The following comes from David Bradnick, Evil, Spirits, and Possession: An Emergentist Theology of the Demonic (Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 25; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 235-38:
Ezekiel 28 is divided into two
parts. The first announces a judgement oracle directed at the king of Tyre, and
the second proclaims his funeral dirge. [21] The king’s judgement stems from
his narcissism. He has recognized himself as divine, and for this transgression
he will suffer terminal consequences. [22] According to Greg Schmidt Goering, “In
a dirge, the mourner expresses the finality or irreversibility of death,” but
in this instance it serves as a parody. [23] The passage is used to taunt the
dead king and to place him firmly below God. [24] From this perspective, it is
unlikely that the text refers to Satan’s fall from heaven because the rebellion
would have marked the beginning of his reign over earth, not its end.
The origins of the judgment oracle
and dirge also make traditional interpretations untenable. Most scholars
believe that the Ezekiel passage, similar to Isaiah 14, was also constructed
from non-Jewish myths. Walther Eichrodt, for example, argues for its roots in
Ugaritic mythology, [25] while Hugh Rowland Page and Marvin H. Pope maintain
that it concerns the Canaanite gods El and Ba’al. [26] Regardless of its exact
origins, it is improbable that the author of the original myth composed it with
Satan in mind. Although it is possible that a redactor could have modified the
text in order to create a double entendre that references Satan alongside a
historical king of Tyre, textual evidence does not support such a theory, as we
will see below.
The identity of the antagonist in
Ezekiel 28 also challenges the conventional view of a pre-adamic fall. While
this text references a historical king of Tyre, it also makes an allegorical
comparison with a primordial figure—a cherub (maelaek)—who was in the
Garden of Eden at one time. The identity of this figure is the crux of the traditional
interpretation, and it has been an ongoing issue of scholarly debate. [27]
Traditionally, interpreters have read the cherub as Satan, but they base this
upon an enigmatic translation of verses 12b-13a. Hector M. Patmore argues that
the vowel pointing and accentuation within the Masoretic text render a
different reading from the consonantal text. The former is typically rendered “You
were an anointed covering cherub,” but the latter can be translated as “When
you were created the anointed covering cherub was established.” Patmore argues
that the consonantal reading may be preferable and more natural. [28] This
means that we can question the traditional interpretation, which assumes that
this dirge is about an angel.
While scholars generally agree
that Ezekiel 28 refers to a historical king of Tyre, there is little doubt that
it is also making a comparison to someone or something in the Garden of Eden.
[29] Given Patmore’s observation, a few identities for this Garden-being are
possible. Adam is the most common identity attributed to this underlying
mythological figure. Walther Zimmerli argues that Ezekiel 28 has undeniable
connections to Genesis 2 and the Yahwistic tradition, including its language.
[30] In addition to being in the Garden of Eden, Adam was in a position above
all other creatures, and his desire for power, or at least his desire for the
power of knowledge, led to his demise. In this light, Adam’s downfall may serve
as admonishment for the King of Tyre. Daphne Arbel, on the other hand, suggests
that instances of feminine language and imagery make it possible to interpret
this figure as Eve. [31] Considering that the aforementioned descriptions are
also characteristic of Adam’s counterpart, Arbel makes a valid appeal. Our
purpose here does not require us to resolve this matter, but it is sufficient
to note that there are compelling alternatives to the traditional interpretations
that associate this text with a Satanic fall.
At this point it is appropriate to
employ Occam’s razor and suggest that the simplest explanation is probably the
best. So, when Ezekiel 28 refers to a perfect being in the Garden of Eden,
without adding anything to the biblical narrative, we can reasonably argue that
it is referring to Adam and/or Eve. In fact, interpreting the serpent in
Genesis as Satan, and furthermore as a perfect being, goes beyond what the
Garden narrative says. [32] So we can conclude that any compelling evidence to
connect Satan with Ezekiel 28 is lacking. [33]
Notes for the Above:
[21] Greg Schmidt Goering, “Proleptic
Fulfillment and the Prophetic Word: Ezekiel’s Dirges over Tyre and Its Ruler,” Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 36, no. 4 (2012): 484. Walther Zimmerli
proposes that Ez 28:1-10 and Ez 28:11-19 were composed independently and
brought together by a redactor. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the
Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25-48 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983),
78.
[22] Goering, “Proleptic Fulfillment
of the Prophetic Word,” 491.
[23] Ibid., 493.
[24] Ibid., 494.
[25] Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel:
A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 393-94.
[26] Hugh Rowland Page, The
Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic & Biblical
Literature (Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1996), 140; Marvin H.
Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1955),
103.
[27] Daphna Arbel, “Questions
about Eve’s Iniquity, Beauty, and the Fall: The ‘Primal Figure’ in Ezekiel
28:11-19 and Genesis Rabbah Traditions of Eve,” Journal of Biblical Literature
124, no. 4 (2005): 644.
[28] Hector M. Patmore, “Did the
Masoretes Get it Wrong? The Vocalization and Accentuation of Ezekiel xxviii
12-19,” Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 245-57. For more on the differences
between the LXX and MT versions of Ezek 28 see K.L. Wong, “The Prince of Tyre in
the Masoretic and Septuagint Texts of Ezekiel 18, 1-10,” in Interpreting Translation:
Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, eds., Marc Vervenne
and Brian Doyle (Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 2005), 447-64.
[29] Robert R. Wilson suggests that
the earlier editions of Ez 28 refer to the King of Tyre, but later editors
added language to make this a judgment and lament against a Jewish priest. Wilson,
“The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28,” in Love
and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, eds.
John Marks and Robert Good (Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987), 211.18.
[30] Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 90-91;
McKenzie, “Mythological Allusions in Ezekiel 28:12-18,” 322-27. This was also a
common understanding in ancient Jewish literature. See Hector M. Patmore, Adam,
Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11-19 in Late
Antiquity (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2012), 14-26.
[31] Arbel argues that this seems
to be the matter of interpretation within Jewish midrash (e.g., Genesis
Rabbah). Furthermore, references to “drums” and “hollow” holes may be
allusions to the female body, which is “reflected also in Iron Age archaeological
evidence” (649). Arbel, “Questions about Eve’s Iniquity,” 641-55.
[32] For more on the Garden myth
see Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks
(London: SCM Press, 1961), 83-99.
[33] Yet James E. Miller denies
that this is a lament regarding the first humans. Rather, he suggests that it
concerns one of the covering cherubim of the heavenly court represented on the
Ark of the Covenant. Miller, however, is clear to point out that he makes no
attempt to connect this to a fall of Satan. Miller, “The Maelaek of Tyre
(Ezekiel 28, 11-19),” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105,
no. 3 (1993): 497-501.