Who Did Lucifer Murder and When?

[shernren]

Look, Faith.Man, condescension does not befit a conversation between believers. "Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." (1Cor 10:12, ESV)

The bible says Lucifer was perfect from the beginning. What beginning? The bible also says Lucifer was a murderer and a liar from the beginning. If you say this refers to Lucifer's interaction with Eve, then you dispute that Lucifer was perfect from the beginning. There is obviously two different beginnings referenced here, as well as two different Edens.

I see your two beginnings and raise you a third:

And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. (John 15:27, ESV)
​

The apostles had not been with Jesus from the beginning of creation, nor were they with him from the beginning of human history. So "the beginning" can refer to the beginning of Jesus' ministry!

While we're at it, we might as well go for four-of-a-kind:

My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and in Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. (Acts 26:4, ESV)
​

Again Paul is speaking here not of the beginning of creation, or the beginning of human history, or even the beginning of Jesus' ministry - he is speaking here of the beginning of his own life.

That "the beginning" can be used of various periods of time should be, I think, an obvious hermeneutical idea. Indeed, that's one answer: "from the beginning" is often used as a circumlocution for something having been known for a long time and therefore established beyond doubt, as Jesus did when discussing divorce in Mark 10.

But let's say we're not satisfied with that answer. Was Satan a murderer from the beginning? Yes: what is the very first thing we see Satan doing? Setting in motion a temptation that would rob all humanity of life. We consider Hitler a mass murderer of the Jews, although he probably never killed any one of them himself. How much more should Satan be called a murderer, when his plan was to kill not just one race but all races of man! So there's another possible answer: from the beginning of Scripture Satan is a murderer and a liar.

=========

Let's talk about that second Eden some more, though. The reference is in Ezekiel 28:11-19, but if we take that literally, we find that not only was Satan formerly a jewel-studded cherub in Eden, he also:

• traded (v16)
• was exposed before kings (v17)
• was turned to ashes (v18)

Even giving allowance that the last two things may be prophecies of future events, does that sound like Satan to you? Doesn't sound so to me. Satan will not be reduced to ashes, nor will he be exposed before kings.

The prophecy in Ezekiel makes more sense as a hyperbolic condemnation of a real, historical nation: the nation of Tyre. To make sense of God's choice of words, consider what Tyre was saying about herself:

“O Tyre, you have said,
‘I am perfect in beauty.’ ...
you have said,
‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of the gods,
in the heart of the seas,’ ...
(Ezek 27:3, 28:2, ESV)
​

Given that Tyre had said this about herself, it was only natural for God to take those words and turn them back on the proud city. "Perfect in beauty - you might as well be an angel adorned with jewels! Sitting in the seat of gods - you might as well be walking in Eden itself! Yet your downfall will still be gloated over and mocked by nations."

And this theme is used elsewhere in the prophets. Notice that I have consistently used "Satan" to refer to the personal adversary of the saints. This is deliberate, because "Lucifer" is only used in another passage of Scripture - not Ezekiel, but:

​​​​​​​​“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!

​​​​​​​​You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;
​​​​​​​​I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’

​​​​​​​​But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit.
​​​​​​​​Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms,
​​​​​​​​who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities,
who did not let his prisoners go home?’
(Isa 14:12-17, ESV)
​

Lucifer is a transliteration of the Septuagint translation of "Day Star", literally "Light Bringer". Again, traditional interpretations saw this as referring to Satan - but how can that be? Is Satan a man who made the Earth tremble? Will he be brought down to Sheol, the Grave, the place for dead people?

So you see that these passages cannot support the weight of the interpretation placed on them. Before the creationists here object - yes, I believe in Satan, the personal demonic adversary of the saints, and in demons that do his bidding. And the passages from Revelation are enough to describe the rebellion in heaven that took place when he set his face against God. I just think that these prophetic passages, if they do at all describe Satan, describe him working through the agency of sinful man. As a final piece of evidence for this, consider that the imagery and language used in Revelations 18 is very similar to that used in Ezekiel 27 - and both refer very specifically to human empires, not directly to Satan.

 

[Faith.Man]

Oh I don't need your kindness. If you think I wrong on my understanding of scripture then demonstrate where please. Like which of my 7 points do you agree with and which ones do you think are wrong?

Sorry, I won't show you kindness or Christian brotherly love if you find it offensive. I just don't know where to begin. So are you taking over this thread and setting the rules? Where do disagree, how about points 1) through 7). I really dislike super long posts. So if you really want to get into this, lets start with point 1) and not move on till it's been exhausted.

 

[Faith.Man]

Look, Faith.Man, condescension does not befit a conversation between believers. "Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." (1Cor 10:12, ESV)

I am sorry you perceived that from what I wrote. It was not intended.

I see your two beginnings and raise you a third:

And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. (John 15:27, ESV)
​

The apostles had not been with Jesus from the beginning of creation, nor were they with him from the beginning of human history. So "the beginning" can refer to the beginning of Jesus' ministry!

While we're at it, we might as well go for four-of-a-kind:

My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and in Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. (Acts 26:4, ESV)
​

Again Paul is speaking here not of the beginning of creation, or the beginning of human history, or even the beginning of Jesus' ministry - he is speaking here of the beginning of his own life.

I was specifically referring to the two beginnings in relationship to Lucifer. Adding additional beginnings adds nothing to the conversation.

That "the beginning" can be used of various periods of time should be, I think, an obvious hermeneutical idea. Indeed, that's one answer: "from the beginning" is often used as a circumlocution for something having been known for a long time and therefore established beyond doubt, as Jesus did when discussing divorce in Mark 10.

Once again, horseshoes and hand grenades.

But let's say we're not satisfied with that answer. Was Satan a murderer from the beginning? Yes: what is the very first thing we see Satan doing? Setting in motion a temptation that would rob all humanity of life. We consider Hitler a mass murderer of the Jews, although he probably never killed any one of them himself. How much more should Satan be called a murderer, when his plan was to kill not just one race but all races of man! So there's another possible answer: from the beginning of Scripture Satan is a murderer and a liar.

=========

Let's talk about that second Eden some more, though. The reference is in Ezekiel 28:11-19, but if we take that literally, we find that not only was Satan formerly a jewel-studded cherub in Eden, he also:

• traded (v16)
• was exposed before kings (v17)
• was turned to ashes (v18)

Even giving allowance that the last two things may be prophecies of future events, does that sound like Satan to you? Doesn't sound so to me. Satan will not be reduced to ashes, nor will he be exposed before kings.

I expect you to know that there's a dual message in Ezekiel. One dealing with the King of Tyre, the other with Lucifer. This is very basic.

The prophecy in Ezekiel makes more sense as a hyperbolic condemnation of a real, historical nation: the nation of Tyre. To make sense of God's choice of words, consider what Tyre was saying about herself:

“O Tyre, you have said,
‘I am perfect in beauty.’ ...
you have said,
‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of the gods,
in the heart of the seas,’ ...
(Ezek 27:3, 28:2, ESV)
​

Given that Tyre had said this about herself, it was only natural for God to take those words and turn them back on the proud city. "Perfect in beauty - you might as well be an angel adorned with jewels! Sitting in the seat of gods - you might as well be walking in Eden itself! Yet your downfall will still be gloated over and mocked by nations."

And this theme is used elsewhere in the prophets. Notice that I have consistently used "Satan" to refer to the personal adversary of the saints. This is deliberate, because "Lucifer" is only used in another passage of Scripture - not Ezekiel, but:

​​​​​​​​“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!

​​​​​​​​You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;
​​​​​​​​I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’

​​​​​​​​But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit.
​​​​​​​​Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms,
​​​​​​​​who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities,
who did not let his prisoners go home?’
(Isa 14:12-17, ESV)
​

Lucifer is a transliteration of the Septuagint translation of "Day Star", literally "Light Bringer". Again, traditional interpretations saw this as referring to Satan - but how can that be? Is Satan a man who made the Earth tremble? Will he be brought down to Sheol, the Grave, the place for dead people?

So you see that these passages cannot support the weight of the interpretation placed on them. Before the creationists here object - yes, I believe in Satan, the personal demonic adversary of the saints, and in demons that do his bidding. And the passages from Revelation are enough to describe the rebellion in heaven that took place when he set his face against God. I just think that these prophetic passages, if they do at all describe Satan, describe him working through the agency of sinful man. As a final piece of evidence for this, consider that the imagery and language used in Revelations 18 is very similar to that used in Ezekiel 27 - and both refer very specifically to human empires, not directly to Satan.

The biblical prophets routinely use parallel passages to refer to the earthly realm and the heavenly realm. Consider the numerous passages in Psalms, for example. As for the Ezekiel interpretation, the Believer's Bible Commentary interprets the text thusly:

Ezekiel 28:1-19

3. The Downfall of the Prince of Tyre (28:1-19)

28:1-10 - The pride, wisdom, and wealth of the prince of Tyre are described in verses 1-6, and then his destruction by the Babylonians (vv. 7-10). No doubt this prince foreshadows the anti-christ.

28:11-19 - In verse 11 there is a change from the prince of Tyre to the king of Tyre. The latter is the spirit that animated the prince. The king of Tyre was noted for his beauty, but because of his pride he was destroyed.
The description of the king of Tyre as the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, as having been in Eden, the garden of God, as having every precious stone as a covering, as being the anointed cherub, and as having been on the holy mountain of God, taken together seem too impressive for any great ruler, even allowing for great use of hyperbole, or literary exaggeration.

For this reason many Bible students see in verses 11-19 a description of Satan and of his fall from heaven. Feinberg explains:

Ezekiel . . . appeared to have the situation of his day in mind with his attention riveted upon the ruler of Tyre, the embodiment of the people's pride and godlessness. But as he viewed the thoughts and ways of that monarch, he clearly discerned behind him the motivating force and personality who was impelling him in his opposition to God. In short, he saw the work and activity of Satan, whom the king of Tyre was emulating in so many ways. Recall the incident in Matthew 16:21-23 where Peter was rebuked by our Lord Jesus. No sterner words were spoken to anyone in Christ's earthly ministry. But He did not mean that Peter had somehow become Satan himself; He was indicating that the motivation behind Peter's opposition to His going to Calvary was none other than the prince of the demons. This appears to be a similar situation. Some liberal expositors admit that it would appear that Ezekiel had in mind some spirit or genius of Tyre comparable to the angelic powers and princes in the book of Daniel who are entrusted with the affairs of nations.

If pride is deadly enough to destroy a most powerful and wise being, how much more should we mortals take heed not to walk independently of the Lord!

 

[shernren]

Since you dislike long posts, let me boil it down for you:

Satan does not literally trade, nor would he be literally reduced to ashes. So why should he be walking in the literal Garden of Eden?

 

[Faith.Man]

Since you dislike long posts, let me boil it down for you:

Satan does not literally trade, nor would he be literally reduced to ashes. So why should he be walking in the literal Garden of Eden?

Isaiah 14:12 - "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!
Isaiah 14:13 - "But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north.
Isaiah 14:14 - 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.'
Isaiah 14:15 - "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit.
Isaiah 14:16 - "Those who see you will gaze at you, They will ponder over you, saying, 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms,
Isaiah 14:17 - Who made the world like a wilderness And overthrew its cities, Who did not allow his prisoners to go home?' [NASB]

Satan was cut down to earth after the fall. But Satan was perfect when he walked in Eden in the beginning. When did Satan make the world into a wilderness? When did he overthrow its cities? What prisoners did he take? Who did he murder in the beginning? Murder is not referring to the death of the spirit of Adam and Eve. When Satan tempted them he did so in the guise of a serpent. They did not die physically, but suffered a spiritual separation from God.

Obviously we are talking about two beginnings separated by Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:2 talks about the judged state of earth after Satan's fall, before man was created.

(I highly recommend the book In the Beginnings by Steven Dill. It goes into a lot more detail on the Gap Theory which is what I'm talking about here.)

 

[shernren]

You did not answer my previous question, so I'm going to start pulling a Papias and accumulate unanswered questions so people remember.

1. In Ezekiel 28, Satan does not literally trade, nor would he be literally reduced to ashes. So why should he be walking in the literal Garden of Eden?

=========

You have brought Isaiah 14 into the discussion when there is at least one very good reason that this passage cannot primarily be about Satan. Consider the introduction of the oracle:

When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: “How the oppressor has ceased, the insolent fury ceased! (Isa 14:3-4, ESV)
​

So here's the second question:

2. If Isaiah 14 is about events that happened before the Garden of Eden, why can it only be sung after the Israelites return from Babylon?

 

[mindlight]

Look, Faith.Man, condescension does not befit a conversation between believers. "Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." (1Cor 10:12, ESV)



I see your two beginnings and raise you a third:

And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. (John 15:27, ESV)
​

The apostles had not been with Jesus from the beginning of creation, nor were they with him from the beginning of human history. So "the beginning" can refer to the beginning of Jesus' ministry!

While we're at it, we might as well go for four-of-a-kind:

My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and in Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. (Acts 26:4, ESV)
​

Again Paul is speaking here not of the beginning of creation, or the beginning of human history, or even the beginning of Jesus' ministry - he is speaking here of the beginning of his own life.

That "the beginning" can be used of various periods of time should be, I think, an obvious hermeneutical idea. Indeed, that's one answer: "from the beginning" is often used as a circumlocution for something having been known for a long time and therefore established beyond doubt, as Jesus did when discussing divorce in Mark 10.

But let's say we're not satisfied with that answer. Was Satan a murderer from the beginning? Yes: what is the very first thing we see Satan doing? Setting in motion a temptation that would rob all humanity of life. We consider Hitler a mass murderer of the Jews, although he probably never killed any one of them himself. How much more should Satan be called a murderer, when his plan was to kill not just one race but all races of man! So there's another possible answer: from the beginning of Scripture Satan is a murderer and a liar.

=========

Let's talk about that second Eden some more, though. The reference is in Ezekiel 28:11-19, but if we take that literally, we find that not only was Satan formerly a jewel-studded cherub in Eden, he also:

• traded (v16)
• was exposed before kings (v17)
• was turned to ashes (v18)

Even giving allowance that the last two things may be prophecies of future events, does that sound like Satan to you? Doesn't sound so to me. Satan will not be reduced to ashes, nor will he be exposed before kings.

The prophecy in Ezekiel makes more sense as a hyperbolic condemnation of a real, historical nation: the nation of Tyre. To make sense of God's choice of words, consider what Tyre was saying about herself:

“O Tyre, you have said,
‘I am perfect in beauty.’ ...
you have said,
‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of the gods,
in the heart of the seas,’ ...
(Ezek 27:3, 28:2, ESV)
​

Given that Tyre had said this about herself, it was only natural for God to take those words and turn them back on the proud city. "Perfect in beauty - you might as well be an angel adorned with jewels! Sitting in the seat of gods - you might as well be walking in Eden itself! Yet your downfall will still be gloated over and mocked by nations."

And this theme is used elsewhere in the prophets. Notice that I have consistently used "Satan" to refer to the personal adversary of the saints. This is deliberate, because "Lucifer" is only used in another passage of Scripture - not Ezekiel, but:

​​​​​​​​“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!

​​​​​​​​You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;
​​​​​​​​I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’

​​​​​​​​But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit.
​​​​​​​​Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms,
​​​​​​​​who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities,
who did not let his prisoners go home?’
(Isa 14:12-17, ESV)
​

Lucifer is a transliteration of the Septuagint translation of "Day Star", literally "Light Bringer". Again, traditional interpretations saw this as referring to Satan - but how can that be? Is Satan a man who made the Earth tremble? Will he be brought down to Sheol, the Grave, the place for dead people?

So you see that these passages cannot support the weight of the interpretation placed on them. Before the creationists here object - yes, I believe in Satan, the personal demonic adversary of the saints, and in demons that do his bidding. And the passages from Revelation are enough to describe the rebellion in heaven that took place when he set his face against God. I just think that these prophetic passages, if they do at all describe Satan, describe him working through the agency of sinful man. As a final piece of evidence for this, consider that the imagery and language used in Revelations 18 is very similar to that used in Ezekiel 27 - and both refer very specifically to human empires, not directly to Satan.

Excellent post Shernen. Regarding Ezekial 28 , though the primary reference is to Tyre it is clear that the words of the prophecy reach behind the petty material reality of a proud people and their fate to the demonic aspiration that may well have inspired and doomed them. This revelation of the demonic has been associated with Satan for good reason. But you are right it has to be read with discrimination cause it is not an exact fit and Faithman has put too much weight on his interpretation of the details of this passage in my view.

 

[mindlight]

Sorry, I won't show you kindness or Christian brotherly love if you find it offensive. I just don't know where to begin. So are you taking over this thread and setting the rules? Where do disagree, how about points 1) through 7). I really dislike super long posts. So if you really want to get into this, lets start with point 1) and not move on till it's been exhausted.

You did not show the kindness of Christian brotherly love however you wish to sell it to yourself with hindsight. However I do not care, I am not here to get into personal fights only to discuss the truth of the things raised.

I think that since my positions are fairly traditional ones on all the points I have raised and are shared by a great many in the church the burden is on you to argue differently. You have strong opinions , but where they deviate from those of the historical church they need to be argued.

 

[mindlight]

Satan was cut down to earth after the fall.

Job 1:6 Now the day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord – and Satan also arrived among them.

Satan still had access to God and had not been cast down as in Rev 12 at the time of Job.

But Satan was perfect when he walked in Eden in the beginning.

In his first interaction with mankind he was clearly already fallen. It is possible that he walked in Eden in a state of perfection before he went bad also. These two facts do not have to contradict each other or imply a second Eden. The Ezekial 28 passage is only a loose fit as Shernen has explained and needs proper interpretation and his actions are those of a deceiver and murderer as already explained in the description of his interaction with Adam and Eve.

When did Satan make the world into a wilderness? When did he overthrow its cities? What prisoners did he take? Who did he murder in the beginning? Murder is not referring to the death of the spirit of Adam and Eve. When Satan tempted them he did so in the guise of a serpent. They did not die physically, but suffered a spiritual separation from God.

But Adam died as a result of his sin physically

Genesis 5:5 The entire lifetime of Adam was 930 years, and then he died.

As a result of the fall instigated by Satan God cursed the ground and this made it difficult to grow things.

Obviously we are talking about two beginnings separated by Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:2 talks about the judged state of earth after Satan's fall, before man was created

(I highly recommend the book In the Beginnings by Steven Dill. It goes into a lot more detail on the Gap Theory which is what I'm talking about here.)

There is nothing obvious about your interpretation. I believe in 2 beginnings however. One when Satan was made good by God and then one where he goes bad. In terms of his relationship with us he has always been bad.

 

[shernren]

Excellent post Shernen. Regarding Ezekial 28 , though the primary reference is to Tyre it is clear that the words of the prophecy reach behind the petty material reality of a proud people and their fate to the demonic aspiration that may well have inspired and doomed them. This revelation of the demonic has been associated with Satan for good reason. But you are right it has to be read with discrimination cause it is not an exact fit and Faithman has put too much weight on his interpretation of the details of this passage in my view.

In both passages there needs to be a lot of discernment about what is being said literally about the foreign nations (e.g. the list of trade goods in Ezekiel 27 is pretty literal), what is being said literally about the demonic powers behind them (e.g. being a fallen angel - it's hard to see what else Satan could be), and most importantly what is being said symbolically about either of them.

I would say that the passages are indeed directed at the demonic forces behind the foreign nations, but only indirectly. There is too much in the text that does not make sense if we try to erase the human leadership of either Tyre or Babylon and assume that everything in it applies simply, directly and literally to Satan.

 

[thegospelisgoodnews]

Interesting topic, I was wondering if you had any scripture to back up the notion that angels are immortal in the sense that (they can't be killed) or if it could possibly be they have the ability to live forever, such as Adam and Eve had in the garden, if they were allowed to eat from the tree of life. It might be that in satans rebellion that he became a murderer,( killing his angelic bretheren) understanding what the rebellion was about makes it ever so clear why satan hates mankind with such a passion

 

[shernren]

We are told in each Gospel that angels are not married or given in marriage (Matt 22:30, Mark 12:25, Luke 20:36), so they probably do not procreate, which probably means they also do not die.

 

[thegospelisgoodnews]

We are told in each Gospel that angels are not married or given in marriage (Matt 22:30, Mark 12:25, Luke 20:36), so they probably do not procreate, which probably means they also do not die.

Rev. 12:7 "And a war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought"..........never heard of a war where people fought and nobody was killed........and then we have Daniel 8:10 speaking of the antichrist "And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them."..........host and stars usually refer to angels so being cast down, may not mean killed but trampled doesn't exactly mean they were in any condition to fight either, .......I can't find the scripture right now but I'll keep searching but I recollect a passage where a reference to stars as angels were destroyed.....I'll keep looking

 

[Faith.Man]

Rev. 12:7 "And a war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought"..........never heard of a war where people fought and nobody was killed........and then we have Daniel 8:10 speaking of the antichrist "And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them."..........host and stars usually refer to angels so being cast down, may not mean killed but trampled doesn't exactly mean they were in any condition to fight either, .......I can't find the scripture right now but I'll keep searching but I recollect a passage where a reference to stars as angels were destroyed.....I'll keep looking

We know Satan was with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden some 6000 years ago. We also know the fate that awaits Satan sometime in the future, i.e. a bottomless pit. We also know some angels are being held in a prison of some sort with no early release based on scriptures in Peter. Angels can be delayed but I don't remember hearing of any dying.

 

[thegospelisgoodnews]

we see in scripture angels have or can take on many appearances, such as looking completely human as with Abraham, although I've often wondered how he new they were angels when he invited them in to eat, since they are a spirit being and we also are aware of Jesus casting these sort of spirit entities from inside people. Is it possible that these evil spirits are the fallen angels, my thoughts have been that if an angel could take on a life form of its own, they would, and these fallen angels who are now confined to being only spirits, (since spirits and souls cannot die) are disembodied fallen angels, just as we continue to live after our bodies die, could it be these are what remain after an angel is somehow disembodied? I don't know I'm only speculating, but it seems as in the days of Noah angels left their heavenly dwelling and took woman as wives and had intercourse with them, so it appears that they can or do look very much like humans, only their offspring being a hybred of sorts turned into giants, which there is evidence of to this day, or could these disembodied evil spirits possibly be from these dead giants or nephalim angels..........who knows!

 

[Faith.Man]

The Tree of Life was located in Eden. Since the Bible mentions Lucifer walking in Eden, he could have eaten of the Tree of Life to become immortal if he wasn't already. Logically, Lucifer, as an angel or in the form of a serpent, could have eaten of the Tree of Life anytime he wanted.