1) The word "satan" is used to describe both human and supernatural beings in the OT.
2) "The satan" in Job, Zechariah, and 1 Chronicles are not necessarily the same being (though nothing forbids them from being the same being).
3) The ancient Israelites had no concept of Satan being the author of evil and the arch-nemesis of Yahweh.
4) The ancient Israelites would not have understood the serpent in Genesis 3 to refer to Satan
Based on what we have studies so far, there are no Old Testament passages that portray Satan as a fallen being (though neither do the explicitly deny his fallenness). Then what about Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-19, which have been interpreted to refer to the fall of Satan- that he was once a cherub who rebelled? The focus of this article is to examine those passages in their context, and see what is actually being said.
Isaiah 14:12-15. “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! [13] You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God; I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; [14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High’” (ESV).
When we look at the context, we see that this oracle is written specifically to the King of Babylon. It is placed among the other oracles against the nations, therefore, we must ask, are there any clues in the text that demand that we jump from a literal-historical approach to a figurative approach? In other words, since all of the judgment oracles are meant to be understood in a literal-historical way, is there anything that would make us think that Isaiah is changing the subject and moving into figurative language to speak of someone other than the King of Babylon? I don't think so.
The oracle against the King of Babylon takes on a taunt (v. 5) which anticipates the kings imminent downfall. His descent to the netherworld is described as an event that is longed for (vv.9-11). This leads to verses 12-15 describing his demise, despite his aspirations and desire for divine authority and rule. It should also be noted that in the ANE, kings often saw themselves as godlike. Such an inference is there in the text, as it refers to the godlike status that the king thought he had. Further proof that this passage is talking about the king and not a supernatural being is verse 16, "...Is this the man that made the whole earth tremble..."
Even though such contextual clues are there, throughout much of church history, up until the Reformation, these verse have been applied to Satan. Origen was the first to associate this passage with Satan. Certainly, the fall of Satan was talked about before this by Tertullian and Justin Martyr, but Origen was the first account we have that specifically links the Isaiah passage to the fall. There are earlier Jewish writings from the intertestamental period that have stories of the fall of Satan (more on this in the next article), but no where do they specifically link Isaiah 14 to their stories.
It wasn't until the seventh century that the association of Satan's fall with Isaiah 14 passed into common thought. The catalyst for this was Gregory the Great, through his Moralia 34. Thus, once established as popular belief, it then made its way into popular literature, such as Milton's Paradise Lost. And here this association has remained until this day.
Another contributing factor to the popularity of this interpretation was Jerome's Latin Vulgate. In verse 12, he translated the Hebrew word helel (morning star) as a proper name and reference to Venus. The Latin term for Venus is luciferos. I think you can piece together what happens next. As the interpretation of the passage as a reference to Satan became more ingrained in Christendom, the name Lucifer was adopted as another name for Satan, since that is what Satan was being called in this passage. By the time the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries came around (which was when all the major English translations were being printed), the interpretation of Lucifer as Satan was so commonplace,that is was retained in all translations, even the KJV.
Yet such an interpretation was not without its challengers. Enter the Reformers. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected the idea that Isaiah 14 referred to the fall of Satan. The two subscribed to the literal-historical method mentioned above, and in his commentary on Isaiah, Calvin especially had some scathing remarks for those who took this passage to refer to Satan,
The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it should refer to Satan, has arisen from ignorance, for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance to imagine that Lucifer was the king of the devils, and that the prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.
The conclusion that I have come to, is that based on the historical context and the literary context, this passage is not referring to Satan as we know him in the New Testament, nor "the Satan" of the Old Testament, nor any supernatural being at that. This passage is referring to the king of Babylon.
With that being said, there is a third option that I find appealing (though I am not quite yet persuaded by it). There are some who believe that the king of Babylon is being compared to Adam. The reasoning goes as such:
1). "Day star, son of the morning" refers to Adam in his original state before God.
2). Adam was cast out of the presence of God- the Garden.
3). Adam weakened the nations through his sin.
4). It was Adam who was enticed to be like God.
Therefore it seems that if we do want to make a comparison in this chapter, it fits better with Adam than Satan.
Ezekiel 28:11-16. “Moreover, the word of the Lord came to me: [12] “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God: “You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. [13] You were in Eden, the garden of God every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. [14] You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. [15] You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you. [16] In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, O guardian cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire." (ESV).
As with Isaiah 14, the tradition of this passage referring to Satan started early on with the church fathers. Presently, there are three reasons why some commentators continue to interpret this passage to refer to the fall of Satan: 1) the king is in the garden, 2) the king is identified as a cherub, 3) the passage alludes to a fall from a blameless condition. I want to consider each of these claims in light of the context and the Old Testament.
First, let's examine the context. The judgement and lament is written to a literal king, who is a man. In verse 2, this man thinks he is divine, but God says that he is just a man. The king has increased his wealth through trade (vv 4-5), and because he made his heart like a god, God is going to bring armies against him to destroy him (vv.6-7). In verse 16, just after the prophet has described the fall of this cherub, he states that it was the abundance of trade that caused sin to fill the heart of this cherub. Now, unless the angels of heaven are divided into nations, and unless they have to cross seas, and unless there are ships in heaven that are used to transport trade back and forth, then this passage is not talking about a cherub's fall from heaven. If so, the logic is that this cherub gained wealth in heaven through trading goods with all the other angels. He got so much of it that it made his heart proud, so God kicked him out. Such an interpretation is beyond ludicrous, which means that it takes a lot more hermeneutical jumps to make this refer to Satan than it does to see it as referring to the King of Tyre.
As far as the claim the king in the garden is referring to Satan, consider our previous post on Genesis 3. There is no indication in the Old Testament that the Israelites believed that Satan was in the garden. No other passage in the Old Testament relates the serpent to Satan. Yet some would then argue, but this passage does! Let me explain further why this metaphor does not work. For such a metaphor to have worked for the Israelites, it must make reference to well known information. Again, there is no indication that Israel would have known that the serpent was either Satan or a representative of Satan. That being the case, they would not have placed Satan in the garden of Eden. Therefore, they would not have understood the reference of being in the garden in this passage as referring to Satan.
But what about the cherub? Does any scripture, both Old and New Testament, every claim that Satan was a cherub? I can't find one. Cherubs were a special class of beings with a special function- they were guardians, especially throne guardians. There is no basis for speculation that Satan was ever among their number. if anything, the Israelites would have seen Satan as one of the sons of God- a divine council member, not a cherub. Therefore they would not have recognized such a metaphorical allusion to refer to Satan.
As far as the mention of the king being "blameless" and then being "fallen", I must again reiterate that nowhere in the Old Testament is Satan presented as being a fallen entity. Therefore, the fact that Ezekiel 28 refers to a fall would not suggest to the Israelites that the author was metaphorically appealing to the fall of Satan as a comparison to the king of Tyre. It should also be noted that the word "blameless" can be applied to humans- such is the case with Noah and Job.
So, if this passage isn't referring to Satan, who then, is it referring to?
Some suggest that according to verse 14, the Hebrew should be read as noting that this individual was with the cherub and not the cherub himself. Such an interpretation opens up the possibility of the king of Tyre being compared to Adam. In fact, this is exactly how many of the rabbis interpreted this passage. They saw Adam as being perfect in wisdom and beauty until the day we disobeyed and was kicked out of the garden. Another element of the text that points towards Adam is the mention of this person walking among the mountain of God (the gods dwelt in mountains and gardens in the ANE), and all the precious stones mentioned. Most of the stones mentioned are found in the priestly breast plate. This means the person in the Ezekiel passage could be seen as having a priestly role. Since Adam had a priestly role in the garden, this text could be making a comparison between Adam and the king of Tyre. The problem with this interpretation is that in the Genesis account, Adam is never with the cherub in the garden. The cherub is only put there to guard the tree of life after Adam and Eve are kicked out.
In order to make progress in interpreting this passage, let's look at some comparisons. I want to show some things that many scholars have started to point out in this passage. We are going to compare vv 12b-13 to vv14-15a
Identification of the being: "you were the seal" vv.12b-13. "you were...a cherub" vv.14-15a
Description of the being: "of perfection full of wisdom perfect in beauty" vv. 12b-13. "anointed as a guardian, ordained" vv.14-15a
Residence: "Eden, the garden of God". vv.12b-13. "On the holy mount of God you walked" vv.14-15a
Position: "every precious stone" vv.12b-13. "among the fiery stones" vv14-15a
Intrinsic quality: "your settings and mountings were made of gold, on the day you were created they were prepared." vv.12b-13. "you were blameless in your ways from the day you were created" vv.14-15b.
What can we deduce from these comparisons? First, it becomes clear now that there are two parallel metaphors in this passage, not one, as some have assumed. Second, the metaphors are not referring to a fall, bu the lofty status of the individual. The indication then is that the king of Tyre enjoyed a high status because of the abundance of his wisdom and wealth. He was the guardian of extensive natural resources, just as the entities in the metaphors are. The king then becomes corrupt because of the abundance of his wealth, and became irresponsible and greedy. Note also that the metaphors end where the parallelism ends. When you read the passage in its entirety, you will see that verses 15b-19 address the kings punishment (though v16 refers back to the metaphor). This means that there is no reason to look outside of the context and its metaphors to get a solid interpretation of the passage.
In examining this evidence, some have argued that even though Satan is not mentioned in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, we know that they refer to Satan because they fit with everything we know about his fall. Yet without Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, what do we know about his fall that would enable us to say that it correlates with what is presented in these passages? Where do we get inspired information about the cause of his fall or his status prior to the fall? As we will soon see, the New Testament information on this subject is scant.
In wrapping up our examination of Satan in the Old Testament, we can conclude thus:
1) "the satan" was a member of the divine council
2) In the Old Testament, he is not the arch-nemesis of God
3) In the Old Testament, the serpent is understood as a chaos creature and not Satan
4) According to the Old Testament, Satan is not a fallen cherub.
Then who is he really, and how did the thought develop that he is the arch-nemesis of God? We will look at that next time, when we examine the intertestamental writings and their view of Satan.