel 28 as it comes to me. If you understand, you are blessed!

The one who tasted righteousness and took credit

The one who touched power and turned away back upon himself

Judgment upon the one who turned away in pride and vanity

You were cherished

You were with Him but drifted away in the garden, distracted despite His draw

You took credit for His work

Your vanity turns you inside out, and all that is within is death

To the nations

Every evil befalls you

This is God

Judgement impending

Soon He gathers

Your redemption draws near

 

[Wick Stick]

@Wick Stick

""You have been in Eden the garden of God" (Ezekiel 28:13).

It is often argued that this must refer to Satan, since the king of Tyre could not have lived at the same time as Adam and Eve. However, the passage does not require that he lived contemporaneously with them, only that he had been “in Eden, the garden of God,” without specifying a particular time.

In fact, Eden appears to have been an extensive region, with the garden planted specifically “in the east” (Genesis 2:8). Furthermore, Ezekiel 27:23 mentions locations tied to Eden in a geographical context, supporting the idea that it may symbolise a region or idealised setting, not just the original garden.

I read Adam & Eve symbolically, but that doesn't mean that what-is-symbolized aren't literal peoples and things.

As I read it, Adam is Edom (aka Esau). Those are the same word in Hebrew. Why did we translate them differently?

Eden is the Beqaa valley. It literally can only be entered (from the south) through a mountain pass, which the Bible refers to elsewhere as "the going in of Hamath." The Litani River runs out of the valley and whoever controls the river, controls the pass.

Was the King of Tyre prominent at the same time as the early Edomites? Yes
Did the Edomites ever live as far north as the Beqaa? Yes (we know this because Esau marries Hittite women, the southernmost extent of their empire was the Baalbek)
Were they displaced from the valley? Yes (the Bible records a meeting between Esau and Jacob where Esau is abdicating the territory that he forfeited to his brother in exchange for soup)
Did the King of Tyre control the Litani and the pass around that time? Yes (Tyre is built at the place where the Litani empties into the Mediterranean, and was chief among the Canaanite city-states)

Basically, I read the story of "the Fall" as being actually about the Edomites ejection from the good lands in Lebanon. They would end up re-settling south of the Dead Sea in not-so-good lands.

Symbolic use of Eden is also seen in Ezekiel 31, where Pharaoh, king of Egypt, is portrayed as a mighty tree:

“Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon… the cedars in the garden of God could not hide him… nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty” (Ezekiel 31:3, 8). To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden?” (Ezekiel 31:18).

Here, “trees” represent nations or rulers, and “Eden” is used symbolically. No one assumes Pharaoh literally lived in Eden with Adam and Eve, so the same reasoning should apply in Ezekiel 28. The reference to Eden is figurative, emphasizing splendor or privilege, not literal geography or history.

I mean, the Assyrians did contend for control of the Beqaa valley during this period. The geography part at least checks out. As for history... there's no such thing as a written history during this period... hadn't been invented yet. So the Edomites wrote in a genre that did exist. One full of symbols and hard for the modern mind to process.

I agree that "trees" in Ezekiel are nations or rulers. I also think they are nations and rulers in Genesis.

Did Ezekiel interpret Genesis wrong? I think he got it right!

 

[Hiddenthings]

@Wick Stick, if possible, could you include supporting scriptures in your comments? I’ve noticed several claims about your view of the devil, but no references to back them up. Even if you don’t have direct evidence, it’s helpful to clarify when something is just your opinion.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Yes

No, but that misconception is pretty common. The church misreads the New Testament with regard to temptation. Modern eyes read that to mean he tries to entice us. The underlying word doesn't mean enticement, though - it means a test (krisis).

The NT's devil doesn't try to sweet-talk anyone. He's an accuser (false accuser) whose aim is to destroy people.

Okay so you believe you fallen angel is interesting material wealth?

 

[David in NJ]

This thread is a discussion (@Wick Stick) on Ezekiel 28 focusing in on the symbols and their interpretation.

This passage is typically used to prove that Satan is a fallen angel although neither are mentioned in the chapter.

Let's begin.

Pray to the Lord Jesus Christ for your heart and mind to be unlocked.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Pray to the Lord Jesus Christ for your heart and mind to be unlocked.

Yes, that is what is needed for you to see. Also, David we are studying Scripture in this thread so please don't clog it up with pointless posts thanks.

 

[Wick Stick]

Okay so you believe you fallen angel is interesting material wealth?

The Prince of Tyrus was a "fallen angel" after the metaphor we discussed previously, and yes his "fall" had to do with materialism. There are others as well - a series of rulers who "fell" for the same reason. It's logical to think that there is an evil spirit that links them all.

I'm not sure we're using the word angel with the same meaning. There are heavenly angels and earthly angels, and ministering spirits which have a foot in both.

Heavenly angels don't fall (that would destroy the earth)

Earthly rulers are also "angels" or "stars" in Biblical language. They can and have fallen into apostasy.

Evil spirits exist. Were they always evil? The Bible doesn't say, but most people think God created everything as "good" at first and only later did corruption creep in.

 

[Hiddenthings]

I'm not sure we're using the word angel with the same meaning. There are heavenly angels and earthly angels, and ministering spirits which have a foot in both.

You are moving away from Ezekiel 28.

Evidence for this both camps belief?

I can't stress this enough Wick...either say it's a personal belief or provide support.