It's clear by the intimate language used in this Chapter the King held a very close relationship not only with Israel but with Gid himself. The chapter is extremely personal.
I wonder if the king of Tyre may have been a Jew—or perhaps regarded as so closely aligned with Israel that he was seen as a kind of proselyte?
You still have it backwards.
Solomon was
NOT a righteous king. He's listed among the evil kings in the Bible, and the 2 reasons given for that are (1) that he tolerated and built the high places, and (2) that he allowed all his foreign wives to drag him into the worship of their gods.
The case is not that Solomon influenced the king of Tyre, but the other way round. The Phoenicians gave multiple wives to Solomon - this was the regular way of cementing a treaty in the Bronze Age. Those wives led him into the worship of the Canaanite gods. 1Kings 11:
6 Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as [did] David his father. 7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that [is] before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. 8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
There are several reasons for raising this question, and an important lesson we can draw if that were the case.
God says, “You shall die the death of the uncircumcised at the hand of foreigners” (Ezek. 28:10).
If the king of Tyre were already an uncircumcised Gentile, such a statement would seem unnecessary.
The Israelites weren't the only people who practiced circumcision. Moses had completely forgotten the covenant of circumcision given to Abraham. His wife had to remind him. She wasn't even an Israelite; she was an Edomite - not of the promise but descended from Abraham nonetheless. (Exodus 4)
Also, the term 'Gentile' (Goyim) refers to the descendants of Japheth. (Gen 10:2-5) The king of Tyre is not a Goy. He's descended from Ham; he's a Hamathite.
In Ezekiel 36:35, God describes the land of Israel as “like the garden of Eden.” Of the king of Tyre, He says, “You were in Eden (Israel), the garden of God” (Ezek. 28:13), which is symbolic of his place within the blessings of Israel.
Eden is not a synonym for Israel. Eden is in Lebanon, per Eze 31:16:
I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees
of Eden, the choice and best
of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.
Was Israel promised that territory? Yes.
Did they ever possess it? No.
Was the king of Tyre literally in that territory? Yes.
He is also said to be adorned with nine of the twelve stones found on the high priest’s breastplate (compare Ezek. 28:13 with Exod. 39:10–14). This may imply a connection to the priesthood, possibly even from the tribe of Levi.
Archaeology and chronology rules that out. The King of Tyre exists before Levi.
(He exists before Abraham, for that matter). If he is a priest, he's not a priest of Yahweh. At the end, his gods were Baal and Dagon. Before that, he worshiped the true god under the name EL. He was counted among the ELOHIM - the adopted sons of EL.
In verse 14, God says, “You were an anointed guardian cherub, for so I ordained you.” This too carries strong priestly overtones, suggesting a divinely appointed role of spiritual responsibility.
No, guardian cherub has military overtones, not priestly. Cherub literally means "one who fights."
He is described as having been “on the holy mountain of God” (v. 14), which Ezekiel 20:40 identifies as “the high mountain of Israel.” This again places the king within a sacred, covenantal context rather than a foreign one.
You ever been to Israel? Jerusalem contains no high mountains. Mt Moriah - aka Mt Zion - is more of a hill than a mountain. It's THE holy hill, but a hill nonetheless.
Mt Harmon, by contrast, is the highest mountain within Israel, and higher than any in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, or anywhere else for hundreds of miles. The closest higher mountain is Ararat in modern-day Turkey, which is quite a way off.
The phrase “you walked among the fiery stones” (v. 14) allude's to the stones in the high priest’s breastplate, each representing a tribe of Israel and signifying proximity to God's glory and presence.
The fact that he (and his people) were able to do this in Israel was a significant blessing not afforded to just anyone or any country.
Agreed.
Finally, in verse 16, God says, “You sinned.” This could suggest that the king had knowledge of God's law, which makes his transgression more serious.
My view is that the Law was known well before Moses. Moses restored the Law to the Israelites - they had lost it during their time in "Egypt." That isn't in the Bible per se, but it's suggested in the multiple passages in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy where Israel shows familiarity with Egypt's culture, and ignorance of Abraham's covenant.
If the king of Tyre was indeed a Jew (or adopted) especially one holding a priestly office it helps explain the severity and specificity of the judgment pronounced against him. The principle here aligns with Jesus’ words: “That servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating... Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required” (Luke 12:47–48, ESV).
Chronology is a bear. Tyre exists before Judah. There are no Jews when Tyre enters the picture and no Israel either.
Now Wick, some of these points I am not dogmatic on and will not be defending - these are posted merely for consideration points and if you ask for evidence on some of these I could not provide.
No worries. I'm strong on history, and better versed in archaeology in the ANE than most.
What I can say with confidence is that the text and its context are entirely focused on the King of Tyre.
Yes they are.
The lament is not a hidden origin story...
It includes references to an origin story. It's not Israel's - it belongs to Edom. Still, the OT is the history of Israel AND Edom - the beloved and the hated.
...or a veiled reference to a cosmic rebellion,
Agree - that's definitely not part of the text.
it’s a direct message, written primarily for the benefit of Israel. It served as a warning: if God would bring such severe judgment upon a foreign king for pride and corruption, how much more would He hold His own people accountable if they continued in their disobedience?
No argument here.
