The Cosmic Temple & Spiritualized Eschatology, Part 1

Helpful article, Paul. Thanks.

One sees a similarity to this line of thought in Randall Price’s “The Coming Last Days Temple,” especially chapter 9 on Sanctuary Symbolism.

I have often said that your view of Eschatology reveals not so much your view of Eschatology but rather your view of Scripture.

Keep writing.

I don’t have time to communicate all my thoughts on why I hold this view about the meaning of “sanctuaries” in Ezek 28:18, but perhaps a short summary will be enough to express it. Let me express first, without defense (which I believe I can defend well) that I see the king of Tyre in Ezek 28:11ff. to be a reference to Satan/the Devil, so my interpretation is based on that.

A study about the cherub (plural, cherubim) in Scripture shows that they are primarily tasked with guarding “holy” places (places set apart in some way for some reason). Such were set to guard access to Eden (and specifically the tree of life) after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin (Gen 3:24), and such were embroidered in the curtains that covered access to the Holy and Most Holy places in the tabernacle (Exo 26:1, 31), as well as over the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant itself (Exo 25:18-22). They tended to the mobile throne of God in Ezekiel chapter 10.

So the “anointed cherub” (Ezek 28:14) was most likely guarding something specific, something set apart. Indeed, it seems that his task was to “cover” whatever it was from visual sight (Ezek 28:14, 16). I believe the “covering” of jewels that he possessed (Ezek 28:13) was external to himself and given to him as part of his ministry of covering, for the term used there for covering is מְסֻכָה (m^esukah), a word only used here in Scripture, but it is a feminine form of מָסָךְ (masak) that means covering or screen,¹ most often in reference to the coverings in the tabernacle (and always in reference to an external covering, not something intrinsic). The feminine form of a singular Hebrew noun can be used to express a collective idea,² and I think that is the intent here, that the anointed cherub had a singular covering of “every precious stone” (v.13), so a bejeweled tapestry or veil that was a collection of these stones (probably woven together with gold strands) in this singular “covering” used in the appointed task of what was being covered.

What was to be covered? My view is built on circumstantial evidences from this part of Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14:12-19 (which I also believe refers to the cherub that would become Satan), and Genesis chapter 3. I believe the anointed cherub’s original task was to use his covering to prevent visual sight of the tree of knowledge of good and evil from Adam and Eve, a tree that was “set apart” from their use, and a tree that kept them “set apart” from sin. Notice a number of facts that relate to this (I have only some listed here):

• The anointed cherub was “in Eden” (Ezek 28:13, which implies that was the location of his covering duty), and this task was a special one, since the idea of anointed implies something set apart and distinct from other cherubim. Similarly, the serpent (which I take as a reference to the “natural” beastly form of this cherub, for Satan is described as a dragon in form, also called a serpent, Rev 12:9; notice that cherubim, when described in detail, always have beastly aspects to their form, Ezekiel 10) was “in Eden” by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3).
• Apparently, this stationing on the earth was not desirable to this cherub (indeed, he may have been the only angel stationed on earth), for he wanted instead to “ascend into heaven” (Isa 14:13), above above the clouds and take a position for himself to be “like the Most High” (Isa 14:14); this desire was not, I believe, to usurp God’s position, but rather the position of the creature that God created to be like God, humanity (Gen 1:26; the noun דְּמוּת [d^emuth] “likeness” in this passage is from the verb דָּמָה [damah] “be like” used in Isa 14:14). The cherub looked at his own beauty (Ezek 28:17) compared to humans and was lifted up in pride as to who should be given the status of likeness to God; he looked at his lowly station on earth in comparison to the angelic host in heaven and felt slighted; and so this cherub fell in his pride (1 Tim 3:6). What had been a perfect and obedient creature had iniquity arise within his heart (Ezek 28:15).
• So this cherub sought to discredit and destroy humanity, the creatures created to be like God, in a plot to usurp their position. The first part of Ezekiel 28:16 notes the progression of the downfall following the prideful iniquity that came about in v.15 (NKJV):

  By the abundance of your trading [see below]

  You became filled with violence within,

  And you sinned.

  The word “trading” (or some translations, “merchandise”) is רְכֻלָּה (r^ekullah), only used in Ezekiel 28 (3 times) and Ezek 26:12. The term comes from the Hebrew verb רָכַל (rakal) that has the idea of “go about, from one to another (for trade or gossip)” and so is used of trading in goods, but also as a root for the word for slander or talebearer. My take on this is the latter is intended, that the cherub began trading in lies, for the Devil is the father of them (Jn 8:44), first internally about what his position should be (self-deception), but then as violent thoughts emerged, he lied to Eve (Gen 3:4; he at that point “sinned” in act) and removed the covering he was responsible for so that she “saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes” (Gen 3:6), so bringing upon humanity the death that God had promised as punishment (Gen 2:17). These were violent actions against humanity, intending their death, for the cherub had become Satan (שָׂטָן; the adversary); and having caused humanity to sin, it gave Satan the grounds for accusations against people whenever he could cause them to sin, so he became the accuser (Rev 12:10), though he would even accuse people without grounds (e.g. Job 1:9-11), and earned the title of Devil (which means slanderer).³

So I point out all the above to get to my point on the “sanctuaries,” which were this cherub’s “sanctuaries” (the set apart places, plural, that he was responsible for), that were defiled by the cherub’s iniquities and specifically the iniquity of his “trading” (Ezek 28:18), which places I believe were the “place” of God’s image on earth, the persons of Adam and Eve. Their persons were the set apart places where God’s likeness was to be visible to the creation, but the cherub’s actions defiled those places in deceiving and tempting Eve into sin, who then herself turned and tempted Adam to sin with her. And for this act of defiling mankind, Satan was temporarily brought lower still, not only below humanity, but below the animals of the earth (Gen 3:14), and he would be crushed by a creature of those he envied (Gen 3:15) and mocked by them all (Isa 14:15-17), and then he ultimately will be punished by eternal fire (the last part of Ezek 28:18, Mt 25:41, Rev 20:10). But until his final judgment, this cherub would still have freedom to go about the earth (Job 1:7), come into God’s presence (Job 1:6), and deceive a number of other angels (as he clearly gained his own “angels” as a following, Mt 25:41; 2 Pet 2:4, Jude 6; I believe this was also tempting them about their worth compared to humanity as well, and may have even happened prior to his trying to deceive Eve).

I know there are a number of theories about Satan, about the Ezekiel and Isaiah passages, and such; but to me, the view above makes the most sense in cross comparison of the passages regarding what we know about Satan and what information is given in those passages.

NOTES

¹ Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), s.v. מְסֻכָֿה and מָסָךְ. Any other definitions of Hebrew terms are found from the word entries in this lexicon.

² Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), p. 6 sec. 26.

³ William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. διάβολος.

[NOTE: Not sure why my superscripts are not showing as superscripts in my text, as they are set as such.]

I first came across the cosmic temple motif when reading T. Desmond Alexander’s book on the Pentateuch. I thought at the time that it was speculative, and not derived from the text. I thought it was more of a “motif gone mad” kind of exegesis. I haven’t spent time delving into it at all, in the years since. In fact, I want to re-read some of the OT theology texts I read at Seminary, with the benefit of several years of pastoral ministry and life experience behind me.

Yes, as I noted specifically about the “covering” duty, it is built on some “circumstantial evidences,” and so definitely that part is more speculative, which then makes my view of the “sanctuaries” fall within that speculation. But I don’t see it as any more speculative than other sanctuary theories, since the text is not clear what that word was specifically referring to. And I agree, knowledge of the spirit realm is extremely limited in Scripture, and also agree that know revelation in Scripture is superfluous.

I do believe there is a stronger, much less speculative case, when taking all the revelation we have on Satan, for the fact that his target was the destruction/discrediting of humanity, the creature God created to be like Him, so that Satan, in his pride, could be the creature to take that position. At the time of his fall, Satan would not have known that God was planning to incarnate into humanity (and so Satan’s attack on humanity was ultimately a direct attack on God); but he still showed pride in thinking that he knew better than God which creature should be exalted to be like God, and so even then, his attack on humanity was a questioning of the wisdom and authority of God.