Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Ezekiel 28:13 "You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Ezekiel 28:13 "You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz, and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise, and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and your sockets, Was in you. They were prepared On the day that you were created. [Gen 3:14, 15; Is 14:12-15; Matt 16:23] |
Subject: origin of the devil |
Bible Note: Hi, Firstly may I say that I recognise that good Christians can quite genuinely have differences of opinion on various controversial subjects. And no subject is more controversial than this one. Thus I never seek to persuade people to turn from an established position (unless I feel it is totally unscriptural). However I do seek to answer questions and try to present a case which defends my answers, without falling out with those who disagree with me. I am assuming that your reply was in the nature of a question so I will seek to put my position. There are many good Christians who hold your position. I did myself consider it as a possibility. Isaiah 14 is especiallt alluring as it seems to fit in with other things said about Satan. But when I looked into it in more detail I felt that (rather reluctantly for there is nothing nicer than to think that we have solved a problem) it did not fit in with the facts. Firstly I would point out that 'Lucifer' means light bearer. And that was precisely the kind of name that Mesopotamian kings did claim for themselves. There are many examples archaeologically. And they certainly associated themselves with the stars. Furthermore they did make claims about ascending into heaven and sitting among the gods on the mountain in the north and being exalted above the stars. In fact they regularly made the most extraordinary claims. They had a very high opinion of themselves and it established their authority among their people. It also meant that people were less likely to rebel. After all you would not want to get in the bad books of someone so exalted. Thus there is nothing unlikely about a person making such claims in the time of Isaiah. Now you say that it is only up to verse 11 that refers to ancient kings. But I see nothing in the text which suggests a break at verse 11. Furthermore similar to what is said in verses 10-11 is said about 'the Light-bearer' in verses 16-20. But even more devastating for your view is that this 'so-called 'Light-bearer' descends into Sheol, the world of the grave. Satan is never said to die. And on top of this the dead kings say if him "Is this the man who made the worlds to tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities and did not allow his prisoners to go home". Now speaking of the kings of Babylon this is very apposite. They were precisely like this. On the other hand as a desciption of Satan it is just not on. And there are absolutely no reasons for separating verses 12-14 from the rest of the text. We must not treat Scripture as though we can just pick and choose, as I am sure when you think about it you will agree. With regard to the king of Tyre we do know that in the Tyrian temples they did try to emulate Paradise and had temple gardens which simulated Paradise. Thus this is precisely the kind of thing that a king of Tyre would claim on the basis of the then current mythology. You will note how totally different this Paradise is from Eden. This is a kingly Paradise not that of a working man. That was the difference between mythology and Biblical truth. Furthermore let me assure you that these kings had no difficulty in transporting themselves in their imagination wherever they liked. And the idea of creation ties in very well with myths about the beginning of things. Thus in my view both these descriptions fit precisely in with the ideas of those days.------------- with regard to the use of 'US' in Genesis 1. This was of course written before there were either Jews or Christians. And it forms the beginning of a long history which is careful to stress that there is only one God in opposition to the ideas of the polytheists. It would be totally out of character for a plural to be introduced speaking of God unless of course it was an intensive plural, a plural of grandeur . It is far more likely to have in mind the angelic court. After all some explanation is required for where the Cherubim in 3.24 came from. And as we know from the Tabernacle (and from Ezekiel and Revelation) the Cherubim were God's close companions. This is not a Jewish explanation. This is part of the original script. I do not of course deny for one moment that we can see the Triune God as included. But I very much fail to see how this New Testament idea could be introduced here by the writer deliberately. Best wishes Jonp |