Textual Considerations on
Ezekiel 28:11-15
There are some tough phrases to interpret with absolute certainty. For example,
“You were a signet of perfection, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty” (v. 12)
“You were in Eden” (v. 13)
“Every precious stone was your covering” (v. 13)
“You were on the holy mountain of God” (v. 14)
“You were blameless in your ways” (v. 15)
Some see a double reference in these verses. It is a reference to the King of Tyre and Satan at the same time. Is this a legitimate solution to the admitted difficulty of these texts? Ryrie thinks so as does Charles Feinberg. To apply some of these phrases to the king of Tyre seem difficult, especially “you were blameless in all your ways.” It almost seems like it takes more interpretive work to make them apply to an earthly king than to Satan himself. But there are plausible explanations such as the label “blameless” applied to Noah (
Genesis 6:9) and Job (
Job 1:1) and Zechariah and Elizabeth (
Luke 1:6). Thus it is possible to have these phrases applied to a human king. Nevertheless, while these phrases are admittedly difficult to interpret with absolute certainty, we must use the overarching guide of an oracle grounded in a historical setting with some poetic language interspersed. Would Ezekiel’s readers have clearly discerned Satan in these verses? I’m not convinced that they would have.
Survey of Theologies
Isaiah 14 and/or
Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan:
Lewis Sperry Chafer (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 7:284-5).
Charles Ryrie (Ryrie, Basic Theology, 141-5). Ryrie is one of the few theologians that interacts with the interpretative options for concluding that the passages apply to Satan. A very worthwhile read.
Henry Thiessen (Lectures in Systematic Theology, 194-5).
Millard Erickson does not address Satan’s fall in his section on angels (Christian Theology, 472). He does, however, point out that
Isaiah 14 contains a picture of the fall of Satan (Christian Theology, 604).
James Boice applies
Isaiah 14 and
Ezekiel 28 to Satan (Foundations of the Christian Faith, 173).
Isaiah 14 and/or
Ezekiel 28 do not refer to Satan:
Berkhof, Systematic Theology and Dabney, Systematic Theology simply do not reference the fall of Satan or deal with Isaiah or Ezekiel. However, I take their silence to mean that they do not apply to Satan (though admittedly it is an inference from silence).
As best as I was able to discern, Augustus Strong in his Systematic Theology does not apply
Isaiah 14 and
Ezekiel 28 to Satan. He only provides passing comments on these passages and does not address the fall of Satan. He seems to take the approach in the brief remarks on each passage that it is referring to a historical, human figure (Systematic Theology, 450 and 518).
Charles Hodge speaks little about the fall of Satan. Concerning evil angels in general he says, “When they fell or what was the nature of their sin is not revealed” (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:643). As far as Satan in particular, he only makes reference to the fact that he is fallen without reference to when he fell or the nature of his fall. Hodge makes a great point about the pride of Satan, which is alluded to in
1 Timothy 3:6, “He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.” The connection is “the condemnation which the devil incurred for the same sin [i.e. pride].” Hodge then goes on to say, “Some have conjectured that Satan was moved to rebel against God and to seduce our race from its allegiance, by the desire to rule over our globe and the race of man. Of this, however, there is no intimation in Scripture. His first appearance in the sacred history is in the character of an apostate angel” (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:643). So what Hodge seems to be saying is that there are no passages that refer to Satan’s fall. When he comes onto the Biblical scene (in the garden) he is already a fallen angel.
Survey of Commentaries
Isaiah 14 and/or
Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan:
I have a scant collection of commentaries on Isaiah and Ezekiel. But of those that I do have, not one concluded that these passages refer to Satan. However, I was able to track down a few which hold this view.
*W.A. Criswell, Ezekiel, 149.
* Lamar Cooper suggests that “the difficulty of the text makes it unwise to insist upon a particular interpretation, but the latter traditional view [that ‘the lament is an account of the fall of Satan not given in Scripture but alluded to elsewhere, especially in Isa 14:12-17’] appears to the present writer to account best for the language and logic of the passage” (Cooper, Ezekiel, NAC, 265).
*Charles Feinberg states, “But as [Ezekiel] viewed the thoughts and ways of [the King of Tyre], he clearly discerned behind him the motivating force and personality who was impelling him in his opposition to God. In short, he saw the work and activity of Satan, whom the king of Tyre was emulating in so many ways” (Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel, 161). This approach parallels Ryrie who views both the King of Tyre and Satan in view in the passage.
Isaiah 14 and/or
Ezekiel 28 do not refer to Satan:
John Calvin (not surprisingly) is unequivocal in denying that Isaiah has anything whatsoever to do with Satan, “The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred 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” (Calvin, Commentaries, 7:442).
Edward J. Young, says that
Isaiah 14 has the king of Babylon in view, no more (Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:441). He contends that the phrase, “how are you fallen from heaven” “is to fall from great political height” (Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:440).
Keil and Delitzsch say that applying the name Lucifer to Satan based on
Isaiah 14:12 is “without any warrant whatever” (Keil and Delitzsch, Isaiah, 312). They contend that
Ezekiel 28 is referring to the King of Tyre and no one else (Keil and Delitzsch, Ezekiel, 411).
Matthew Henry also sees
Isaiah 14 and
Ezekiel 28 as applying to the historical kings mentioned in each passage (Matthew Henry, Commentary, 4:67 and 4:721).
*John D.W. Watts sees this as a poem as “a simile to picture the fall and disgrace of the tyrant” (Watts,
Isaiah 1-33, WBC, 212). It is general in its scope and references neither the king of Babylon or Satan.
*John N. Oswalt concludes that this passage deals with human pride manifested by the king of Babylon (Oswalt, The Book of
Isaiah 1-39, NICOT, 320).
*Jan Ridderbos straddles the fence saying, “there is an element of truth in the idea [that Lucifer is Satan]: by his self-deification Babylon’s king is the imitator of the devil and the type of the Antichrist (
Daniel 11:36; 2 Thess 2:4); therefore his humiliation is also an example of Satan’s fall from the position of power that he has usurped (cf.
Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:9) (Ridderbos, Isaiah, 142).
*Gray takes this portion to be based on a Babylonian genre of a mythical hero. Strange as the interpretation is he does not find Satan in
Isaiah 14:12-14 (Gray, Isaiah, ICC, 1:256-7).
*Block contends that “Ezekiel’s prophecy is indeed couched in extravagant terms, but the primary referent within the context is clearly the human king of Tyre” (Daniel Block, The Book of Ezekiel, NICOT, 119).
*Leslie Allen says that the interpreter who applies “vv 11-19 to Satan” is “guilty of detaching the passage from its literary setting” (Allen,
Ezekiel 20-48, WBC, 95).
Youngblood quips, “In this case, the devil is not in the details” (Ronald Youngblood, “The Fall of Lucifer,” in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, eds. J.I. Packer and Sven Soderlund [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000], 171).
Summary
