05-17-2010, 05:23 PM
Dawid Wrote:Burning one Wrote:Shlama,
hasatan is not a lesser deity, not ruling in hell, and obviously doesn't have a pointed tail or carry a pitchfork. these are definitely a more paganistic interpretation / tainted portrait of him than Scripture ever even hints at giving. a believer who does his homework finds that hasatan is not much like the way he is portrayed in modern culture or religion.
he is a keruv - a high angelic-like entity created by the Father for a specific purpose. from what i can tell from Scripture (Gen. 3:1), he is the highest of the created beings that are not mankind - for man alone bears the image of the Holy One.
as best i can surmise, Ezekiel 28 (the reader need understand the import of the Hebrew text's use to two different spellings for "Tyre" in this passage) and Isaiah 14 are both more detailed explanations of what happened to him in Genesis 3 -- the fall of man being consonant with the fall of hasatan. i just don't buy the Scripturally-unmerited "fell before the creation of the world" scenario. sticking to Scripture puts his fall being the scenario we read about all the time of the fall of man.
he's now serving a different function than before; the Accuser. as the Aramaic likes to call him, he is the "Eater of Slander." or as the Greek likes to call him, he is the "Categorizer." he does his job as he has been assigned, in hatred towards the things of Alaha, and in hatred towards man. he is on a leash, a very firm leash, and cannot go beyond his boundaries.
my brief take on the matter...
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
The difference in spelling is not significant. It is simply that the second time matres lexionis is inserted, so let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Now, none of this excludes a secondary layer of meaning, and none of it excludes a later, valid homiletic interpretation of these as Satan by way of comparison. However, on the simplest level, these passages are both clearly talking about human monarchs.
Shlama akhi,
concerning the spelling, i'm all for paying attention to what is written, and why (if it can be ascertained). if you don't agree in this instance, by all means you are entitled to your perspective.
i simply differ in interpretation, due to prior information. this aligns too well with what comes before for me to dismiss it as only talking about a human monarch. could it be applied both ways? surely, but i don't think homiletic interpretation is the best route to go, as it seems the prophet is speaking to the power behind the monarch, and not merely the monarch himself. the language is so grandiose, i have great difficulty ascribing it to a mere human. that's where i'm at.
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy