The mythology surrounding Lucifer/Satan/The Devil

[DontTreadOnMike]

Every Christian I know will agree that the image of Satan as a red guy with horns, a pointy tail, and a pitch fork is just a legend and a non-biblical description. It probably was adapted from pagan imagery (google "Krampus")

But many Christians believe that Satan was an angel named Lucifer who was once the most beautiful angel in heaven, but who rebelled and was cast out for his pride. This notion comes more from Paradise Lost than from the Bible. That verse in Isaiah that people use to support the idea that Lucifer is a fallen angel actually refers to the king of Babylon. Let's look at the entire passage in context. I'll add emphasis and comments where needed.

Isaiah 14:4-20

4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

(Comment: so right off the bat, we see that the following message is for the king of Babylon.)

How the oppressor has come to an end!
How his fury[a] has ended!
5 The LORD has broken the rod of the wicked,
the scepter of the rulers,
6 which in anger struck down peoples
with unceasing blows,
and in fury subdued nations
with relentless aggression.
7 All the lands are at rest and at peace;
they break into singing.
8 Even the junipers and the cedars of Lebanon
gloat over you and say,
“Now that you have been laid low,
no one comes to cut us down.”

9 The realm of the dead below is all astir
to meet you at your coming;
it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you—
all those who were leaders in the world;
it makes them rise from their thrones—
all those who were kings over the nations.
10 They will all respond,
they will say to you,
“You also have become weak, as we are;
you have become like us.”
11 All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
and worms cover you.

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.

(comment:This is the verse that people take out of context and attribute to Satan. In the king james version "morning star" is replaced with "lucifer." It's a title, not a proper name.)

16 Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
“Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,
17 the man who made the world a wilderness,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?”

(comment: Notice in the verse immediately following the verses thought to describe a fallen angel, the lucifer character is referred to as a MAN who shook the earth.)

18 All the kings of the nations lie in state,
each in his own tomb.
19 But you are cast out of your tomb
like a rejected branch;
you are covered with the slain,
with those pierced by the sword,
those who descend to the stones of the pit.
Like a corpse trampled underfoot,
20 you will not join them in burial,
for you have destroyed your land
and killed your people.

Let the offspring of the wicked
never be mentioned again. "

(comment: notice here that this lucifer is contrasted with other human earthly kings. Other kings are buried in tombs when they die, but this king is left out to be trampled like a branch. And again, at the very beginning of this whole passage, we see that this message is specifically and blatantly for the king od Babylon. It doesn't describe an angel falling from heaven.)



But the name of Lucifer is never connected with the adversary or Satan in the Bible. In the new testament, Satan is seen as evil, but in judaism and the old testament, Satan is an angel, very much under God's command, who acts like a prosecutor in a court room. This is seen clearly in Job. God is the judge, Job is the defendant, and Satan is the prosecutor.

So why do some Christians rightly reject the pagan-mythology-based image of Satan as a red-horned devil with a pitchfork, but accept this false equating of Lucifer and Satan? I mean, I get it, the Bible itself isn't very consistent on the idea. In the old testament, Satan is an angel from God who acts as a prosecutor, in the gospels he becomes evil, and in Revelation the character blows insanely out of proportion from the original writing of the old testament.

So what do we think of all this?

 

[GrayAngel]

Every Christian I know will agree that the image of Satan as a red guy with horns, a pointy tail, and a pitch fork is just a legend and a non-biblical description. It probably was adapted from pagan imagery (google "Krampus")

But many Christians believe that Satan was an angel named Lucifer who was once the most beautiful angel in heaven, but who rebelled and was cast out for his pride. This notion comes more from Paradise Lost than from the Bible. That verse in Isaiah that people use to support the idea that Lucifer is a fallen angel actually refers to the king of Babylon. Let's look at the entire passage in context. I'll add emphasis and comments where needed.

Isaiah 14:4-20



(Comment: so right off the bat, we see that the following message is for the king of Babylon.)



(comment:This is the verse that people take out of context and attribute to Satan. In the king james version "morning star" is replaced with "lucifer." It's a title, not a proper name.)


(comment: Notice in the verse immediately following the verses thought to describe a fallen angel, the lucifer character is referred to as a MAN who shook the earth.)



(comment: notice here that this lucifer is contrasted with other human earthly kings. Other kings are buried in tombs when they die, but this king is left out to be trampled like a branch. And again, at the very beginning of this whole passage, we see that this message is specifically and blatantly for the king od Babylon. It doesn't describe an angel falling from heaven.)



But the name of Lucifer is never connected with the adversary or Satan in the Bible. In the new testament, Satan is seen as evil, but in judaism and the old testament, Satan is an angel, very much under God's command, who acts like a prosecutor in a court room. This is seen clearly in Job. God is the judge, Job is the defendant, and Satan is the prosecutor.

So why do some Christians rightly reject the pagan-mythology-based image of Satan as a red-horned devil with a pitchfork, but accept this false equating of Lucifer and Satan? I mean, I get it, the Bible itself isn't very consistent on the idea. In the old testament, Satan is an angel from God who acts as a prosecutor, in the gospels he becomes evil, and in Revelation the character blows insanely out of proportion from the original writing of the old testament.

So what do we think of all this?

Revelation 12:7-9 - Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

The devil was an angel who was cast out of Heaven, along with one-third of the angels. The Bible never refers to him as Lucifer, but he is how the Old Testament verse describes him.

This happens a few times in the OT. It will speak about one thing, but some of the things said about it don't apply. For this reason, it is believed that the King of Babylon and the angel cast from Heaven are being spoken of as if they are one.

This is similar to what happens in Hosea, when the prophet takes a prostitute for a wife. Then Hosea, his wife (Gomer), and their three children become symbols of God, Israel, and their descendants. The prophecy given speaks of both the individuals and their symbolic equivalents as if they were the same:

Hosea 2:7-8 - “She will chase after her lovers but not catch them;
she will look for them but not find them.
Then she will say,
‘I will go back to my husband as at first,
for then I was better off than now.’
She has not acknowledged that I was the one
who gave her the grain, the new wine and oil,
who lavished on her the silver and gold—
which they used for Baal.”

And Satan was not one of God's servants in Job. His goal was to hurt God's image, and to cause one of His servants to curse him. That does not sound like something a servant would do for his master.

Job 1:9-11 - “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

Job shows us that even Satan can't do anything without God's approval. This is consistent with what the New Testament tells us about God:

1 Corinthians 10:13 - No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

As the first century church believed, God is in control. Even the evil we suffer was ordained by God for our benefit.

Acts 5:40:41 - His [Judas the Galilean's] speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.

James 1:12 - Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.

Satan is not a friend of God, but like everyone else, Satan is powerless to overcome God's will.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Revelation 12:7-9 - Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

The devil was an angel who was cast out of Heaven, along with one-third of the angels. The Bible never refers to him as Lucifer, but he is how the Old Testament verse describes him.

This happens a few times in the OT. It will speak about one thing, but some of the things said about it don't apply. For this reason, it is believed that the King of Babylon and the angel cast from Heaven are being spoken of as if they are one.

This is similar to what happens in Hosea, when the prophet takes a prostitute for a wife. Then Hosea, his wife (Gomer), and their three children become symbols of God, Israel, and their descendants. The prophecy given speaks of both the individuals and their symbolic equivalents as if they were the same:

Hosea 2:7-8 - “She will chase after her lovers but not catch them;
she will look for them but not find them.
Then she will say,
‘I will go back to my husband as at first,
for then I was better off than now.’
She has not acknowledged that I was the one
who gave her the grain, the new wine and oil,
who lavished on her the silver and gold—
which they used for Baal.”

And Satan was not one of God's servants in Job. His goal was to hurt God's image, and to cause one of His servants to curse him. That does not sound like something a servant would do for his master.

Job 1:9-11 - “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

Job shows us that even Satan can't do anything without God's approval. This is consistent with what the New Testament tells us about God:

1 Corinthians 10:13 - No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

As the first century church believed, God is in control. Even the evil we suffer was ordained by God for our benefit.

Acts 5:40:41 - His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.

James 1:12 - Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.

Satan is not a friend of God, but like everyone else, Satan is powerless to overcome God's will.

So you're basically just repeating the modern view. Read the OT verses themselves and pretend you know nothing about the NT. That's how the original authors and audience of the OT would have read them. In that context, there's no reason to think that the verse is referring to Satan and the king of Babylon as one being. That is a modern invention, a clumsy way to make the old testament fit with modern theology. Judaism and Christianity changed over time just like a game of telephone. But now, with modern technology, it's easy to get our hands on earlier versions of the message and so Christians are forced to somehow consolidate what they currently believe whit what the Bible actually says. This awkward re-purposing of unrelated texts is the result.

 

[GrayAngel]

So you're basically just repeating the modern view. Read the OT verses y themselves and pretend you know nothing about the NT. That's how the original authors and audience of the OT would have read them. In that context, there's no reason to think that the verse is referring to Satan and the king of Babylon as one being. That is a modern invention, a clumsy way to make the old testament fit with modern theology. Judaism and Christianity changed over time just like a game of telephone. But now, with modern technology, it's easy to get our hands on earlier versions of the message and so Christians are forced to somehow consolidate what they currently believe whit what the Bible actually says. This awkward re-purposing of unrelated texts is the result.

The Bible is a single unit written by one God. Prophecies in the OT were often not understood until Jesus and His disciples came along. For example:

Isaiah 9:6 - For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Do you think the Jews of Isaiah's time knew what this meant? A son who would be called God? It's sound heretical, to say that a child could be given these titles which belong to Yahweh only. They didn't understand that God would take on human form. They didn't know that He would suffer and die because of the very people He came to save, despite the prophecies that said He would.

I'm familiar enough with the OT to know it's style. What it says and what it means does not always match up, such as with the book of Hosea.

In addition to the reference to Satan in Isaiah, there's a slightly more obvious reference in Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 28:11-19 - The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

“‘You were the seal of perfection,full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
topaz, onyx and jasper,
lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.

Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.
By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
All the nations who knew you
are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.’”

Like the Isaiah passage, this is addressed to an earthly king, but many of the things it says about this king are not true of him.

For example: "You were in Eden." Did the kingdom of Tyre exist in the garden of Eden? Of course not. There were only four the Bible tells us were in Eden: God, Adam, Eve, and the "Serpent" (ie the Devil).

The king is called an anointed Cherub. A Cherub is a class of angel. There were Cherub on the Ark of the Covenant. The king of Tyre was obviously not an angel.

It also says that he was perfect and blameless. No human is perfect. The Bible makes that very clear. The angels, however, were created perfect. Still, some of them managed to fall, as this passage, Isaiah, and Revelation tell us.

Also an interesting note: Do you remember how God punished the Serpent after he tempted Adam and Eve?

Genesis 3:14-15 - So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

Wait. Don't snakes crawl on their bellies anyway? How is this a punishment? Well, if you take these verses literally, it sounds like the serpent had legs and that God punished him by taking them away. Interestingly enough, it is believed that snakes did once have legs, but that they lost them through evolution.

But on a figurative level, this sounds a lot like the angel who fell from Heaven. The serpent was forced down to the earth. I don't think it was a coincidence that the author of Revelation connected these OT passages together.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

The Bible is a single unit written by one God. Prophecies in the OT were often not understood until Jesus and His disciples came along.

The verse in question isn't a prophecy. It's just an insulting tirade against the king of babylon.

 

[GrayAngel]

The verse in question isn't a prophecy. It's just an insulting tirade against the king of babylon.

Prophecy is not limited to predictions about the future. They are words from God given to be shared with a certain group. In the cases of these OT passages, they were made against the kings of Babylon and Tyre, but they say things about these kings that are not true of them.

Of course, what greater insult could there be but to compare someone with the author of evil?

 

[ebia]

So you're basically just repeating the modern view. Read the OT verses themselves and pretend you know nothing about the NT. That's how the original authors and audience of the OT would have read them. In that context, there's no reason to think that the verse is referring to Satan and the king of Babylon as one being. That is a modern invention, a clumsy way to make the old testament fit with modern theology. Judaism and Christianity changed over time just like a game of telephone. But now, with modern technology, it's easy to get our hands on earlier versions of the message and so Christians are forced to somehow consolidate what they currently believe whit what the Bible actually says. This awkward re-purposing of unrelated texts is the result.

That's good to a point - we should read the OT texts on their own terms and understand them on their own terms.

But the other side of the coin is that the bible itself - not least the gospels and Paul, take some of those OT texts and use them to talk about Jesus etc. There's a long biblical history of using biblical texts to understand things quite different from the subject the text was originally talking about.

 

[ElijahW]

So what do we think of all this?

The ideas around the nature of the spiritual intermediary between man and God changed from the OT to the NT, along with the perceived causes of evil in the world because of the influx of Greek thought. I’ve never read a church father on Isaiah, so I’m just going off what was said about other OT texts.

Originally the spiritual element next to God could be seen as someone to argue with about if Job was an ok guy but later on the spiritual entity is seen as what Jesus is personifying. This causes some early Christian writers to interpret passages that, were before God speaking, as now the Christ speaking because the Lord being spoke of wasn’t thought to be the true God but instead Logos because God had become unknowable. Marcion doesn’t interpret the Jewish texts this way and instead takes them for what they say and claims the Jews held to a faulty understanding of God.

The other big change was the idea of fallen and unclean spirits was also incorporated from the Greeks an idea they were already familiar with in the form of opposing idolatry. The belief was that the ideas we have are real created things but the ideas we have come in two varieties. We have ideas that are true that comes from reason/logos, which is also real and is produced by God, or we get the ideas from the world and what we see. Those ideas are fallen or unclean and are seen as the source of all the world’s problems.

An example would be trying to depict spiritual elements in art or poetry, which then leads to irrational understandings of spiritual elements, because we apply concepts we picked up from the material presentation. Also for example, the Law could be seen as having a spiritual truth that was being distorted by worldly presentation of putting it into writing.

The devil is seen as an unclean or fallen spirit as well, though I am not exactly sure what the spirit is that is fallen or the relationship between it and the other unclean spirits. I’m not sure if it should be understood as a particularly harmful unclean spirit, such as the memeplex a tyrannical king would posses, or another idea that is the base of the tyrant meme. I lean towards the former.

“The true Pharoah, that is the devil.” Origen Exodus homily
​

The problem for early Christianity was with this kind of thinking, anything that comes into play with matter becomes unclean, which makes Jesus manifesting the spirit in the flesh, unclean, so Jesus couldn’t have a body[FONT=&quot], which leads to creating the Docetism heresy.
[/FONT]

 

[drich0150]

So what do we think of all this?

That Satan/Lucifer is indeed one person sighting the same Isa 14 that you are questioning simply because the "King of Babylon" does not necessarily mean the king of Babylonia. The actual Hebrew words used in Isa 14:4 are Melek (King) Babel (Confusion by mixing).
It like "Morning star" is a title, but still considered to be a name By OT Hebrew standards.

(Which is something your OP does not seem to take into account.)

I also see Satan as being subservient to God, but still in open rebellion. I do not see him as God's evil equal by any stretch. Satan (again a title/Name) is more of a figure head that God has allowed to represent all evil (Or a malicious desire to be outside of the expressed will of God.)
His power (as illustrated in Job) is limited to what God allows.

So why would God allow a being to represent a malicious desire to be outside of His expressed will/Evil; Choice. True choice is completely dependent on options. If we did not see options then even if we had the freedom to choose to be outside of God's expressed will (Sin) then what would free will really mean?

Take Adam and Eve in the Garden. How much time elapsed from the end of the 7 days of creation to the fall of man? 1 year? 1000 years? a Billion years? 900 trillion years? In truth we don't know. But we do know man fell as soon as he was made aware of the choices he had.

Up until we made that choice Man was a prisoner of God. God gave us that choice when He planted that tree in the center of the garden, but we did not know of the choice till we were told about it. So Why would he do this? so we can choose whether we wish to spend eternity with Him or not. (So we would not be eternal prisoners of the living God.)

Even in rebellion, Satan is being used to full fill God's ultimate plan. He is not the god of hell like some say. He like all of the other future residences of hell are being sent there because they chose to be separated from God.

 

[razeontherock]

So what do we think of all this?

You're making the mistake of thinking that because a passage does indeed mean one thing, (in this case Lucifer = a literal, human King of Babylon) that it cannot possibly mean another.

This defies everything we can know about the Bible as a whole. It also defies everything we know about Babylon in specific.

It makes no sense whatsoever to think that an infinite G-d who reveals Himself through Scripture, would limit such a complex set of word pictures to merely one meaning. In fact, it makes no sense at all to think that of even the simplest of passages. It would also serve us well to observe that Jews teach that every passage has 70 layers of meanings.

This concept is broad, far-reaching, and significant. The devil is puny, weak, cowardly, and defeated. (Just to keep it in perspective

 

[razeontherock]

Read the OT verses themselves and pretend you know nothing about the NT. That's how the original authors and audience of the OT would have read them.

Irrelevant. Read the NT, with your mind stripped of all preconceptions. Then read the OT, and you'll see the NT open up. Then start studying the subtleties of the languages.

And don't forget that the singular Author knew the end from the beginning

 

[razeontherock]

The verse in question isn't a prophecy. It's just an insulting tirade against the king of babylon.

Um, Isaiah is a Prophet. His book is ... prophecy. (Context and all)

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

Christian theology evolved over time. That's my take.

 

[food4thought]

These passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel are primarily about the pagan Kings that are named, yet certain aspects of these passages seem to go beyond the mere mortal kings and describe the power behind them (crosss reference Daniel 10). Skip forward to Revelation and we find another world ruler who will be empowered by Satan, called the Beast that rises up from the sea (Revelation 13).

The passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel are truly primarily directed at the kings, but in the midst of this God gives us a glimpse behind the scenes to see the demonic forces that were at work behind the kings (as demonstrated in Daniel 10), and in associating these forces with the fall of these kings assures the believers that eventually even these demonic powers will fall. We see the consumation of this promise in Revelation, but it is plain from reading Daniel 10 that the OT prophets understood there to be demonic forces operating behind the scenes in these pagan kingdoms. It is not a new modern understanding of these OT passages, but an old one that has perhaps been rediscovered.

Hope this helps you understand.

 

[Publius]

Every Christian I know will agree that the image of Satan as a red guy with horns, a pointy tail, and a pitch fork is just a legend and a non-biblical description. It probably was adapted from pagan imagery (google "Krampus")

But many Christians believe that Satan was an angel named Lucifer who was once the most beautiful angel in heaven, but who rebelled and was cast out for his pride. This notion comes more from Paradise Lost than from the Bible. That verse in Isaiah that people use to support the idea that Lucifer is a fallen angel actually refers to the king of Babylon. Let's look at the entire passage in context. I'll add emphasis and comments where needed.

Isaiah 14:4-20



(Comment: so right off the bat, we see that the following message is for the king of Babylon.)



(comment:This is the verse that people take out of context and attribute to Satan. In the king james version "morning star" is replaced with "lucifer." It's a title, not a proper name.)


(comment: Notice in the verse immediately following the verses thought to describe a fallen angel, the lucifer character is referred to as a MAN who shook the earth.)



(comment: notice here that this lucifer is contrasted with other human earthly kings. Other kings are buried in tombs when they die, but this king is left out to be trampled like a branch. And again, at the very beginning of this whole passage, we see that this message is specifically and blatantly for the king od Babylon. It doesn't describe an angel falling from heaven.)



But the name of Lucifer is never connected with the adversary or Satan in the Bible. In the new testament, Satan is seen as evil, but in judaism and the old testament, Satan is an angel, very much under God's command, who acts like a prosecutor in a court room. This is seen clearly in Job. God is the judge, Job is the defendant, and Satan is the prosecutor.

So why do some Christians rightly reject the pagan-mythology-based image of Satan as a red-horned devil with a pitchfork, but accept this false equating of Lucifer and Satan? I mean, I get it, the Bible itself isn't very consistent on the idea. In the old testament, Satan is an angel from God who acts as a prosecutor, in the gospels he becomes evil, and in Revelation the character blows insanely out of proportion from the original writing of the old testament.

So what do we think of all this?

I think this is a good example of why I don't get my doctrine from atheists.

Haha I know right? We're the worst. Always trying to interpret the Bible the way it was originally interpreted.

If that was your goal, then you've failed. All you've shown us is that you have no understanding of the Biblical description of Satan.

You don't tell us who "originally interpreted" it this way and, even if they did, so what? They were wrong.

"Original" doesn't mean correct.

No, all you've done is take snippets of verses, vague ideas, and your own opinions and mashed them together to get some pretty poor eisegesis.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I think this is a good example of why I don't get my doctrine from atheists.

Haha I know right? We're the worst. Always trying to interpret the Bible the way it was originally interpreted.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

These passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel are primarily about the pagan Kings that are named, yet certain aspects of these passages seem to go beyond the mere mortal kings and describe the power behind them (crosss reference Daniel 10). Skip forward to Revelation and we find another world ruler who will be empowered by Satan, called the Beast that rises up from the sea (Revelation 13).

The passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel are truly primarily directed at the kings, but in the midst of this God gives us a glimpse behind the scenes to see the demonic forces that were at work behind the kings (as demonstrated in Daniel 10), and in associating these forces with the fall of these kings assures the believers that eventually even these demonic powers will fall. We see the consumation of this promise in Revelation, but it is plain from reading Daniel 10 that the OT prophets understood there to be demonic forces operating behind the scenes in these pagan kingdoms. It is not a new modern understanding of these OT passages, but an old one that has perhaps been rediscovered.

Hope this helps you understand.

You know, that would make sense except for one thing. People look at that verse and say that it refers to Satan because of the titles "lucifer" and "morning star" and the reference to falling from up high. But Satan gets those nicknames from that verse in the first place. Sure, revelation refers to Satan like that too, but that's because the author of revelation had his own interpretation of isaiah just like modern Christians do. But no one thought that verse referred to Satan at the time of it's writing and probably not for centuries.

 

[golgotha61]

So why do some Christians rightly reject the pagan-mythology-based image of Satan as a red-horned devil with a pitchfork, but accept this false equating of Lucifer and Satan? I mean, I get it, the Bible itself isn't very consistent on the idea. In the old testament, Satan is an angel from God who acts as a prosecutor, in the gospels he becomes evil, and in Revelation the character blows insanely out of proportion from the original writing of the old testament.

So what do we think of all this?

Perhaps we should blame it on Jesus. Luke 10:18 (KJV)
18 And he said unto them, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven".

The word lightening according to Strong's:
English Words used in KJV:
lightning 8
light shining 1
[Total Count: 9]

from <G797> (astrapto); lightning; by analogy glare :- lightning, bright shining.

Compare Luke 10:18 then to Isaiah 14:12 Isaiah 14:12 (KJV)
12 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!

Strong's definition of Lucifer:
English Words used in KJV:
Lucifer 1
[Total Count: 1]

from <H1984> (halal) (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star :- lucifer.
Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.

This is the only time the name Lucifer is used in the Bible and as you can see it is used in the "sense of brightness". This seems to align with Jesus description of Satan's fall from heaven as a "bright shining" event.



Both verses even describe Satan's expulsion as the "fall from heaven".

 

[drich0150]

You know, that would make sense except for one thing. People look at that verse and say that it refers to Satan because of the titles "lucifer" and "morning star" and the reference to falling from up high. But Satan gets those nicknames from that verse in the first place. Sure, revelation refers to Satan like that too, but that's because the author of revelation had his own interpretation of isaiah just like modern Christians do. But no one thought that verse referred to Satan at the time of it's writing and probably not for centuries.

So you know the education, and personal thoughts of a man who lived 2000 years ago?

How is that possiable? Is because they are describing the same thing? What if they are simply describing what they have both been shown to be true?

 

[food4thought]

These passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel are primarily about the pagan Kings that are named, yet certain aspects of these passages seem to go beyond the mere mortal kings and describe the power behind them (crosss reference Daniel 10). Skip forward to Revelation and we find another world ruler who will be empowered by Satan, called the Beast that rises up from the sea (Revelation 13).

The passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel are truly primarily directed at the kings, but in the midst of this God gives us a glimpse behind the scenes to see the demonic forces that were at work behind the kings (as demonstrated in Daniel 10), and in associating these forces with the fall of these kings assures the believers that eventually even these demonic powers will fall. We see the consumation of this promise in Revelation, but it is plain from reading Daniel 10 that the OT prophets understood there to be demonic forces operating behind the scenes in these pagan kingdoms. It is not a new modern understanding of these OT passages, but an old one that has perhaps been rediscovered.

Hope this helps you understand.

You know, that would make sense except for one thing. People look at that verse and say that it refers to Satan because of the titles "lucifer" and "morning star" and the reference to falling from up high. But Satan gets those nicknames from that verse in the first place. Sure, revelation refers to Satan like that too, but that's because the author of revelation had his own interpretation of isaiah just like modern Christians do. But no one thought that verse referred to Satan at the time of it's writing and probably not for centuries.

I hold the OT and NT Scriptures to be Divinely inspired, but not the understandings of anyone based off these texts. Every exposition of the Bible by man is potentialy flawed because man was/is flawed (just like me, although many have a far greater understanding than I do). If someone could show me from the Bible that Isaiah and Ezekiel DID NOT have this understanding, I would immediately abandon my current understanding of these texts. But, since the texts themselves seem to be ambiguous on this subject, and I find support for this understanding elsewhere in the Bible, I am compelled to adhere to this understanding, at least for the time being.

On a side note, very little writing from the time of Isaiah and Ezekiel has survived (Babylonian Talmud, excetera). What little there is I admit ignorance of by and large... but as I said above, I would have to be swayed by a direct exegesis of the text that takes into account the entire body of the Bible in order to change my current stance. What some Rabbi believed back in 500BC is not going to sway me unless he has a very compelling case from the Scripture itself.