The Satan and Ezekiel 28: Reasons Why These Two Are Not Connected

For various reasons there has been a tendency among conservative Christians to suppose that the prophetic passage of Ezekiel 28 is a referring to the Satan. This supposed reference takes two forms: 1) this passage is about the Satan and nothing else, or 2) this passage is about the King of Tyre who is being compared to the Satan.

While the second form is somewhat common among more conservative scholarship, the first form is scarce among conservative scholarship but is frequently and persistently dominate among non-scholarly conservatives. (Perhaps this is one example of the unacknowledged but increasingly widening chasm that exists between conservative scholars and conservative “laity”.)

Therefore, I would like to give some accessible reasons why Ezekiel 28 does not refer to the Satan in either form. (Interestingly enough, during the initial stages of the Conservative Resurgence, an Old Testament seminary professor resigned his teaching post following an out-cry from a Sunday School lesson he wrote on the book of Job in which he referred to Satan with the definite article “the” as is written in the Hebrew: “the Satan”.)

I. The passage doesn’t refer to the Satan but to the King of Tyre.

A. The introduction of the passage states that Yahweh wants Ezekiel to write about the ruler of Tyre.

Ezekiel 28:1-2a: “The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD;”

B. The passage states that the one addressed is a man and not a god.

Ezekiel 28:2b: “Because thine heart [is] lifted up, and thou hast said, I [am] a God, I sit [in] the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou [art] a man, and not God,” (see also 28:9)

In the ancient Israelite religion, Yawheh (the Lord) is referred to as an el or an elohiym, both of which generically mean a ‘god’. Both true and false gods are referred to as el and elohiym. Angels, at times, are also referred to as el and elohiym or at least as sons of el and elohiym. In Genesis 32:24-32, Jacob wrestles with an elohiym, possibly some form of localized demon or water spirit, and overcomes him. In Job 1:6 and 2:1, the Satan is numbered among the “sons of God” (ben elohiym).

However, in Ezekiel 28:2b, the passage is directed toward one who is explicitly a man (adam) and explicitly not a god. (elohiym). (Not even the noun iysh, which can refer to a male individual or any individual person or self, is used to refer to this person, a word that can be used to describe an elohiym, see Genesis 32:34).

The point that is being made is that the King of Tyre is a man and not a god or god-like being.

C. The passage states that the one addressed has accumulated riches.

Ezekiel 28:4-5: “With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: By thy great wisdom [and] by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:”

What has the Satan to do with riches?

D. The passage states that the one addressed deals in trade and the exchange of goods and services.

Ezekiel 28:5, 16, 18: “By thy great wisdom [and] by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: … By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: … Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick;”

The kingdom of Tyre was located north of Israel in modern Lebanon on the Mediterranean Sea. It was particularly known for its extended commerce and was one of the most prominent trade cities in all of the ancient world (like a modern day New Orleans, San Francisco, New York City, etc.).

The passage is referring to this commercial wealth and the pride that has resulted from it.

The Satan is a spiritual being and has no need of economic riches and the benefits which come from such wealth.

II. The context of the passage confirms the “earthly” interpretation.

By this phrase, “the ‘earthly’ interpretation”, I mean that non-spiritual beings and situations are referred to (save for Yahweh Himself).

Ezekiel 25 is a passage directed toward Israel’s perennial enemies: the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Edomites.
Ezekiel 26 is a passage directed toward Tyre and Nebuchadnezzar’s besiegement of the city from 586-573 BC.
Ezekiel 27 is a passage directed toward Tyre and the city-states which did business with it (see point I.D above)
Ezekiel 28:20-23 is a passage directed toward Sidon.
Ezekiel 29:1-16 is a passage directed toward Egypt.

The purpose of these passages is to let the people of Israel know that Yahweh is going to punish those nations neighboring Israel that have treated His chosen people with contempt. This is stated in Ezekiel 28:24:

“And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor [any] grieving thorn of all [that are] round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I [am] the Lord GOD.”

A reference to the Satan would be out of context in this passage.

III. The passage is exilic while knowledge of the Satan in post-exilic.

One prominent reason why this passage cannot refer to the Satan (other than the exegetical reasons) is that knowledge of the Satan by the Israelites was not revealed to them by Yahweh until the post-Exilic era.

Mention of the Satan appears in books such Chronicles, Job and Zechariah, all well within the post-Exilic era. The Pre-Exilic and Exilic eras are devoid of such references. If Ezekiel was referring to the Satan (let alone in a cryptically symbolic fashion) his audience would have been ignorant of the reference.

IV. The New Testament does not refer to this passage as being a reference to the Satan.

This is another important point: the New Testament authors do not reference Ezekiel 28 as referring to the Satan either by direct reference or even by analogy.

In fact, the first real association of the Satan with Ezekiel 28 came in 1667 with the publication of John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Unfortunately, most of our conservative evangelical understanding about the Satan comes directly from this epic poem and not from Scripture.

V. The evidence provided by people who believe this passage refers to the Satan does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Despite such literal textual evidence as “take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus,” (28:12) and “By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence,” (28:16), many conservative Christians take this passage as referring to the Satan.

Here are the 6 aspects of the passage that many take to be as referring to the Satan:


A. “thou hast been in Eden the garden of God” (28:13)

B. “Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth;” (28:14)

1. Before we begin discussing these two points we need to make two prior points:

a. I think that points A and B need to be discusses together because they were intended by Ezekiel as such.

b. It needs to be stated that one of the primary methods of prophetic teaching was to make analogies. There are numerous examples of this. Israel is a vineyard. Israel is an adulterous woman. Etc. Etc. Etc. Ezekiel himself was one of the masters of this genre and explored every avenue of this form of prophetic symbolism. Ezekiel would “act out” many of the prophecies that the Lord gave him. Ezekiel was a performance-prophet. Jeremiah was similar in this regard. In Ezekiel 19:1-9, the prophet is states that Israel’s mother was a lioness. In 19:10-14, Ezekiel states that Israel’s mother is a vine.

Is this a contradiction? Was Israel’s mother a lioness or a vine? Which is it? Now Israel’s name used to be Jacob and his mother was Rebekah, but I cannot find any passage that states that Isaac married a lion or a vine. But shouldn’t we take this passage literally?

No, to take this idea literally only does damage to the prophetic meaning. Ezekiel is saying this about Israel to make a point by analogy.

So when we look at points A and B we need to take the potential analogous and symbolic nature of the prophecy under due consideration.

2. Ezekiel says of the ruler of Tyre that “thou hast been in Eden the garden of God” and “thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth”, making some people believe that this refers to the serpent in Eden which they believe to be the Satan, therefore the

a. I will not go into the issue of the fact that the Genesis story does not refer to the Satan.

b. The Ezekiel 28 passage does not refer to the serpent or anything suggesting that anything serpentine is in thought. The King of Tyre is not referred to as “the serpent in Eden” but as “the cherub in Eden”. A cherub is an angelic being.

c. The cherub mentioned in the garden of Eden story are two cherubim at the east of Eden that keep Adam and Eve from the tree of life (or, in my understanding of the story, keeping man from access to life with God). If Ezekiel is referring to the Eden story and to cherubs then he is probably referring to the cherubim that God placed at the east of Eden and not the clever serpent.

d. Cherubim are mentioned as decoration on the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25). In Exodus 25:20, it is written, “And the cherubim shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings.” In Ezekiel 28:14, the ruler of Tyre is the “the anointed cherub that covereth.”

The importance of the mercy seat was that God said, “there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which [are] upon the ark of the testimony, of all [things] which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.” In short, this was where God’s people came to meet with God.

In 1 Kings 6, the Temple built by Solomon is adorned with two cherubim like that of the ark. It is between these two cherubim in the temple (as on the ark) that God’s people come to meet with God.

Yahweh became known as “He that sitteth between the cherubim” (Psalms 80:1; 99:1; Isaiah 37:16)

In Ezekiel 10 we see more uses of cherubim as Yahweh’s “entourage”. In Ezekiel 41 we see cherubim in the description of the God’s new “cosmic” temple.

Throughout the Gospels we see Jesus refer to Himself as The Temple (John 2:19, Matthew 26:61; Mark 14:58). In Acts 7, we see Stephen teaching that the Temple is not in itself necessary for a relationship with God. In the letters of Paul (particularly in 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17) that believers are the temple of God because we are apart of Christ’s body which is The Temple (Ephesians 2:21).

In Revelation 21, John states that in the new heavens and new earth that the tabernacle dwells among men (v. 3, but also see John 1:14 in the original Greek). Furthermore, John writes that there is no temple because Christ is the temple (v. 22). In Revelation 22, John has constructed his description of the new heavens and new earth as to resemble Eden with a tree of life (v. 2), symbolizing man’s access to eternal life, i.e., access to God without the guardian cherubim.

All of this is to say that Ezekiel is referring to the privileged cherubim and not the sly serpent. Ezekiel is making an analogy, comparing mighty and wealthy Tyre (represented by its ruler) as being at one time in a prominent and beautiful position.

C. thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. (28:14)

In relation to the previous point, this verse continues the analogy that the ruler of Tyre was like a cherub who had access to the “holy mountain of God”.

D. “Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created,” (28:15)

Some point to this verse as suggesting that the Satan must be the one referred to because only an “angelic” being could be called “perfect” by God.

The word that is here translated as “perfect” is tamiym. It can mean “complete”, “whole”, “entire”, “sound”, “without blemish”, or “perfect”. It can refer to a “whole month” or “full year” or to an “unblemished lamb”.

A synonym of tamiym is kaliyl which means “entire”, “all”, or “perfect”. Ezekiel uses this word in Ezekiel 28:12 when he says that the ruler of Tyre considers himself to be “perfect in beauty.”

He uses this same word when referring to Tyre in Ezekiel 27:3:

“And say unto Tyrus, O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, [which art] a merchant of the people for many isles, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O Tyrus, thou hast said, I [am] of perfect beauty.”

In Ezekiel 16, the prophet has stated that Jerusalem is a harlot committing adultery with pagan gods, saying in verse 14:

“And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it [was] perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.”

These uses suggest three options:

1. Ezekiel does not mean “perfect” as in “without fault” but “perfect” as in “whole” or “complete”.

2. Ezekiel means “perfect” in a general way for literary convenience and not as an absolute description of reality. An example of this would be the description of the figure of Job in Job 1:1; 1:8; 2:3; 8:20; 9:20, 21. He is referred to as tawm, which is variously translated as “blameless”, “perfect”, “whole” and as yashar, which is variously translated as “upright”, “correct” and “righteous”.

Now despite all the good that Job has done and does, he is not completely “blameless” or “perfect” for then he would be God. And the author of Job was not intending to suggest that Job never committed a sin but that he was, in general, “very good” by the standards of man. And the audience is not fooled into thinking that the author is suggesting “perfection” on the part of Job. We the audience understand the point the author is making and take it as we should.

3. This use of “perfect” is an exaggerated point being made by Ezekiel to emphasize the tragedy of the fall that occurred. (See also Lamentations 2:15)

Regardless of these options, it is apparent that the Satan is not referred to in this verse.

E. “cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God” (28:16)

This verse suggests the Satan to many people because it suggests that the one being addressed has been poetically “cast out of heaven” like Satan was cast out of heaven. The thinking is that the Satan was a perfect, angelic cherub who was cast out of heaven by God before the creation of man and this verse in Ezekiel is referencing that incident.

They cite Luke 10:19 when Jesus says: “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” The problem with citing this verse in connection with Ezekiel 28:16 is that Jesus had just seen Satan falling from heaven at that moment when “the seventy returned again with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name’” (10:18). This “fall of Satan” was not Jesus reminiscing but Jesus telling the seventy what He had just seen as a result of the seventy’s work through Him.

Another evidential citation is Revelation 12:7-9: “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

The difficulty with citing this verse as evidence is that it refers to an incident that occurs during the events of John’s Revelation:

“And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” (Revelation 12:10)

Satan is cast down after having been the accuser of Christian believers, a practice that the Satan does in both Job and Zechariah. This verse in Revelation does not refer to the Satan’s “original fall.”

In truth we do not know of an explicit Satanic fall from Scripture except from the logic of Genesis 1 that all that God created was good. If God created the Satan (which is the necessary Judeo-Christian assumption) then God created the Satan as originally “good” but that the Satan rebelled against God in a way similar to that which man rebels (Genesis 3). This is a logical conclusion for those who hold to the belief that the Satan is a person and not simply a personified force. But other than this logical conclusion, we are not given any Scriptural account of this incident and none of the passages cited here proves otherwise.

One significant piece of this exegetical puzzle is what Ezekiel means when he writes “the mountain of God.” Most people who hold to an interpretation that sees this passage as a reference to the Satan interpret “mountain of God” as a symbolic reference to “heaven”.

In Exodus 3:1, the “mountain of God” refers to the place where Moses met Yahweh at the burning bush and where Moses was later to regularly receive the commandments from Him. It is a general poetic expression suggesting the place where Yahweh comes to meet with His people. It is where the people go to be in the presence of God. This is the idea expressed in Isaiah 2:3; 30:29; Micah 4:2; Zechariah 8:3 for the “mountain of the Lord”.

And this idea fits into the context of the idea that cherubim are at a privileged place in the presence of God. Cherubim stand at the entrance to the garden of Eden which is where man had access to God’s presence. The cherubim stand at either side of the mercy seat where God presides. The cherubim stand aside the throne of God in heaven (Ezekiel 10).

The idea present here then is that the ruler of Tyre had a privileged position analogous with that of a cherubim in relation with God. But the ruler of Tyre is like a cherub who took that privileged place as reflecting himself and not reflecting God’s blessings and, therefore, because he was so proud, he has been cast down from his privileged position and away from the place where God comes to meet with His people.

There is no evidence that the Satan is being referenced in this verse.

F. “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness:” (28:17)

This final point of evidence provided by people who believe Ezekiel 28 is referring to the Satan is this last word yiph`ah which is translated as “brightness”. It is believed that this refers to the Satan’s former name “Lucifer,” therefore, this passage is referring to him.

Here are the problems with this point:

A. This word yiph`ah only appears here and in Ezekiel 28:7. We’ve already referred to this aspect of this passage.

“Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.”

Again, this verse refers to the King of Tyre with references to swords and nations attacking.

Where do we get this idea that associates the Satan with light? Most of the Scriptures associate the Satan with darkness.

In 2 Corinthians 11:14 we read this: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”

But this verse does not say that the Satan was transformed from brightness to darkness. Rather, it states that the Satan transforms himself into an angel of light in order to deceive.

“Lucifer” is a Latin word made up of two words, lux (light; genitive lucis) and ferre (to bear, to bring), meaning "light-bearer". Lucifer appeared in Greek mythology as heosphoros, the "Dawn-bringer" and was used by poets to represent the Morning Star at moments when "Venus" would intrude distracting imagery of the goddess.

"Lucifer" is Jerome's direct translation in his Vulgate (4th century) of the Septuagint's Greek translation, as heosphoros, "morning star" or "Day Star," literally "bringer of the Dawn", of a phrase in from Isaiah 14:12, where the Hebrew text refers to heilel ben-shachar.

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

But Isaiah is explicitly stating that he is writing about the king of Babylon (14:4). Heilel signifies the planet Venus, and ben-shachar means "the brilliant one, son of the morning", to whose mythical fate that of the king of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision.

Again, a passage depicting an evil king and people as mighty and prideful brought down from their exhausted post (see Daniel 4) is interpreted by some to be a figurative reference to that of the Satan.

In all these cases, the dubious interpretation is sustained more on the basis of tradition than on the Scriptural merits.

VI. In conclusion, I believe that there is no real evidence to suggest that Ezekiel 28 is referencing the Satan. To take this passage as such would be to symbolize and allegorize it all out of its authorial intent with no Scriptural evidence supporting such an interpretation.

A common complaint among “conservatives” is that “liberals” do not take the Bible “literally”. The irony is that “liberals” take the Ezekiel 28 passage literally while “conservatives” complain that this passage must be taken “non-literally”.

One of the problems that I see with some modern conservative hermeneutics when it comes to such a passage as this, circular hermeneutics is being applied. One begins with the presumption that Satan was a cherub, Satan was wise, Satan was in Eden, Satan was “bright”, and Satan was cast down from God’s sight. Then one reads Ezekiel 28 and believes that this passage is referring to the Satan. The question then is asked of them: “How do you know that Satan was X, Y, Z?” The person cannot find where the Scriptures teach these views other than this passage which does not mention the Satan. “Satan is X, Y, Z and Ezekiel 28 mentions X, Y, Z, therefore Ezekiel 28 is referring to Satan.” “How do you know that Satan is X, Y, Z?” “Because Ezekiel 28 says so.” In short, there is no foundation for this interpretation.