There
is mention of a ‘cherub’, which reminds us of Genesis 3, but textual problems
have made scholars uncertain whether the king is compared to the cherub or to a
person like Adam, a first man who is associated with the cherub, or how the two
are related.
Some
have regarded this as another version of the story of Adam’s Fall, but this
cannot be taken as certain. In my judgment it is more likely to be a Fall: not,
however, that of the first man, but rather that of one of the heavenly creatures
who were also associated with the mountain of God. This being was perfect; it
walked among the precious stones. It was one of the cherubs, but it forsook its
work of guardianship, fell into sin and evil, and was expelled. It is suggestive
to consider Pope’s view that the story derives from an older (Canaanite and
Ugaritic) myth of the god El, who was deprived of his pre-eminence and
consigned to the underworld. In other words, the story is not so much parallel
to that of Adam’s disobedience as to that of the ‘angelic’ fall of ‘Lucifer,
son of the morning’ in Isaiah 14.12 (RSV: ‘Day Star, son of Dawn’), who is ’fallen
from heaven’: he had aspired to ascent to heaven, so set his throne on high,
but now he was cast down to Sheol. Ezekiel stresses the ‘wisdom’ of this being,
a feature which makes him similar to the snake of Genesis 2, and dissimilar from
the humans of that story, who were conspicuously lacking in that quality. We
have here an aspect of the tremendously powerful idea, lacking in Genesis 2-3
itself except for the very limited role there of the snake, of a heavenly or
angelic rebellion against God and the casting out of the rebellious heavenly
forces.
Ezekiel
thus represents an important stage in that process whereby the elements of sin,
of blame, of revolt came to be more emphasized. But these elements have started
out as part of the picture of the heavenly revolt against God, which in
later times was to become so much more powerful. On the other hand, the Ezekiel
passages, being vague, difficult and textually obscure, were probably a force
that in its turn influenced the Genesis story. Indeed one may say that it is upon
the combination of this portion of Ezekiel with Genesis that the traditional picture
of Adam and Eve as rebels against God depends, whether consciously or
unconsciously.
Ezekiel
is relevant also for his vision of the valley of dry bones (ch. 37), a passage
that shows the existence of the terminology and ideas of bodily resurrection,
but one that does not necessarily state this expectation of it. For the passage
is an image of the renewal of the nation; cf. the image of the joining
of two sticks which follows (Ezekiel 37.15-23). Since the revivification of the
bones is a symbol, there is no indication that actual bodily resurrection is to
follow, and no interest in the resurrection of individuals. (James Barr, The
Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality: The Reed-Tuckwell Lectures for 1990
[London: SCM Press, 1992], 48-49)
