Lucifer?

[Tinsley]

Is. 14:12
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!

Ez 28:13,14
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

It is said that these verses talk about Lucifer who turned into Satan. He is symbolized by the kings of Babylon and Tyrus. How do we come to the conclusion that he's symbolized by them here? Where is the connection with him found? Maybe I am overlooking it, can you help me out?

 

[OntheDL]

It is said that these verses talk about Lucifer who turned into Satan. He is symbolized by the kings of Babylon and Tyrus. How do we come to the conclusion that he's symbolized by them here? Where is the connection with him found? Maybe I am overlooking it, can you help me out?

Are you asking about the connection between Lucifer and the king of Tyrus?

The name Lucifer is Greek, meaning light bearer. That was Lucifer's job in heaven. He was the covering Cherub who reflected the glory (light) of God.

The king of Tyrus was a type of Satan/Lucifer. Notice vs 13, you were in the Garden of Eden. Was the King of Tyrus there? Lucifer was, in the form of a serpent. And vs 14 and 16 call him the covering Cherub.

Hope this answers your question...

 

[Tinsley]

Are you asking about the connection between Lucifer and the king of Tyrus?

The king of Tyrus was a type of Satan/Lucifer. Notice vs 13, you were in the Garden of Eden. Was the King of Tyrus there? Lucifer was, in the form of a serpent. And vs 14 and 16 call him the covering Cherub.

Thanks So the thing that connects Satan to these kings would be that they were both around in the beginning?

The name Lucifer is Greek, meaning light bearer. That was Lucifer's job in heaven. He was the covering Cherub who reflected the glory (light) of God.

Where can I find that in Ez 28 Satan is this cherub?

If I wanted to show someone who had never heard of this before (verses meaning both Satan and kings) how would I go about explaining? Are there any more verses connecting them?

 

[tnp2140]

Notice vs 13, you were in the Garden of Eden. Was the King of Tyrus there? Lucifer was, in the form of a serpent.

Reading the context a little deeper you can actually see that Lucifer was in Eden BEFORE his downfall, as in, in his angelic form prior to his casting out of heaven.

 

[OntheDL]

Reading the context a little deeper you can actually see that Lucifer was in Eden BEFORE his downfall, as in, in his angelic form prior to his casting out of heaven.

Thanks, I was simply stating the obvious, not trying to introduce more than what was asked.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hi Tinsley and tnp2140,

In your last post tnp2140 you said:

Reading the context a little deeper you can actually see that Lucifer was in Eden BEFORE his downfall, as in, in his angelic form prior to his casting out of heaven.

Perhaps you are taking some things for granted or overlooking others.

The first point that must be remembered is that Lucifer had supernatural powers before he fell, but he also has those same supernatural powers today. It was through the use of those supernatural powers that he appeared to Eve in the form of a serpent in the Garden of Eden. Satan could just as easily appear to any of us today as that same surpent. However that seems extreamly unlikely since he is preparing for his greatest impersonation yet. He will attempt to appear to the unsuspecting as Jesus Christ.

The second point that must be considered is that if Lucifer were not in a fallen state when he tempted Eve, the temptation would have not happened. It was after his fall from heaven as a result of his hatred for his Creator that he attempted to destroy God's creation. The fall of Adam and Eve were intended to show all of God's created beings that even if they were created in the exact likeness of the Creator it was impossible to live up to God's rules therefore God was unfair and a lier.

When we understand these points we can also clearly see why Satan tempted Eve in the first place.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Who is Lucifer (Satan Misidentified)

It may come as a surprise to many Christians that to the Jews and New Testament Christians there was no such person as Lucifer. To many Christians Lucifer is equivalent to Satan, the devil. How could it be that the Jews knew nothing of Lucifer, we find it clearly printed in our King James Bible in Isaiah 14. But then again it is not found in most contempary language versions. With the curiously notable exception of the New King James Version.

As way of introduction here is what The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia has to say about Lucifer:
Lucifer, the rendering of the Vulgate for the Hebrew phrase helal ("day-star") in Isa. 14:12; the verse is rendered in the Authorized Version as: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" The passage in question is a song of derision over the downfall of a Babylonian king; the figure used may trace back to a Hebrew or Babylonian astral myth like the Greek story of Phaethon, in which the day-star is cast out of heaven because of presumption. The term Lucifer is never used in Jewish legend; but Christian writers identified Lucifer with Satan who, according to the gospels (Luke 10:18), fell from heaven like lighting; accordingly, Lucifer became one of the terms for the devil in Christian theology. (Page 229)

Most Christians do realize that Jerome used the word in his Latin Vulgate Bible prepared sometime toward the latter half of the 4th century. But unfortunately that's about the sum total of their knowledge of the history of the word. Because tradition has for so long said that Lucifer is Satan, they do not question the word or concept any further. But where did this tradition come from, and why considering the many references to Satan in the New Testament did not the concept of Lucifer ever come up.

It is not to Jerome, however that we owe the teaching of Lucifer but to that most creative of theologians, Origen. (185-254 A.D.) It was he who first made the new connection between Satan and Lucifer. He brought together diverse Old Testament references from Job, Ezekiel and Isaiah. Arguing that Lucifer, the Prince of Tyre, and the Leviathan of Job, were all identical with the Devil. He used these texts to emphasize Satan's pride and his fall from heaven.

With the aid of Tertullian (155-After 220 A.D.) who taught that before Satan's fall he was not only an angel but the foremost angel. It is mainly to these three theologians, Origen, Tertullian, and Jerome that we derive the Lucifer myth. It should also be noted that the Lucifer myth can also be found in the Psedepigrapha in the book The Secrets of Enoch. But since it is currently felt that The Secrets of Enoch is likely a seventh century document (at least in its present form), therefor it is probably not the source of this Lucifer myth. ( I will for now refer to the idea that Lucifer is Satan as the Lucifer myth, hopefully by the end of the article you will agree that it is indeed a myth.)

An interesting side note is that Origen and later Augustine believed that the Devil's envy arose from pride. Thus the Devil envied God. Tertullian on the other hand believed that the Devil was jealous of humans. Believing that the Devil was furious that God had created humans in the divine image and had given them governance over the world. Needless to say Tertullian view lost out to that of Origen.

Origen's use of Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28:12-19 seem to be the two popular references used when people speak about Lucifer. Origen's third reference to Leviathan in Job 41:1-2 seems to have fallen into disrepute, possibly because it does not provide much information to add to the myth.

When read in context it becomes clear that these verses are not at all referring to Satan. They are about Babylon and Tyre. As is clearly shown when one reads the prophecy. For example:

Isa 14:4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended! (NIV)
Ezek 28:2 "Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "`In the pride of your heart you say, "I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas." But you are a man and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god. (NIV)

One of the problems some people have when it comes to these verses is that they have a hard time distinguishing poetic language from literal language. So when they see something like:
Ezek 28:14-15 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. (NIV)

They jump from the subject previously identified (that being Tyre) to a literalistic who was a guardian cherub. They then think the answer must be Satan. But then when their literalistic approach falls apart in the next verse they return to the original subject matter (Tyre).

Ezek 28:16 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, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. (NIV)
It no longer works to well to say that Satan was expelled from heaven because of his widespread trade and violence. When you use context as your primary guide to interpreting the Bible it is impossible to make these verses refer to Satan. Also there is no Biblical statements which identify Satan as a guradian cherub, that is produced when the reader inserts their preconcieved idea into the verse.

When we read the chapters around the references used by those who support the Lucifer myth, we see that in both Isaiah and Ezekiel they are prophecies dealing with other nations. Many with equally poetic language. For instance:

Ezek 31:2-9 "Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes: "'Who can be compared with you in majesty? 3 Consider Assyria, once a cedar in Lebanon, with beautiful branches overshadowing the forest; it towered on high, its top above the thick foliage...8 The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor could the pine trees equal its boughs, nor could the plane trees compare with its branches-- no tree in the garden of God could match its beauty. 9 I made it beautiful with abundant branches, the envy of all the trees of Eden in the garden of God. (NIV)

Now maybe one could read these verses and say that again we have a reference to Satan. But that kind of creative eisegesis would just lead to more problems, such as who are these which envy the mighty tree in Eden. And of course there would be that pesky problem of what are the verses talking about in context.
Now when the above information is presented someone will usually say "yes the prophecy is about Babylon or Tyre but it is also about the power which is behind these kingdoms, and that is Satan. But by what method of exegesis can you arrive at that conclusion. Whenever the Bible speaks about wicked nations is it also referring to something about Satan's rise and fall. Should we ignore all we know about Biblical interpretation so that we can keep a myth about Lucifer that no one prior to the second century had any idea of. A myth which no New Testament author even vaguely referred too.

Some supporters of the Lucifer myth point to Isaiah 14:13-14:
You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." (NIV)

They would suggest that this is referencing Satan since these ambitions exceed the reach of any human ruler. But of course they exceed the reach of Satan also. Further, delusions of grandeur are not uncommon in earthly rulers, and those that are farther away from God are more likely to think they have god like power (consider the Egyptian Pharaohs). Especially when you consider how distorted their view of God was. How could Satan who no doubt saw some of God's creative action think that he, Satan could do the same thing let alone usurp God's power. To think that he, Satan could be like God, he would have to think that he could do the same things as God. It would not take long for Satan to discover that he did not have any creative power like God had. And still after all this we must remember that these and other verses are filled with poetic exaggerations.
None of this is to say that Satan does not exist, for I am sure he does. It is merely to point out that some of the things we think we know about Satan are not necessarily true. Namely the references to Lucifer and the Prince of Tyre. We know that he is a liar and a murder from the beginning (what beginning is uncertain) John 8:44. And we know that he was kicked out of heaven Rev 12:8-10.

Does it matter if we think Lucifer is Satan, maybe and maybe not. It could be possible that Satan fell in a similar way as described in Isaiah 14, or the astral myths of ancient religions. But then again it could be totally different. The question is really how do we interpret the Bible. Does context provide the key or can we place esoteric meanings wherever we want. Are there hidden meanings behind straight forward texts or not. Is it possible that Isaiah and Ezekiel wrote passages about Satan but did not let anyone else in the Jewish religion know that they were referring to Satan. Or maybe they wrote them but didn't understand that they were referring to Satan. Leaving them misunderstood until Origen and Tertullian discovered the hidden truth. How do you interpret the Bible?

Sources:
Satan the Early Christian Tradition Jeffrey Burton Russell Cornell University Press Ithaca 1991
The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia
(See also the Expositer's Bible Commentary notes and Addendum which follows)

There is a good number of Bible Commentary quotes at the end of the article on the above link.

 

[tnp2140]

Hi Tinsley and tnp2140,

In your last post tnp2140 you said:Perhaps you are taking some things for granted or overlooking others.

The first point that must be remembered is that Lucifer had supernatural powers before he fell, but he also has those same supernatural powers today. It was through the use of those supernatural powers that he appeared to Eve in the form of a serpent in the Garden of Eden. Satan could just as easily appear to any of us today as that same surpent. However that seems extreamly unlikely since he is preparing for his greatest impersonation yet. He will attempt to appear to the unsuspecting as Jesus Christ.

The second point that must be considered is that if Lucifer were not in a fallen state when he tempted Eve, the temptation would have not happened. It was after his fall from heaven as a result of his hatred for his Creator that he attempted to destroy God's creation. The fall of Adam and Eve were intended to show all of God's created beings that even if they were created in the exact likeness of the Creator it was impossible to live up to God's rules therefore God was unfair and a lier.

When we understand these points we can also clearly see why Satan tempted Eve in the first place.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

Oh, of course. I completely agree with what you said. You misunderstood what my statement meant. I never mentioned the temptation of Satan to Eve at all. I was just making a statement that through the context of that verse we can see that Satan was in Eden before his downfall. Meaning that prior to his downfall, Satan was able to physically be in Eden and see the beauty of creation for himself. His downfall didn't take place until some time after.

We read in the great controversy that part of Satan's jelousy towards Christ was his inability to take part in the heavenly counsel for the act of creation which took place with God the Father and God the Son ONLY. The verse in Ezekiel 28 takes this truth even farther and we can take an educated guess that while strolling through Eden, while still in his angelic and unfallen form, Lucifer was able to see creation in its fullest form and glory which in turn would fuel his jelousy towards Christ. See what I'm saying now? Satan's being thrown to Earth and his tempting of Eve is not directly connected to this verse.