The Hebrew word satan takes its time to appear in the Tanakh. It is first used in Numbers 22:22, and again in 22:32, and it is used with reference to the messenger of HaShem because He is obstructing Balaam's path. During the reign of King Saul, David is seen as satan to the Philistines because he could turn on them. (1 Sam. 29:4) It is also ascribed to the sons of Zeruiah, who wanted Shimei son of Gera to be put to death for cursing King David. (2 Sam. 19:22)
In 2 Samuel 24:1, it says that the anger of HaShem burned against Israel. Yet 1 Chronicles 21:1 says satan, "an adversary" in some translations, stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. It could have been a human adversary, or it could have simply been God if this is compared to Numbers 22:19. The idea of God being satan for most Christians might be avoided because of the negative connotations ascribed to Satan.
Moving on, when Solomon became king, it is said that God had given him rest from every side so that there was neither satan, nor evil. (1 Kings 5:4) Later, God raises up satan against King Solomon. These were Hadad the Edomite (11:14) and Rezon son of Eliadah. (v. 23) He remained as satan to Israel all the days when Solomon was king, just as Hadad did. And he loathed Israel while reigning Syria. (v. 25)
In Zechariah 3:1, 2, some English translations erroneously write "Satan". This is misleading and is probably translated this way for theological reasons. The problem with this is that the Hebrew does not write satan, but hasatan, "the adversary". Therefore, it is not a proper noun. Ha- is the definite article, which cannot come before a proper noun. For example, Abraham is a proper noun, so writing "the Abraham" is not permitted grammatically. Therefore, hasatan should not be translated "Satan".
In the context of Psalm 109:6 vesatan is used, not as a demon, but adversaries. (vv. 4, 20, 29) In Job, again, we have hasatan like there was in Zechariah 3:1, 2. He is the adversary, and he stands out from among the sons of God. (Job 1:6; 2:1) He acts as a divine prosecutor to test the faithfulness of Job. (1:9-11; 2:4, 5) Thus far, only in a few references has satan been used for divine beings, yet in no way were any used in the same sense as Satan as Christians understand him. He works for, and is not an enemy of, God.
2. Satan and the serpent. (Genesis 3)
There isn't much to cover here. The serpent is often ascribed as Satan in this chapter, but there is nothing to support this. Nowhere in the targums, nor The Antiquities of the Jews is there any mention of the serpent being Satan. This, of course, is not to say that the concept is of Christian origin. Consider the following.
Wisdom 2:23, 24
For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that hold of his side do find it.
This belief that the serpent was Satan was continued in Christian interpretation. (Rev. 12:9; 20:2) Beyond this, I do not know where the interpretation originated from, but this is a later understanding of Genesis 3. I shall not offer later interpretations to older texts because I aim to know what the text had originally meant.
3. Satan and Lucifer. (Isaiah 14:12-14)
The concept of Satan's fall is probably from Origen. It is curious if Origen was influenced by 1 Enoch and saw a parallel between it and this particular passage, and therefore made a connection. I shall not continue further with idle speculation. The word lucifer is of Latin origin. Therefore, it should not even be in the Tanakh to begin with. This is from the Vulgate, and it reads:
Isaiah 14:12, Vulgate
Quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.
Other verses that use this Latin word are found below:
Job 11:17, Vulgate
Et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et c** te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer.
Job 38:32, Vulgate
Numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis.
To understand this passage, follow me. The taunt is directed to the king of Babylon (v. 4). The people of the earth rejoice at the fall of the king of Babylon (v. 8 ). In v. 9, She'ol is personified. By her yearning for the king of Babylon, she awakens the other dead kings of the nations. They mock this once great and powerful king, as if rhetorically asking, "Wert thou not mightier to escape death?" (v. 10)
In v. 11 the word "pomp" is from the Hebrew word gu'an. It is curious as if this is understood as a play on words because it is used not just for pride or arrogance, but also of majesty and excellence. Nevertheless, it was the king's pride that brought him low, and now the worms serve both as the king's bed and covering, both of which lack a state of luxury.
In v. 12, which says, "O Lucifer, son of the morning", should say, "Heylel, son of Shachar". Heylel, a minor god not found in Canaanite sources, was the son of Shachar, who is. He was the god of dawn. His twin, Shalim, was god of dusk. So Heylel may also be a Canaanite god. The concept of Satan in this verse is foreign to rabbinical interpretation, and Pseudo-Jonathan Targum writes:
Isaiah 14:12, TgPsJon
How art thou cast from on high, who wast shining among the sons of men as the star Venus among the stars: thou art dashed down to the earth, who wast a slaughter among the nations.
Venus was sometimes visible on the horizon at dawn. How shall one understand this? Liken the king of Babylon as planet Venus, and his reign like the brilliance of Venus. It is short-lived because when the Sun rises, Venus fades away. Therefore, the reign of the king of Babylon will be for a short time, and the light of Israel will outshine it and endure like the Sun.
Should this be understood as Satan, then who is Satan's father? It certainly cannot be Shachar. And when did Satan weaken the nations? It is never mentioned. Continuing, the king of Babylon is so pompous that he wishes to take his throne higher than the stars of El, that is, the sons of El, the most high God. His desire is to be lofty on the summit called Mount Zaphon so as to assert divinity. (v. 13, 14)
The king of Babylon will not achieve this, however, for he shall be cast down to She'ol, the place where the righteous and wicked dwell. (v. 15) I understand v. 16 to express that these witnesses are on Earth, not the underworld, and v. 19 seems to support this. He is referred to as "the man", meaning that he was not a spirit. This should cause doubt to those who understand this to mean Satan.
Satan also never caused the inhabitants of Earth to tremble, and the kingdoms to shake. Instead, it was the king of Babylon, who was cast out of his tomb, and like a corpse trampled underfoot, he is condemned to the most miserable part of the underworld, because he was not given a proper burial. (v. 19ff)
4. Satan and the garden of Eden. (Ezekiel 28:12-15)
Shall this understanding be ascribed to Origen as well? Ironically, for a man of allegory, he took this quite literally with its use of the imagery. The denunciation actually begins in chapter 26, but I will focus only on chapter 28. In v. 2 it tells the reader the son of man, a title given to Ezekiel, to say these things to the prince or ruler of Tyre. Just as we had the king of Babylon is Isaiah 14:3, so we have the ruler of Tyre here.
According to the denunciation, the ruler of Tyre claims to be a god, whose desire is to be enthroned on the seat of God in the midst of the sea. This metonymy is used elsewhere in Ezekiel (27:4, 25-27; 28:8 ), as well as other places in the Tanakh (Exod. 15:8; Jonah 2:3; Psa. 46:2). The metonymy "heart of the seas" works well with the metaphors of Tyre being a prominent ship. (27:3-9)
The ruler of Tyre is asked by the son of man, "Are you wiser than Daniel?" (v. 28:3) This verse is presented as a question in some translations, while not so in others. Even though it should be "Danel", whoever Danel may be, the prophet Daniel would also make sense here. Daniel was the opposite of the ruler of Tyre because he acknowledged that "wisdom and power" was given to him from God. (Dan. 2:23) Rashi comments:
[As for] Daniel Nebuchadnezzar came to make him a god (Dan. 2:46): “and prostrated himself before Daniel, and ordered that they should offer a meal offering and sacrifices of sweet odors to him,” but he did not accept it upon himself, yet you make yourself a god?
The ruler of Tyre is further mocked because supposedly no secret is hidden from. He became very wealthy, and as a result his heart has grown proud. He thinks he possesses the heart of God. (The heart was thought to be the seat of reason to ancient people.) God will send foreigners, the Chaldeans who were not found to be traders with Tyre (Ezek. 27:7-23), for otherwise they might have been hesitant to attack. Now they will thrust him down to the pit.
Shachat is translated "pit". It appears to suggest corruption or destruction (cf. Psa. 55:23; 103:4; 2 Chron. 26:16). The imagery of dying "a violent death in the heart of the seas" may be understood as being defeated in a sea fight. In the hands of the Chaldeans, the ruler of Tyre will realize that he is a man, not a god. He will die in the hands of the uncircumcised. This is thought to be worse than dying in the hands of the circumcised. (cf. 1 Sam. 31:4)
There is now a change of words in v. 11. Instead of "ruler," the word "king" is used. Take note, also, that this lament is directed to the "king of Tyre". A human figure is still in mind and not Satan before his fall. The ArtScroll translation translates it,
Ezekiel 28:15, ArtScroll
Are you [Adam] the culmination of perfection, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty?
In vv. 13 and 15 seem to suggest Adam, the primeval man. So it has nothing to do with Satan, but with Adam. Adam fits a better description because he is seen as a priest, if not a royal figure. Therefore, the king of Tyre is being represented as such. The king of Tyre is not in the garden of Eden, but "thou delightest thyself with plenty of all good things and delectable ones, as if thou dwellest in the garden of God". (Rashi)
The Tyrian king is adorn with "every precious stone" (v. 13). These precious stones correspond to the stones placed on the breastplate for the high priest (cf. Exod. 28:17-20). Other stones are omitted, but have been supplied in the Septuagint. In v. 14, the king of Tyre is called a guardian cherub. This likely alludes to Exodus 25:20, where the cherub are covering the mercy seat with their wings. The same word for "cover[ing]" in v. 14 is also used here in Exodus 25:20.
The king of Tyre is said to have been on the holy mountain of God. Some have taken this literally, thinking that the cherub who covers was in God's heavenly abode. However, this is the wrong idea. There are places in the Tanakh where "the mountain of God" is mentioned (Gen. 22:14; Exod. 3:1; 4:27; 18:5, et al.), and they're not in heaven.
In v. 15, this makes more sense if attributed to Adam, the first man, not an angel in heaven named Lucifer. (cf. Eccl. 7:29) Like Adam, whose sin was pride, so too is the king of Tyre's (v. 16). Thus far, the concept of Satan as Christians understand him have not been found in any of the verses and passages. The concept of Satan originated later on, probably during the intertestamental period.
To quote this article, copy and paste the following code:
[quote="Who is Satan, and are he and Lucifer the same? by Pseudo-Onkelos"][b]1. An overview of שָׂטָן in the Tanakh.[/b]
The Hebrew word satan takes its time to appear in the Tanakh. It is first used in Numbers 22:22, and again in 22:32, and it is used with reference to the messenger of HaShem because He is obstructing Balaam's path. During the reign of King Saul, David is seen as satan to the Philistines because he could turn on them. (1 Sam. 29:4) It is also ascribed to the sons of Zeruiah, who wanted Shimei son of Gera to be put to death for cursing King David. (2 Sam. 19:22)
In 2 Samuel 24:1, it says that the anger of HaShem burned against Israel. Yet 1 Chronicles 21:1 says satan, "an adversary" in some translations, stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. It could have been a human adversary, or it could have simply been God if this is compared to Numbers 22:19. The idea of God being satan for most Christians might be avoided because of the negative connotations ascribed to Satan.
Moving on, when Solomon became king, it is said that God had given him rest from every side so that there was neither satan, nor evil. (1 Kings 5:4) Later, God raises up satan against King Solomon. These were Hadad the Edomite (11:14) and Rezon son of Eliadah. (v. 23) He remained as satan to Israel all the days when Solomon was king, just as Hadad did. And he loathed Israel while reigning Syria. (v. 25)
In Zechariah 3:1, 2, some English translations erroneously write "Satan". This is misleading and is probably translated this way for theological reasons. The problem with this is that the Hebrew does not write satan, but hasatan, "the adversary". Therefore, it is not a proper noun. Ha- is the definite article, which cannot come before a proper noun. For example, Abraham is a proper noun, so writing "the Abraham" is not permitted grammatically. Therefore, hasatan should not be translated "Satan".
In the context of Psalm 109:6 vesatan is used, not as a demon, but adversaries. (vv. 4, 20, 29) In Job, again, we have hasatan like there was in Zechariah 3:1, 2. He is the adversary, and he stands out from among the sons of God. (Job 1:6; 2:1) He acts as a divine prosecutor to test the faithfulness of Job. (1:9-11; 2:4, 5) Thus far, only in a few references has satan been used for divine beings, yet in no way were any used in the same sense as Satan as Christians understand him. He works for, and is not an enemy of, God.
[b]2. Satan and the serpent. (Genesis 3)[/b]
There isn't much to cover here. The serpent is often ascribed as Satan in this chapter, but there is nothing to support this. Nowhere in the targums, nor [i]The Antiquities of the Jews[/i] is there any mention of the serpent being Satan. This, of course, is not to say that the concept is of Christian origin. Consider the following.
[quote="Wisdom 2:23, 24"]For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that hold of his side do find it.[/quote]
This belief that the serpent was Satan was continued in Christian interpretation. (Rev. 12:9; 20:2) Beyond this, I do not know where the interpretation originated from, but this is a later understanding of Genesis 3. I shall not offer later interpretations to older texts because I aim to know what the text had originally meant.
[b]3. Satan and Lucifer. (Isaiah 14:12-14)[/b]
The concept of Satan's fall is probably from Origen. It is curious if Origen was influenced by 1 Enoch and saw a parallel between it and this particular passage, and therefore made a connection. I shall not continue further with idle speculation. The word lucifer is of Latin origin. Therefore, it should not even be in the Tanakh to begin with. This is from the Vulgate, and it reads:
[quote="Isaiah 14:12, Vulgate"]Quomodo cecidisti de caelo [b]lucifer[/b] qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.[/quote]
Other verses that use this Latin word are found below:
[quote="Job 11:17, Vulgate"]Et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et c** te consumptum putaveris orieris ut [b]lucifer[/b].[/quote]
[quote="Job 38:32, Vulgate"]Numquid producis [b]luciferum[/b] in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis.[/quote]
To understand this passage, follow me. The taunt is directed to the king of Babylon (v. 4). The people of the earth rejoice at the fall of the king of Babylon (v. 8 ). In v. 9, She'ol is personified. By her yearning for the king of Babylon, she awakens the other dead kings of the nations. They mock this once great and powerful king, as if rhetorically asking, "Wert thou not mightier to escape death?" (v. 10)
In v. 11 the word "pomp" is from the Hebrew word gu'an. It is curious as if this is understood as a play on words because it is used not just for pride or arrogance, but also of majesty and excellence. Nevertheless, it was the king's pride that brought him low, and now the worms serve both as the king's bed and covering, both of which lack a state of luxury.
In v. 12, which says, "O Lucifer, son of the morning", should say, "Heylel, son of Shachar". Heylel, a minor god not found in Canaanite sources, was the son of Shachar, who is. He was the god of dawn. His twin, Shalim, was god of dusk. So Heylel may also be a Canaanite god. The concept of Satan in this verse is foreign to rabbinical interpretation, and Pseudo-Jonathan Targum writes:
[quote="Isaiah 14:12, TgPsJon"]How art thou cast from on high, who wast shining among the sons of men as the star Venus among the stars: thou art dashed down to the earth, who wast a slaughter among the nations.[/quote]
Venus was sometimes visible on the horizon at dawn. How shall one understand this? Liken the king of Babylon as planet Venus, and his reign like the brilliance of Venus. It is short-lived because when the Sun rises, Venus fades away. Therefore, the reign of the king of Babylon will be for a short time, and the light of Israel will outshine it and endure like the Sun.
Should this be understood as Satan, then who is Satan's father? It certainly cannot be Shachar. And when did Satan weaken the nations? It is never mentioned. Continuing, the king of Babylon is so pompous that he wishes to take his throne higher than the stars of El, that is, the sons of El, the most high God. His desire is to be lofty on the summit called Mount Zaphon so as to assert divinity. (v. 13, 14)
The king of Babylon will not achieve this, however, for he shall be cast down to She'ol, the place where the righteous and wicked dwell. (v. 15) I understand v. 16 to express that these witnesses are on Earth, not the underworld, and v. 19 seems to support this. He is referred to as "the man", meaning that he was not a spirit. This should cause doubt to those who understand this to mean Satan.
Satan also never caused the inhabitants of Earth to tremble, and the kingdoms to shake. Instead, it was the king of Babylon, who was cast out of his tomb, and like a corpse trampled underfoot, he is condemned to the most miserable part of the underworld, because he was not given a proper burial. (v. 19ff)
[b]4. Satan and the garden of Eden. (Ezekiel 28:12-15)[/b]
Shall this understanding be ascribed to Origen as well? Ironically, for a man of allegory, he took this quite literally with its use of the imagery. The denunciation actually begins in chapter 26, but I will focus only on chapter 28. In v. 2 it tells the reader the son of man, a title given to Ezekiel, to say these things to the prince or ruler of Tyre. Just as we had the king of Babylon is Isaiah 14:3, so we have the ruler of Tyre here.
According to the denunciation, the ruler of Tyre claims to be a god, whose desire is to be enthroned on the seat of God in the midst of the sea. This metonymy is used elsewhere in Ezekiel (27:4, 25-27; 28:8 ), as well as other places in the Tanakh (Exod. 15:8; Jonah 2:3; Psa. 46:2). The metonymy "heart of the seas" works well with the metaphors of Tyre being a prominent ship. (27:3-9)
The ruler of Tyre is asked by the son of man, "Are you wiser than Daniel?" (v. 28:3) This verse is presented as a question in some translations, while not so in others. Even though it should be "Danel", whoever Danel may be, the prophet Daniel would also make sense here. Daniel was the opposite of the ruler of Tyre because he acknowledged that "wisdom and power" was given to him from God. (Dan. 2:23) Rashi comments:
[As for] Daniel Nebuchadnezzar came to make him a god (Dan. 2:46): “and prostrated himself before Daniel, and ordered that they should offer a meal offering and sacrifices of sweet odors to him,” but he did not accept it upon himself, yet you make yourself a god?
The ruler of Tyre is further mocked because supposedly no secret is hidden from. He became very wealthy, and as a result his heart has grown proud. He thinks he possesses the heart of God. (The heart was thought to be the seat of reason to ancient people.) God will send foreigners, the Chaldeans who were not found to be traders with Tyre (Ezek. 27:7-23), for otherwise they might have been hesitant to attack. Now they will thrust him down to the pit.
Shachat is translated "pit". It appears to suggest corruption or destruction (cf. Psa. 55:23; 103:4; 2 Chron. 26:16). The imagery of dying "a violent death in the heart of the seas" may be understood as being defeated in a sea fight. In the hands of the Chaldeans, the ruler of Tyre will realize that he is a man, not a god. He will die in the hands of the uncircumcised. This is thought to be worse than dying in the hands of the circumcised. (cf. 1 Sam. 31:4)
There is now a change of words in v. 11. Instead of "ruler," the word "king" is used. Take note, also, that this lament is directed to the "king of Tyre". A human figure is still in mind and not Satan before his fall. The ArtScroll translation translates it,
[quote="Ezekiel 28:15, ArtScroll"]Are you [Adam] the culmination of perfection, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty?[/quote]
In vv. 13 and 15 seem to suggest Adam, the primeval man. So it has nothing to do with Satan, but with Adam. Adam fits a better description because he is seen as a priest, if not a royal figure. Therefore, the king of Tyre is being represented as such. The king of Tyre is not in the garden of Eden, but "thou delightest thyself with plenty of all good things and delectable ones, as if thou dwellest in the garden of God". (Rashi)
The Tyrian king is adorn with "every precious stone" (v. 13). These precious stones correspond to the stones placed on the breastplate for the high priest (cf. Exod. 28:17-20). Other stones are omitted, but have been supplied in the Septuagint. In v. 14, the king of Tyre is called a guardian cherub. This likely alludes to Exodus 25:20, where the cherub are covering the mercy seat with their wings. The same word for "cover[ing]" in v. 14 is also used here in Exodus 25:20.
The king of Tyre is said to have been on the holy mountain of God. Some have taken this literally, thinking that the cherub who covers was in God's heavenly abode. However, this is the wrong idea. There are places in the Tanakh where "the mountain of God" is mentioned (Gen. 22:14; Exod. 3:1; 4:27; 18:5, et al.), and they're not in heaven.
In v. 15, this makes more sense if attributed to Adam, the first man, not an angel in heaven named Lucifer. (cf. Eccl. 7:29) Like Adam, whose sin was pride, so too is the king of Tyre's (v. 16). Thus far, the concept of Satan as Christians understand him have not been found in any of the verses and passages. The concept of Satan originated later on, probably during the intertestamental period.[/quote]
The Hebrew word satan takes its time to appear in the Tanakh. It is first used in Numbers 22:22, and again in 22:32, and it is used with reference to the messenger of HaShem because He is obstructing Balaam's path. During the reign of King Saul, David is seen as satan to the Philistines because he could turn on them. (1 Sam. 29:4) It is also ascribed to the sons of Zeruiah, who wanted Shimei son of Gera to be put to death for cursing King David. (2 Sam. 19:22)
In 2 Samuel 24:1, it says that the anger of HaShem burned against Israel. Yet 1 Chronicles 21:1 says satan, "an adversary" in some translations, stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. It could have been a human adversary, or it could have simply been God if this is compared to Numbers 22:19. The idea of God being satan for most Christians might be avoided because of the negative connotations ascribed to Satan.
Moving on, when Solomon became king, it is said that God had given him rest from every side so that there was neither satan, nor evil. (1 Kings 5:4) Later, God raises up satan against King Solomon. These were Hadad the Edomite (11:14) and Rezon son of Eliadah. (v. 23) He remained as satan to Israel all the days when Solomon was king, just as Hadad did. And he loathed Israel while reigning Syria. (v. 25)
In Zechariah 3:1, 2, some English translations erroneously write "Satan". This is misleading and is probably translated this way for theological reasons. The problem with this is that the Hebrew does not write satan, but hasatan, "the adversary". Therefore, it is not a proper noun. Ha- is the definite article, which cannot come before a proper noun. For example, Abraham is a proper noun, so writing "the Abraham" is not permitted grammatically. Therefore, hasatan should not be translated "Satan".
In the context of Psalm 109:6 vesatan is used, not as a demon, but adversaries. (vv. 4, 20, 29) In Job, again, we have hasatan like there was in Zechariah 3:1, 2. He is the adversary, and he stands out from among the sons of God. (Job 1:6; 2:1) He acts as a divine prosecutor to test the faithfulness of Job. (1:9-11; 2:4, 5) Thus far, only in a few references has satan been used for divine beings, yet in no way were any used in the same sense as Satan as Christians understand him. He works for, and is not an enemy of, God.
[b]2. Satan and the serpent. (Genesis 3)[/b]
There isn't much to cover here. The serpent is often ascribed as Satan in this chapter, but there is nothing to support this. Nowhere in the targums, nor [i]The Antiquities of the Jews[/i] is there any mention of the serpent being Satan. This, of course, is not to say that the concept is of Christian origin. Consider the following.
[quote="Wisdom 2:23, 24"]For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that hold of his side do find it.[/quote]
This belief that the serpent was Satan was continued in Christian interpretation. (Rev. 12:9; 20:2) Beyond this, I do not know where the interpretation originated from, but this is a later understanding of Genesis 3. I shall not offer later interpretations to older texts because I aim to know what the text had originally meant.
[b]3. Satan and Lucifer. (Isaiah 14:12-14)[/b]
The concept of Satan's fall is probably from Origen. It is curious if Origen was influenced by 1 Enoch and saw a parallel between it and this particular passage, and therefore made a connection. I shall not continue further with idle speculation. The word lucifer is of Latin origin. Therefore, it should not even be in the Tanakh to begin with. This is from the Vulgate, and it reads:
[quote="Isaiah 14:12, Vulgate"]Quomodo cecidisti de caelo [b]lucifer[/b] qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.[/quote]
Other verses that use this Latin word are found below:
[quote="Job 11:17, Vulgate"]Et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et c** te consumptum putaveris orieris ut [b]lucifer[/b].[/quote]
[quote="Job 38:32, Vulgate"]Numquid producis [b]luciferum[/b] in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis.[/quote]
To understand this passage, follow me. The taunt is directed to the king of Babylon (v. 4). The people of the earth rejoice at the fall of the king of Babylon (v. 8 ). In v. 9, She'ol is personified. By her yearning for the king of Babylon, she awakens the other dead kings of the nations. They mock this once great and powerful king, as if rhetorically asking, "Wert thou not mightier to escape death?" (v. 10)
In v. 11 the word "pomp" is from the Hebrew word gu'an. It is curious as if this is understood as a play on words because it is used not just for pride or arrogance, but also of majesty and excellence. Nevertheless, it was the king's pride that brought him low, and now the worms serve both as the king's bed and covering, both of which lack a state of luxury.
In v. 12, which says, "O Lucifer, son of the morning", should say, "Heylel, son of Shachar". Heylel, a minor god not found in Canaanite sources, was the son of Shachar, who is. He was the god of dawn. His twin, Shalim, was god of dusk. So Heylel may also be a Canaanite god. The concept of Satan in this verse is foreign to rabbinical interpretation, and Pseudo-Jonathan Targum writes:
[quote="Isaiah 14:12, TgPsJon"]How art thou cast from on high, who wast shining among the sons of men as the star Venus among the stars: thou art dashed down to the earth, who wast a slaughter among the nations.[/quote]
Venus was sometimes visible on the horizon at dawn. How shall one understand this? Liken the king of Babylon as planet Venus, and his reign like the brilliance of Venus. It is short-lived because when the Sun rises, Venus fades away. Therefore, the reign of the king of Babylon will be for a short time, and the light of Israel will outshine it and endure like the Sun.
Should this be understood as Satan, then who is Satan's father? It certainly cannot be Shachar. And when did Satan weaken the nations? It is never mentioned. Continuing, the king of Babylon is so pompous that he wishes to take his throne higher than the stars of El, that is, the sons of El, the most high God. His desire is to be lofty on the summit called Mount Zaphon so as to assert divinity. (v. 13, 14)
The king of Babylon will not achieve this, however, for he shall be cast down to She'ol, the place where the righteous and wicked dwell. (v. 15) I understand v. 16 to express that these witnesses are on Earth, not the underworld, and v. 19 seems to support this. He is referred to as "the man", meaning that he was not a spirit. This should cause doubt to those who understand this to mean Satan.
Satan also never caused the inhabitants of Earth to tremble, and the kingdoms to shake. Instead, it was the king of Babylon, who was cast out of his tomb, and like a corpse trampled underfoot, he is condemned to the most miserable part of the underworld, because he was not given a proper burial. (v. 19ff)
[b]4. Satan and the garden of Eden. (Ezekiel 28:12-15)[/b]
Shall this understanding be ascribed to Origen as well? Ironically, for a man of allegory, he took this quite literally with its use of the imagery. The denunciation actually begins in chapter 26, but I will focus only on chapter 28. In v. 2 it tells the reader the son of man, a title given to Ezekiel, to say these things to the prince or ruler of Tyre. Just as we had the king of Babylon is Isaiah 14:3, so we have the ruler of Tyre here.
According to the denunciation, the ruler of Tyre claims to be a god, whose desire is to be enthroned on the seat of God in the midst of the sea. This metonymy is used elsewhere in Ezekiel (27:4, 25-27; 28:8 ), as well as other places in the Tanakh (Exod. 15:8; Jonah 2:3; Psa. 46:2). The metonymy "heart of the seas" works well with the metaphors of Tyre being a prominent ship. (27:3-9)
The ruler of Tyre is asked by the son of man, "Are you wiser than Daniel?" (v. 28:3) This verse is presented as a question in some translations, while not so in others. Even though it should be "Danel", whoever Danel may be, the prophet Daniel would also make sense here. Daniel was the opposite of the ruler of Tyre because he acknowledged that "wisdom and power" was given to him from God. (Dan. 2:23) Rashi comments:
[As for] Daniel Nebuchadnezzar came to make him a god (Dan. 2:46): “and prostrated himself before Daniel, and ordered that they should offer a meal offering and sacrifices of sweet odors to him,” but he did not accept it upon himself, yet you make yourself a god?
The ruler of Tyre is further mocked because supposedly no secret is hidden from. He became very wealthy, and as a result his heart has grown proud. He thinks he possesses the heart of God. (The heart was thought to be the seat of reason to ancient people.) God will send foreigners, the Chaldeans who were not found to be traders with Tyre (Ezek. 27:7-23), for otherwise they might have been hesitant to attack. Now they will thrust him down to the pit.
Shachat is translated "pit". It appears to suggest corruption or destruction (cf. Psa. 55:23; 103:4; 2 Chron. 26:16). The imagery of dying "a violent death in the heart of the seas" may be understood as being defeated in a sea fight. In the hands of the Chaldeans, the ruler of Tyre will realize that he is a man, not a god. He will die in the hands of the uncircumcised. This is thought to be worse than dying in the hands of the circumcised. (cf. 1 Sam. 31:4)
There is now a change of words in v. 11. Instead of "ruler," the word "king" is used. Take note, also, that this lament is directed to the "king of Tyre". A human figure is still in mind and not Satan before his fall. The ArtScroll translation translates it,
[quote="Ezekiel 28:15, ArtScroll"]Are you [Adam] the culmination of perfection, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty?[/quote]
In vv. 13 and 15 seem to suggest Adam, the primeval man. So it has nothing to do with Satan, but with Adam. Adam fits a better description because he is seen as a priest, if not a royal figure. Therefore, the king of Tyre is being represented as such. The king of Tyre is not in the garden of Eden, but "thou delightest thyself with plenty of all good things and delectable ones, as if thou dwellest in the garden of God". (Rashi)
The Tyrian king is adorn with "every precious stone" (v. 13). These precious stones correspond to the stones placed on the breastplate for the high priest (cf. Exod. 28:17-20). Other stones are omitted, but have been supplied in the Septuagint. In v. 14, the king of Tyre is called a guardian cherub. This likely alludes to Exodus 25:20, where the cherub are covering the mercy seat with their wings. The same word for "cover[ing]" in v. 14 is also used here in Exodus 25:20.
The king of Tyre is said to have been on the holy mountain of God. Some have taken this literally, thinking that the cherub who covers was in God's heavenly abode. However, this is the wrong idea. There are places in the Tanakh where "the mountain of God" is mentioned (Gen. 22:14; Exod. 3:1; 4:27; 18:5, et al.), and they're not in heaven.
In v. 15, this makes more sense if attributed to Adam, the first man, not an angel in heaven named Lucifer. (cf. Eccl. 7:29) Like Adam, whose sin was pride, so too is the king of Tyre's (v. 16). Thus far, the concept of Satan as Christians understand him have not been found in any of the verses and passages. The concept of Satan originated later on, probably during the intertestamental period.[/quote]
