Satan: Created being or fallen angel?

[Fenris]

And you were accusing me of being touchy?

If it is all past tense and is all about the king of Tyre himself then that would mean he would already have been "reduced...to ashes on the ground" (Eze 28:18) at that point. So, he would have been dead already at that point. Can you explain how the prophet could have told the king of Tyre what is written in Ezekiel 28:12-19 if he was dead at the time?

was Ezekiel actually sent to talk to the king of Tyre? Or was his words for Jewish consumption? "Don't worry guys, God got this one for us".

Also, it's interesting that you would put that much faith in the NIV when you think the NIV translation of Matthew 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 is all wrong.

I don't have an opinion on any translation of the NT since I don't understand Greek.

[boangry]

In verse 2 God specifically says "you are a man".

I don't think that chapter is about an angel at all. It's about...the king of Tyre. Just as God said.

I agree that the king of Tyre was a man, now the serpent was more cunning than the other "beasts of the field"
I take it if you apply the same reasoning, I can assume you believe that Satan had no part in Eve being deceived?

[John146]

You disagree with all of it?

I may have exaggerated a bit. I would say I disagree with most of it, at least.

You disagree that Ezekiel is being told to prophesy about the king of Tyre?

I disagree that he is prophesying about a man in Ezekiel 28:12-19 since, to me, it clearly is referring to a cherub and not a man. No man except Adam could be described as having been in the garden of Eden and no man except Adam could be described as ever being perfect in all his ways at one point and then later sinning. But the king of Tyre was obviously not Adam. I thought it could be comparing the king of Tyre to the cherub, who I believe is Satan, but now I believe that the passage is entirely about Satan rather than possibly being about the earthly king of Tyre and also about Satan and I'll tell you why in a bit.

You don't see any parallels between chapters 27 and 28?

Sure, there are some, but I was focused more on Ezekiel 28 and not really considering Ezekiel 27 at the time.

You don't see any parallels between 28.1-10 and 28.11-19?

No, not any parallels, but certainly some similarities. One thing I noticed after spending some more time studying this is that verses 1-10 are about the prince of Tyre while verses 11-19 are about the king of Tyre. That's an important distinction and I will get into that after answering your last question.

You disagree that it's even possible the 'cherub' is a metaphor in Ezekiel's rebuke of the king of Tyre?

Yes, I disagree with that.

Okay, now I'll discuss the differences between Ezekiel 28:1-10 and Ezekiel 28:11-19. As I pointed out already, verses 1-10 are about the prince of Tyre and verses 11-19 are about the king of Tyre. So, they are not addressing the same person/being. What I didn't realize until doing some more research on this today is that there was no earthly king of Tyre at the time that was written, there was only an earthly prince of Tyre. And yet the passage gives the impression that God was telling Ezekiel to give a message (the one written in Eze 28:12-19) to the existing king of Tyre. But, again, there was only an earthly prince of Tyre and not an earthly king of Tyre at that time so that tells me that the king of Tyre at that time could not have been a human. So, I believe the king of Tyre at that time was the cherub that Ezekiel wrote about, who I believe is Satan. He wasn't their king in an official capacity but he was their king in a spiritual sense. They followed after him (whether they knew it or not) and the prince of Tyre was like him and influenced by him.

[John146]

was Ezekiel actually sent to talk to the king of Tyre?

He was told to give the king of Tyre a message. How could he do that if the king of Tyre was dead at the time?

Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

[markedward]

Okay, now I'll discuss the differences between Ezekiel 28:1-10 and Ezekiel 28:11-19. As I pointed out already, verses 1-10 are about the prince of Tyre and verses 11-19 are about the king of Tyre. So, they are not addressing the same person/being.

Just curious, if you're aware that the term translated as 'prince' simply means 'ruler', and can apply to anyone ranging from a priest (e.g. 1 Chronicles 9.20 of Phinehas), to a military leader (1 Chronicles 13.1), to a king (e.g. 1 Samuel 9.16 of Saul; 2 Samuel 7.8 of David; 1 Kings 1.35 of Solomon)? In a single sentence David is called both 'king' and 'ruler' (or 'prince' if you prefer). This is not a legitimate point to use in claiming the 'ruler/prince' and the 'king' are different persons.

What I didn't realize until doing some more research on this today is that there was no earthly king of Tyre at the time that was written, there was only an earthly prince of Tyre.

Who was the earthly prince?

Ezekiel's lament of the ruler/king of Tyre is a part of the 'eleventh year, first day of the month' prophecy chunk of chapters 26-28. The 'eleventh year' (of the exile of King Jehoiachin; see 1.2) was 587 BC. At that time Ethbaal III was king of Tyre, reigning from 591 to 573 BC, deposed by Babylon.

No man except Adam could be described as having been in the garden of Eden

This objection is completely irrelevant if the lament about the 'cherub in Eden' is a metaphor for the former height of the king in his wisdom, beauty and wealth. Simply saying that it cannot be a metaphor in no way explains why it cannot be a metaphor.

and no man except Adam could be described as ever being perfect in all his ways at one point and then later sinning.

Job. Verse 1.1: 'that man was blameless and upright' (KJV 'perfect and upright'). Verse 1.22, even throughout his disasters, 'in all this Job did not sin'. Only late in the book is Job called out for a sin, self-righteousness (32.1-2).

[John146]

Just curious, if you're aware that the term translated as 'prince' simply means 'ruler', and can apply to anyone ranging from a priest (e.g. 1 Chronicles 9.20 of Phinehas), to a military leader (1 Chronicles 13.1), to a king (e.g. 1 Samuel 9.16 of Saul; 2 Samuel 7.8 of David; 1 Kings 1.35 of Solomon)? In a single sentence David is called both 'king' and 'ruler' (or 'prince' if you prefer). This is not a legitimate point to use in claiming the 'ruler/prince' and the 'king' are different persons.

It's a legitimate point to show that they can be different persons. It's obviously a matter of opinion, but it's clear to me that verses 1-10 refer to a man while verses 11-19 refer to a cherub. So, it makes sense to me that the reason the Hebrew word nagiyd (translated as "prince") was used in verse 2 and the Hebrew word melek (translated as "king") was used in verse 12 is because each passage is referring to a different person/being. If Ezekiel 28:1-19 is all about an earthly king of Tyre then why the transition in verse 11? Why wouldn't it have gone straight from verse 10 to verse 12b or verse 13? Wouldn't it be redundant to say "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him" if it was already talking about the king of Tyre up to that point? I believe so.

Who was the earthly prince?

Ezekiel's lament of the ruler/king of Tyre is a part of the 'eleventh year, first day of the month' prophecy chunk of chapters 26-28. The 'eleventh year' (of the exile of King Jehoiachin; see 1.2) was 587 BC. At that time Ethbaal III was king of Tyre, reigning from 591 to 573 BC, deposed by Babylon.

That seems reasonable to me. That doesn't prove that verses 11-19 are about the earthly ruler Ethbaal III rather than a spiritual king (Satan). We know that Satan is referred to as the ruler/king of the world (John 12:31, John 14:31, John 16:11) so there's no reason why he couldn't be referred to as the king of Tyre in a spiritual sense.

This objection is completely irrelevant if the lament about the 'cherub in Eden' is a metaphor for the former height of the king in his wisdom, beauty and wealth. Simply saying that it cannot be a metaphor in no way explains why it cannot be a metaphor.

Yep, you're right. How can I prove that it's not a metaphor? I suppose I can't but you can't prove that it is, either. This is all a matter of opinion. I personally can't make sense of the view that sees verses 12-19 as a metaphor.

Job. Verse 1.1: 'that man was blameless and upright' (KJV 'perfect and upright'). Verse 1.22, even throughout his disasters, 'in all this Job did not sin'. Only late in the book is Job called out for a sin, self-righteousness (32.1-2).

So, you think Job never sinned even once in his life up to that point? I disagree. Was he somehow the only person in history to not inherit a sin nature? I don't believe it was necessary to be sinless in order to be considered blameless and upright. If someone sins but is remorseful about it and asks for forgiveness then they are still blameless and upright. You and I are blameless and upright because none of our sins are held against us. Job himself indicated that he was not perfect in terms of being sinless:

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Anyway, what basis is there for thinking Ethbaal III was ever like Adam was before he sinned or even like Job was before Satan made a mess of his life? How could such an evil person have ever been perfect in all his ways? I don't believe that makes any sense.

[Luciano Vinci]

Never heard of Sheldon Emry, but with most of it I agree fully.

[nzyr]

I have taught satan as a created being, evil from the beginning and a tool of God. However, never in my church, only in Bible studies (since my denomination thinks its heresy). I have also taught him as Lucifer the fallen angel when teaching on pride and such (the common thought).

My pastors tell me that teaching satan as a created being and not a fallen Lucifer, besides being Scripturally wrong, delves into the question of free will. In other words, if satan was created as satan, he never had a chance, and that does not mesh with the belief that God gives everyone, including celestial beings, free will.

I don't want to get into the free will aspect of the discussion. However, I would love to find out what others think.

By the way, I have found about twice as many verses supporting satan as created evil vs. fallen angel, but that may be up to interpretation too.

So are you blaming God for all of the evil in the world?

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (Genesis 2:1)

It sounds like everything God had made was good. Where does it say that God made Satan evil?

And how do you explain this?

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. (Luke 10:18)

[Luciano Vinci]

So are you blaming God for all of the evil in the world?

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (Genesis 2:1)

It sounds like everything God had made was good. Where does it say that God made Satan evil?

And how do you explain this?

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. (Luke 10:18)

(Amo 3:6) Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?


(Isa 54:16) Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.


(Isa 45:7) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


And there are a ton of verses that say that God through Christ Jesus created all things, including principalities and powers; and that He is over all things including satan and principalities (meaning He controls them).

God is not nervous about His creation; He is in total control. There is nothing that satan, Pharoah, Nebachadnezzar or Nero do without His stamp of approval. We may not understand it, but God is completely sovereign over His creation.

[nzyr]

...God is completely sovereign over His creation.

But are you saying God made Satan evil?

[Luciano Vinci]

But are you saying God made Satan evil?

Yes. And He made Pharaoh evil. (Rom. 9:17-18) I don't understand everything about why God does what He does; but He is completely sovereign and in charge. He can just flick His finger and satan would be squashed, but He doesn't, satan, like Pharaoh is one of God's most faithful servants. Look how many times He calls wicked leaders His servants, when they work in His interest to bring judgment. With no evil in the world, which God in His infinite power is able to eradicate, man would never need to use faith to overcome.

[Redeemed by Grace]

(Amo 3:6) Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?


(Isa 54:16) Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.


(Isa 45:7) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


And there are a ton of verses that say that God through Christ Jesus created all things, including principalities and powers; and that He is over all things including satan and principalities (meaning He controls them).

God is not nervous about His creation; He is in total control. There is nothing that satan, Pharoah, Nebachadnezzar or Nero do without His stamp of approval. We may not understand it, but God is completely sovereign over His creation.

Hi Luciano,

I would generally agree. God is sovereign. In all things and in all ways, and yes many times it is beyond my simple mind to comprehend and understand it all, just knowing it is true is good enough for me. God purposes; His will is done. Sin and evil are allowed, and yes even provided to be; yet God is neither, for He is holy, righteous, just. Man is His creation; God is not man's, for many times man compares God to himself.

The deep end of the pool holds many mysteries of how big God is, and many believe they can swim with the big dawgs, yet one can't enter and float unless they first learn to swim, and swim well. Knowing that God is sovereign in all things and all ways, and how to rightly divide the word to understand how big He is and how He has loved us through this, is a godly and humbling wisdom that throws me on my knees in worship. For understanding this mystery that He created all things good for good, and bad for good -- to His honor and Glory is His wisdom given in study by His Spirit's leading.

For His glory...

[Luciano Vinci]

Hi Luciano,

I would generally agree. God is sovereign. In all things and in all ways, and yes many times it is beyond my simple mind to comprehend and understand it all, just knowing it is true is good enough for me. God purposes; His will is done. Sin and evil are allowed, and yes even provided to be; yet God is neither, for He is holy, righteous, just. Man is His creation; God is not man's, for many times man compares God to himself.

The deep end of the pool holds many mysteries of how big God is, and many believe they can swim with the big dawgs, yet one can't enter and float unless they first learn to swim, and swim well. Knowing that God is sovereign in all things and all ways, and how to rightly divide the word to understand how big He is and how He has loved us through this, is a godly and humbling wisdom that throws me on my knees in worship. For understanding this mystery that He created all things good for good, and bad for good -- to His honor and Glory is His wisdom given in study by His Spirit's leading.

For His glory...

couldn't have said it better myself. God has been so good to me, because He is a good God. And yet I have had to overcome the enemy by the blood of the Lamb (assurance of salvation); the word of my testimony (confessing and prophesying the truth over my life); and loving not my life even unto death (taking up my cross and dying to my life/soul/emotions/feelings). We need the dragon to sometimes roar in our lives to show God's glory when He shuts satan's mouth. We are healed many times for the sole purpose of showing God's glory. Without evil/hardships/persecution we become weak and do not get to see God's glory. The worst place to be in Zion, is at ease (Amos 6:1). We need hardship/tribulation/persecution to grow in grace.

[Redeemed by Grace]

couldn't have said it better myself. God has been so good to me, because He is a good God. And yet I have had to overcome the enemy by the blood of the Lamb (assurance of salvation); the word of my testimony (confessing and prophesying the truth over my life); and loving not my life even unto death (taking up my cross and dying to my life/soul/emotions/feelings). We need the dragon to sometimes roar in our lives to show God's glory when He shuts satan's mouth. We are healed many times for the sole purpose of showing God's glory. Without evil/hardships/persecution we become weak and do not get to see God's glory. The worst place to be in Zion, is at ease (Amos 6:1). We need hardship/tribulation/persecution to grow in grace.

I like to say that a man's salvation is for God, of God, by God, in God, through God, because of God, least any man would boast, for God gives faith; God tests for faith.

For His glory...

[Sojourner55]

Yes. And He made Pharaoh evil. (Rom. 9:17-18) I don't understand everything about why God does what He does; but He is completely sovereign and in charge. He can just flick His finger and satan would be squashed, but He doesn't, satan, like Pharaoh is one of God's most faithful servants. Look how many times He calls wicked leaders His servants, when they work in His interest to bring judgment. With no evil in the world, which God in His infinite power is able to eradicate, man would never need to use faith to overcome.

I would agree with everything except Pharaoh and Satan being faithful servants. Servants maybe, in the sense of being bound by God's absolute sovereignty, but....faithful? Being faithful entails willful submission to, and dedication to the will of God, and I don't think that applies to either of those two. But I think I understand the point you were trying to make.