Mike Heiser in Lexham Press

9 years ago — Edited

One of the many controversial items in Unseen Realm is that I think Gen 3, Isa 14, and Ezek 28 draw on a tale of divine rebellion (or that Isa 14 and Ezek 28 have Gen 3 in mind – or some combination thereof). I’m far from the only scholar who thinks this, but it’s likely a minority view. Here are the two main views: 1. Many (probably a majority today) say that the prince of Tyre is being compared to Adam in Eden. This would mean that it is Adam who is being referred to as a "guardian cherub" (v. 14) who walked in the midst of the stone of fire (a reference to either DC members or DC locale). It would also therefore mean that it was Adam who was filled with pride (v. 17) and "destroyed" from the midst of the stones of fire (whatever that means). Lastly, this view presumes that the gemstones in v. 13 correspond to the Israelite high priest (read the verse). The effect would be to cast Adam as a priestly figure -- in some sense of mediation - ? unclear to say the least. This view is based on (1) disregarding the connections in Ezek 28 back into Ugaritic material about a rebellion in the divine council; (2) presuming the gemstone description of the being in the garden of God in Ezek 28 are drawn from the breast-piece of Israel’s high priest; (3) choosing to follow the Septuagint of the passage instead of the Masoretic Text – the Septuagint translation has the anointed cherub plus another figure (presumed to be Adam) in the garden of God; and (4) a refusal to allow the clear links into am Ugaritic divine rebellion tale in Isaiah 14:12-15 to inform Ezek 28, despite the fact that all scholars acknowledge Isa 14 and Ezek 28 are closely related. 2. My view (minority) is that the prince of Tyre is being compared to a divine rebel -- and that this passage is related to another passage (Isa 14) that compares another human ruler (prince of Babylon - Isa 14) to a divine rebel. Further, I argue that these two passages are related to Genesis 3, the OT's own story of a primeval divine rebellion. This means that the anointed cherub is a divine being (rebel), not Adam. This divine being to whom the prince is being analogized was a member of the divine council (stones of fire) who as "destroyed from the midst of the stones" (again, whatever that means). The gemstones in my view are descriptors of luminescence -- they do NOT correspond with precision to the high priest's breastplate -- a stock description of divine beings. Further, these gemstones all have correspondences to the later description of the temple in Revelation -- the new Eden, the dwelling place of God. As such, the gemstones give us no reason to think of the high priest, and so an argument for the guardian cherub being a human priestly figure fails. I also follow MT – its difficult grammar in places is not at all implausible – and I allow Isa 14 and Ezek 28 to inform each other for consistency. Part of the impulse for opting for this view is also related to wanting to distance oneself from the idea that Ezek 28 is “about” Satan. It isn’t about Satan—it’s about the prince of Tyre. The term satan never appears in the passage. I acknowledge all that because it’s obvious. But the point is not what the passage is “about” – it’s what the analogy is to which the prince is being compared. The analogy and the person to whom it is applied are two different things, but many scholars don’t want to sound uninformed or ignorant. That’s a red herring. I just devoted an episode (#143) of my podcast to this subject as well: http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-143-ezekiel-28/ The bottom line is that my view is not idiosyncratic. I’m not in crazy town. You'll hear that kind of thing from pastors who know a little Hebrew (enough to be dangerous) or scholars who want to avoid tethering Isa 14 and Ezek 28 to Gen 3 in any way. If you hear it, know you can safely ignore it. My view is rooted firmly in scholarship and the text. Those who want to see a human rebel (i.e., Adam) behind Ezekiel 28 must ignore or explain away the cosmic rebellion motifs discussed a bit in Unseen Realm and in detail on the companion website to the book (see the footnotes), and abandon (at least in key places) the Masoretic pointing. They choose NOT to see the connections. I choose otherwise.