The identity of Lucifer

[steve]

The text says the cherub was on the holy mountain of God Ez 28.14 , so that may be the throne of God or perhaps heaven.

We are never told, in scripture, of any mountains in heaven. However, we are told repeatedly that there is a holy "mountain of God" on earth. It is Mount Horeb (Sinai), as we read in Exodus 3:1; 4:27; 18:5; 24:13; 1 Kings 19:8. This was the location where the tabernacle and its furniture, including the cherubs that "covered" the mercy seat were brought into existence. The most natural identification of "the anointed cherub who covers...on he holy mountain of God" would,if literal, be one of these carved cherubs. However, this is not literal. The king of Tyre was not literally in either Eden or Sinai. It we are going to make sense of Ezekiel at all, his extravagant imagery has to be taken into consideration.

"You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created" (28.15)...and are humans called "perfect"?

The same chapter refers to him as "full wisdom" and "perfect in beauty." However, in the previous chapter, we read, "O Tyre, you have said, 'I am perfect in beauty" (Ezekiel 27:3). In our present chapter, the prince of Tyre is told "Yet you are a man and not a god [apparently not an angel, either], though you set your heart as the heart of a god" (Ezekiel 28:2), and he is said to be "wiser than Daniel" (v.3)—a sarcastic remark, and untrue, whether applied to man or Satan.

The references to "perfection" in our present passage (vv.12, 15) are sarcastic references to Tyre's prideful self-assessment. They are not describing some unnamed angel who is, in fact, all those things Tyre flatters itself as being.

Normally for a human wouldn't we say they were born rather then created...

Psalm 89:47—"For what futility have You created all the children of men?" According to this passages, not only Adam and Eve were "created," but also all of their children. This would apply to the king of Tyre as well as all other people, though I think the reference in Ezekiel 28 is to the creation of the city or kingdom of Tyre.

Certainly other language in this chapter does sound like it's describing a human king.

Yes, because this "king of Tyre" fell in connection with his corruption in the marketplace (Ezekiel 28:16). This works quite well for the actual city of Tyre, but not so much for an angel in a heavenly venue.

This type of writing [where one person is addressed, but another is secretly intended] is found elsewhere like when the voice of the Lord in Isa 6 asked "Whom shall I send, and who shall go for us" fulfilled in Christ or David's eternal kingdom, fulfilled in Christ although his name is never mentioned in the OT texts just as Satan is never mentioned here.

The principal difference between these two cases is that Isaiah is quoted in the New Testament, without which, we would not conclude that it was referring to Christ. Whenever the New Testament identifies a secondary meaning, I have no problem with it. When mere men create secondary meanings, which are not in the text, nor identified in the New Testament, then I regard that secondary meaning a mere tradition of man.

[dizerner]

We are never told, in scripture, of any mountains in heaven. However, we are told repeatedly that there is a holy "mountain of God" on earth.

Heb. 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels

Rev. 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God

My point is that there is no place in scripture which, exegeted in a normal and responsible fashion, will yield any doctrine about Satan having once been a good angel.

I think one can make a case from Scripture that God is not evil, and thus would not create something evil. That yields this doctrine quite naturally.

This works quite well for the actual city of Tyre, but not so much for an angel in a heavenly venue.

But the anointed cherub that covers on the holy mountain of God created in perfection "works quite well for the actual city of Tyre" and "not so much for an angel in heaven"? If you use your logic one way, it seems to me, you can't then just assume your own position is impervious to it.

Yes, because this "king of Tyre" fell in connection with his corruption in the marketplace (Ezekiel 28:16).

The Hebrew root word for "trading" also has the meaning "slandering, tale-bearing" (probably from a more primitive meaning of "spreading things around"). This would be descriptive of Satan (father of lies) and how he deceives others.

[steve]

Heb. 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels

Rev. 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God

We have come to Mount Zion, but that is referring to the church (read the whole passage), not heaven. Zion is never called "the Mountain of God"—though Horeb repeatedly is. Why not go with biblical usage?

John was carried away to a high mountain, but there is no suggestion that he was in heaven. He was in a vision.

I think one can make a case from Scripture that God is not evil, and thus would not create something evil. That yields this doctrine quite naturally.

No one here has suggested that God is evil, so the only scriptural point you present is undisputed, even by those who take a view contrary to yours. This means that it can not stand as a scriptural argument for your position. To say that God could not create something evil as a deduction from the premise that God is not evil (suggesting that God cannot create things different from Himself) is flawed on two counts:

1) Rather than a scriptural argument, it is a philosophical one (and not one that can be affirmed without further documentation);

2) It contradicts God's own statements to the contrary (e.g., Proverbs 16:4).

It is true that God is not evil, and did not create moral "evil" itself. He did, however, create moral agents capable of moral evil. "Evil" is not a created thing, but a quality that inheres in certain actions. There is a possibility that Satan was created to be a tester—extending to man the option of doing good or doing evil. This would not be out of character for God. Using an agent for this kind of testing is right down His alley (see Deut.13:1-3).

But the anointed cherub that covers on the holy mountain of God created in perfection "works quite well for the actual city of Tyre" and "not so much for an angel in heaven"? If you use your logic one way, it seems to me, you can't then just assume your own position is impervious to it.

My argument, like any other, may be susceptible to logical disproof. I am not aware of anyone who has subjected it to that kind of cross-examination. I am relying on the biblical record, rather than upon "logic" (except in the meaning of "common sense" biblical interpretation). It appears to me that your argument, entirely lacking in exegetical support, depend on your own brand of "logic" alone.

I repeat my original question: Why not just let the passage speak for itself. It makes no reference to a devil, to Satan or to Lucifer. What is our warrant for inserting these things? Have you any evidence that Satan was ever an anointed cherub? Reading him into this passage is a gratuitous begging of the question. To make a case, you should be able to demonstrate that it is more scriptural for us to think of as Satan a literal cherub than for Ezekiel to figuratively call the king of Tyre a cherub (and the Assyrian a tree). Figurative language in Ezekiel is the rule, not the exception. References to Satan as a cherub (not assuming this passage to be about him) are non-existent.

[steve7150]

It is true that God is not evil, and did not create evil. Evil is not a created thing, but inheres in certain actions. There is a possibility that Satan was created to be a tester—extending to man the option of doing good or doing evil. This would not be out of character for God. Using an agent for this kind of testing is right down His alley (see Deut.13:1-3).








But an agent is doing the will of his employer not his own will. Jesus called the devil "a murderer from the beginning" John 8.44 and he is called "the evil one" in the Parable of Wheat and Tares, so how could he simply be God's agent? Also although Satan does tempt us , James said God does not, so again how can Satan simply be God's agent?

[dizerner]

I repeat my original question: Why not just let the passage speak for itself. It makes no reference to a devil, to Satan or to Lucifer.

Why can't you see you're just begging the question completely? You define "reading the passage for itself" as the way you read it? You expect me to accept that logic? When I read the passage for itself, it clearly talks about Satan (can you give me another Biblical example of a man being called a cherub or even an angel of any kind?). When you do it, it doesn't. Sorry but that's a Mexican stand-off, and it doesn't make you more right.

Your other answers seem like you wanting to make the passage say what you already believe. You said there is no mountain in heaven in the Bible. I clearly showed there was. You explain it away, by saying "Oh that's not really a mountain, that's not really heaven." Sorry, I can't prove any point when someone is that deceitful with words, and I have to wonder at your integrity (wonder at mine if you like, I don't mind). But when you make words mean not what they say, I think that the truth is in my corner. Here's my interpretation: Cherub means cherub. Mountain means mountain. Heaven means heaven. Apparently that's not "normal' just because you can pull the "figurative expression" card. No one denies there are figurative expressions—but where you draw the line does not make you more or less normal.

blessings

[steve]

dizerner wrote:

Why can't you see you're just begging the question completely? You define "reading the passage for itself" as the way you read it? You expect me to accept that logic? When I read the passage for itself, it clearly talks about Satan (can you give me another Biblical example of a man being called a cherub or even an angel of any kind?). When you do it, it doesn't. Sorry but that's a Mexican stand-off, and it doesn't make you more right.

The reason I speak of letting the passage "speak for itself" is that it plainly refers to the addressee as "the king of Tyre." Why should we doubt what it says? There is no internal or external evidence that Satan was ever known by such a title. This makes it artificial to equate the two.

Another reason that I say the natural reading of the passage leads one to the conclusion that "the king of Tyre" (Ezek.28:12) is, in fact, the actual king of Tyre (as representing the kingdom of Tyre itself) is that this has been the subject matter of chapters 26 and 27, and the same man is addressed (and said to be a "man") in the earlier part of chapter 28 (v.2). Where would an objective reader find a change of addressee in any of this? And why would anyone be emotionally attached to another identification, as you appear to be?

I am not begging any particular question, because I don't have a conclusion I am trying to establish, as you do. I don't know if Satan is a fallen angel, cherub, ape or space alien, because the scriptures are silent on this. I have no dog in the hunt. My entire point is that we don't know. Since you have an assertion to make about the passage, which is not found in the passage itself, the burden of proof is on you to show that you have found something (in this passage) that applies to Satan. That burden has not been adequately met in your arguments above.

The truth is that, if we had never heard that the king of Tyre in this passage is Satan, there is nothing in the passage that would make this identification for us. Even if one were naive enough to take the imagery of Ezekiel's prophecies literally, there is nothing to identify a literal fallen cherub specifically with Satan. There is nothing elsewhere in scripture that hints at such a background for Satan, and nothing in this passage to identify Satan with the cherub in question.

Your other answers seem like you wanting to make the passage say what you already believe.

Actually, the opposite is true. First, because there is no particular view of this passage (nor of the origin of Satan) that I "want to believe." I have nothing at stake, and no firm opinion concerning the origin of Satan. Every time I have discussed the matter, since 1982, I have said that I don't know whether Satan is a fallen angel or not, since the Bible is silent on the subject. He might be—or not. Why in the world would anyone care one way or another?

Ironically, the view I reached on Ezekiel 28 went against what I "wanted" it to teach. In 1982, I was asked to teach a series on spiritual warfare for the first time. I decided to begin with the origin of Satan. I had always believed that Satan was a fallen angel, and had never heard the slightest hint otherwise from any source. It was in preparing that lecture that I found, to my chagrin, that none of the passages I was hoping to use for my teaching were capable of honestly being used to make my point. I fully expected (and wanted) Ezekiel 28 to be a key witness for the defense of my thesis. The passage let me down. There is nothing there to support any view of Satan, without resorting to blatant eisegesis. Since that day, I have never been able to teach what I had formerly thought about that passage.

You said there is no mountain in heaven in the Bible. I clearly showed there were. You explain it away, by saying "Oh that's not really a mountain, that's not really heaven." Sorry, I can't win with when someone is that deceitful with words, and I have to wonder at your integrity (wonder at mine if you like, I don't mind).

You clearly showed that there are mountains in heaven? Is there a post from you that I missed? In a recent post, you cited two passages about mountains, without finding anything about mountains in heaven. Where is this "clear" demonstration you say you gave?

I said that Mount Zion is the church, not heaven (do you think Hebrews 12:22-23 can be exegeted to yield a different conclusion?). If you think it ambiguous enough to possibly refer to heaven as well as the church, this would be your opinion merely, and hardly reduces my statement to being "deceitful with words." Can't a man be thought to be honest while taking the words at face value? The writer of Hebrews tells his readers that they have already come to Mount Zion. Was he writing to living people in the church, or was he writing to the deceased believers in heaven?

Why would John's being taken, in a vision, to "a high mountain" to view something speak to you of John (or the mountain) being in heaven? When Satan took Jesus (probably also in a vision) to "a high mountain" to view something (Matthew 4:8), would you say that Satan took Jesus to heaven? How would you justify the conclusion in the one case and not in the other?

But when you make words mean not what they say, I think that the truth is in my corner.

It seems that this is the very point I have been addressing. I guess we will have to disagree for the time being.

[steve7150]

We are never told, in scripture, of any mountains in heaven. However, we are told repeatedly that there is a holy "mountain of God" on earth. It is Mount Horeb (Sinai), as we read in Exodus 3:1; 4:27; 18:5; 24:13; 1 Kings 19:8. This was the location where the tabernacle and its furniture, including the cherubs that "covered" the mercy seat were brought into existence.








It sounds like "holy mountain" also is referring to the kingdom of God in Isa 56.7, in the context of bringing the gentiles into the kingdom. "Even them I bring them to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my Alter. For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations."

[steve]

Yes, I fully agree.
By the way, I somehow missed your earlier post, where you wrote;

But an agent is doing the will of his employer not his own will. Jesus called the devil "a murderer from the beginning" John 8.44 and he is called "the evil one" in the Parable of Wheat and Tares, so how could he simply be God's agent? Also although Satan does tempt us , James said God does not, so again how can Satan simply be God's agent?

A faithful agent is in fact doing his master's will, not his own, but there is no reason to assume that Satan has remained faithful to his appointed task. If a man is appointed to proctor the exams for a professor's classes, and if that man does what he is assigned to do, then he is acting as a true agent of the one who engaged his services. On the other hand, if the proctor decides to take over the whole class, abusing and seducing the students, he is not doing what he was hired to do, and must bear the full responsibility for his actions.

If God created Satan to be the tester, but he went beyond his assignment and began to do things that were evil, then he deserves his fate in the lake of fire, and God is not the one responsible for the evils done. Of course, one might hold God responsible for allowing Satan to continue in his course of evil, when He could as easily destroy him and be done with it. But if we go down that road, by the same reasoning, God is responsible for every evil act of men and women, since He could as easily prevent them, but does not do so.

God has the right to permit any degree of misbehavior or criminal action done by free agents to go uninterrupted, so long as it may fit into His overall purposes to let them continue. This might be comparable to the CIA monitoring the criminal activities of an individual terrorist, without immediate intervention, because leaving him at liberty may lead them to the lair of the terrorist mastermind. That is, the allowing of certain crimes to continue without interruption, in order to gain a greater advantage, does not necessarily place the responsibility for the man's crimes on the shoulders of the CIA.

At least, that is how I see it.

In any case, there are numerous scriptures that refer to God making use of sinful free agents to bring about some purpose of His own, whether it is Joseph's brothers (Gen.50:20), or the false prophet by whom God tests the loyalty of Israel (Deut.13:1-3), or the Assyrians whom God exploits to right the wrongs in Middle Eastern injustice (Isaiah 10:5-7, 13-15), or Judas, Herod, Pilate, and the Sanhedrin, whose evil plots God allowed and to which He delivered Christ over to be crucified (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28).

P.S.
I know that Paidion will disagree with most of what I have just said, but I am going to request that he not jump in with his denials of what scripture says. If Paidion or anyone else disagrees, and wishes to honor the whole counsel of the scripture by exegeting the passages differently than I have, this is permitted. What I don't want is to renew with Paidion the oft-repeated debate about whether the whole scripture is the Word of God (my view), or whether the majority of the scriptures contain the misguided speculations and sinful opinions of Moses, David, the Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles (his position). There is no future here for that debate. It has taken place multiple times in the past. Anyone is welcome to read the former threads that cover that issue ad nauseum.

[Paidion]

I am going to request that [Paidion] not jump in with his denials of what scripture says.

No need to be concerned. I have no intention of either denying any part of the Bible or nauseating you.

However, I do think it would be helpful to us all, if you would explain your view (or at least offer some hints) that God allows Satan's continuing attacks, and man's hurtful acts, such as the torture and murder of many people, in order to fulfill a deeper purpose. Please tell us what these deeper purposes might be, and why the omnipotent God is unable to bring about these deeper purposes without causing all of this suffering. Is there any Biblical passage—any part at all, that supports this view?

There is only one verse that I have ever heard used to support the view that God causes or at least allows evil in order to fulfill a deeper purpose, and that is the case of Joseph's brothers selling him as a slave to the Midianites. That one verse records Joseph's words to his brothers:

But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. (Genesis 50:20 NKJV)

Clearly, according to this translation, Joseph's words imply that God allowed Joseph to be sold to the Midianites, and from there into Egypt, in order that through Joseph, many people would be fed during the famine. However, the Septuagint translation which the New Testament writers used when they quoted from the Hebrew writings, seems to have a different implication:

You took counsel against me for evil, but God took counsel for me for good, that the matter might be as it is to-day, and much people might be fed.

The sentence now seems to say that God USED the fact that Joseph was sold as a slave, and took counsel for him, perhaps by giving him the ability to interpret dreams and become a ruler in Egypt in order to bring food to many people in their need.

Paul indicated that he and the other apostles were accused of teaching others to do evil in order to bring about good, and that it would be just to condemn people who taught that.

And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"? —as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. (Rom 3:8 NKJV)

So if it was a slander to suggest that the apostles taught, "Let us do evil that good may come," surely our just and righteous God would not work evil (or "allow" evil) with the purpose of bringing about some good, unless it were absolutely necessary. And if it were necessary, that seems to bring into question God's omnipotence.

I have no problem with affirming that God can and does bring good out of evil. My problem is with the view that God causes or allows evil in order to bring about good.

[robbyyoung]

...and why the omnipotent God is unable to bring about these deeper purposes without causing all of this suffering. Is there any Biblical passage—any part at all, that supports this view?

Hi Paidion,

(The bold, underline emphasis is mine).

I would like to jump-in here and show, again, God does cause suffering and in many forms. However, this fact doesn't make Him evil. You want passages, well here they are:

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil(calamity): I the LORD do all these things."

Amos 3:6 "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"

Exodus 4:11 "And the Lord said to him, "Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?"

Isaiah 53:10 "Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." We notice here that it was the will of God the Father to crush him (Jesus).

Acts 2:23 Peter is preaching, "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men."

How about Paul, 2 Corinthians 12, he has been given “a thorn in the flesh.” Whatever this is, the context implies that God sent this “messenger of Satan” to afflict Paul. Paul asks three times for it to leave, but it is God’s will for it to remain! In fact, God says to Paul in 12:9, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore, God was in complete control of that situation. So it seems that God caused Paul’s suffering.

I could go on and on, but this should suffice to say the least. Lastly, you've asked the WHY question concerning God's motives in all this suffering. Well He gave Paul the answer and therefore it should be our answer-- "my power is made perfect in weakness."

God bless.