The identity of Lucifer

[steve]

So, if your reading and thinking of [Isaiah 14"12, 16] that Lucifer is a man, king of Babylon it will appear that there is no Lucifer, a devil and all that men know about him is a traditional belief, a myth. Is that what you mean?

Well, think about it for yourself. Don't worry about what I think. You can see the text: The only person ever referred to as "Lucifer" in scripture is said to be a human king of Babylon.

That means that there is no scripture identifying Lucifer with Satan (or with anyone else, other than the king of Babylon).

Than means that those who make that identification do not have scriptural support for doing so.

That means it is a tradition that does not have scriptural support.

Of course, that does not say anything against the devil's existence, or any other things that the Bible says about the devil. It just means that Isaiah 14 is not one of the passages that talks about Satan and that Lucifer is not one of Satan's names, in scripture. Of course, you will not find that many respected teachers saying this, so you are welcome to go along with them, if it seems best. As you do, though, don't forget that there is no scripture affirming what they are saying about Lucifer or about the meaning of Isaiah 14.

In Ezekiel 28:13-14 If the king of Tyre who was said to be in the Garden of Eden and describe as an anointed “cherub”
according to your words that the king of Tyre said to be in the Garden of Eden and anointed “cherub” are only figure of speech or an allegory, how do you explain that the King of Tyre to be in Eden and what does it means that he was anointed “cherub” according to the Scripture?

Many of the images used by the prophets are strange. Isaiah likened one man to a "ball" and other to a "peg" (Isa.22). Prophets likened people to trees and to dry grass. Jesus even referred (without explanation) to one king as a "female fox." In the prophetic writings, Christ is Himself likened to a stone, a shoot out of dry ground, a lamb, a lion, letters of the alphabet (alpha and omega), a shepherd, and many other images—none of which are intended literally. We can often find reasonable meanings to the metaphors, but our recognition of them as metaphors need not await our ability to explain the reasons for their use.

My guess is that Ezekiel uses the Garden of Eden as we might use the term "Paradise." Such a term can be used non-literally to convey the idea of a perfect environment. A cherub is a divinely-appointed angelic guardian (having four faces—one of a lion, one of an ox, one of an eagle and one of a man). A king, at his best, is a guardian to his people. The king of Tyre is described in such terms.

[verbatim]

Okay, Perhaps I’m tend to agree with your opinion for being base on Scripture but reading it the way you explain your arguments it did not add spiritual growth in my learning for being all literally interpreted.

However, thanks for the time you spent in answering my opinion.

Best regards.

[Singalphile]

Quick note:

Steve,

You've had a couple of calls lately (e.g., 10/16/2015 hour long show about 24:00) regarding "lucifer". You've given the impression that it's is a Hebrew word, I think. I'm sure you know, though may have forgotten, that "lucifer" is a Latin word. The Hebrew (which I don't know at all) is something like helel ben-shachar.

Just a reminder, b/c I happened to be here at the pc while listening to Friday's show.

[steve]

Hi Singalphile,

Yes, Lucifer comes from the Vulgate, and is Latin. The Latin Vulgate was often consulted, I think, in the creation of the Textus Receptus, used by the KJV translators. When I say that Lucifer should have been translated, like the rest of the words in the passage, into English in the English Bibles, I should have said, the Hebrew word should never have been replaced, in the English Bible, with the Latin word.

[dizerner]

I know this is an old post so I hesitated to post, but it would add a point of view.

No, the king of Tyre was not in the Garden of Eden. It is a figure of speech—no more literal than that the Assyrian was there (Ezek.31:3, 8-9).

To be fair, if indictments against Babylon and Tyre include a denunciation of the demonic powers behind them, we could actually apply the same principle to the passage denouncing Assyria, such that then, the tree in the Garden of Eden representing Assyria would also in reality be representing Satan. Thus when we read "'All the birds of the heavens nested in its boughs, (Eze 31:6 NAS)" and see many other places where birds are symbolic of spirits of angels/demons, we again get a picture of Satan being the most exalted being in heaven (who could theoretically, be both an archangel and a cherub). So that when we see "And all the trees of Eden, which were in the garden of God, were jealous of it. (Eze 31:9 NAS)" this could be part of him sweeping 1/3 of the stars out of heaven, and it ends with "According to its wickedness I have driven it away. (Eze 31:11 NAS)" which we could parallel with Satan's expulsion described elsewhere. I'm not saying I think you'll accept it, but it's a consistent hermeneutic.

[steve7150]

My guess is that Ezekiel uses the Garden of Eden as we might use the term "Paradise." Such a term can be used non-literally to convey the idea of a perfect environment. A cherub is a divinely-appointed angelic guardian (having four faces—one of a lion, one of an ox, one of an eagle and one of a man). A king, at his best, is a guardian to his people. The king of Tyre is described in such terms.











On the other hand if Eden is literally referred to by Ezekiel then Satan seems to be in mind.

[steve]

Steve7150,

You wrote:

On the other hand if Eden is literally referred to by Ezekiel then Satan seems to be in mind.

Are you saying the cherub in Eden—mentioned in Gen.3:24—could have been the devil? It is far more reasonable to identify the serpent with Satan, isn't it? In Ezekiel 28:13-14, there are two features borrowed from the early chapters of Genesis: the Garden of Eden and the cherub that God placed there to guard the way to the tree of life. One might reasonably take both of them literally, or take both of them figuratively. If we take the Garden of Eden literally (here, and in Ezekiel 31), then it would seem necessary to take the cherub (Ezekiel 28:14) and the tree (Ezekiel 31:9) as literal as well.

This would be following a literal hermeneutic. This become more difficult, however, when we read that the Assyrian was not only a tree in Eden, but also in Lebanon (31:3). Does this tree move about, or must we choose between Eden and Lebanon as the "literal" location of the tree? If both are taken figuratively, then all problems vanish.

If our hermeneutic is going to allow us to take Lebanon, or the tree, or the cherub as non-literal, we have surrendered any credibility in claiming that the Garden is spoken of literally in these passages. So, if the Garden and the Cherub are literal, then the king of Tyre was the cherub in the Garden. The serpent in the Garden (who is reasonably identified with Satan) does not enter the picture in Ezekiel at all.

dizerner,

You wrote;

To be fair, if indictments against Babylon and Tyre include a denunciation of the demonic powers behind them, we could actually apply the same principle to the passage denouncing Assyria, such that then, the tree in the Garden of Eden representing Assyria would also in reality be representing Satan. Thus when we read "'All the birds of the heavens nested in its boughs, (Eze 31:6 NAS)" and see many other places where birds are symbolic of spirits of angels/demons, we again get a picture of Satan being the most exalted being in heaven (who could theoretically, be both an archangel and a cherub). So that when we see "And all the trees of Eden, which were in the garden of God, were jealous of it. (Eze 31:9 NAS)" this could be part of him sweeping 1/3 of the stars out of heaven, and it ends with "According to its wickedness I have driven it away. (Eze 31:11 NAS)" which we could parallel with Satan's expulsion described elsewhere. I'm not saying I think you'll accept it, but it's a consistent hermeneutic.

A consistent hermeneutic does not always mean that we are using good exegesis. A very flawed hermeneutic may be pressed consistently, resulting in flawed exegesis. Proper exegesis draws the meaning from a passage by consideration of language, grammar, context, flow, etc. That all of the presuppositions you listed above could indeed be brought to the passage is without controversy. Whether the passage justifies any of them is another question.

On your view, the garden of Eden was literally infested with Satan in his many disguises. He was the serpent (we all agree), he was also the cherub (some here may agree), and, additionally, he was one of the trees (few would agree). If we accept such a strange suggestion, are we to see Satan changing identities periodically—from serpent to tree to cherub and back again? This theory is so complex, speculative and unlikely that I can't imagine why one would choose it over the simplest and most straight-forward interpretation of the relevant passages.

There is a lot of "could" in your former post. I am not denying that many wild theories, for which no scriptural support exists, "could" be true. When it comes to mysterious things about which the scriptures are silent, I am willing to acknowledge that any number of hidden meanings to texts "could" be true. The "sons of God," in the Old Testament, for example, "could" refer to interplanetary, little, green men. No one "could" prove this wrong, but what is there to support it?

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. That's all. By employing eisegesis, any number of imaginative meanings can be said to inhere in almost any passage of scripture. But why? When the plain meaning of the passage makes perfectly good sense—e.g., that the "king of Babylon" and the "king of Tyre" refer either to those two kings, or figuratively, to the two kingdoms of Babylon and Tyre—what is gained by seeking hidden meanings behind them. Those who like to do that kind of thing with scripture are at liberty to do so, but I am also at liberty to point out that this is precisely what they are doing.

[Paidion]

Hi Steve,

Yes, Lucifer comes from the Vulgate, and is Latin. The Latin Vulgate was often consulted, I think, in the creation of the Textus Receptus, used by the KJV translators. When I say that Lucifer should have been translated, like the rest of the words in the passage, into English in the English Bibles, I should have said, the Hebrew word should never have been replaced, in the English Bible, with the Latin word.

The Hebrew word is "heylel" is said to mean "day star." The Greek Septuagint renders the word as "εωσφορος" (eōsophoros). This word occurs in six other places in the Septuagint and is translated both as "morning star" and "morning". All of the word except the first letter is identical to the Greek word "φωσφορος" (phōsophoros) from which we get the English word "phosphorus." This word means "light-bearer". Phosphorus in some form has always been used for matches (which are truly light-bearers). Interestingly enough, matches were also called "lucifers" as in the WW2 Song:

Pack up your troubles in the old kit bag and smile, smile, smile.
If you've a lucifer to light your fag, smile, boys, that's the style!
What's the use of worrying? It never was worth while.
Soooo... pack up your troubles in the old kit bag and smile, smile, smile.

In those days the word "fag" referred to a cigarette, not a homosexual.

Although the words of Isaiah 14 were addressed to the king of Babylon, many people (including some of the early Christian writers) think the words figuratively refer to Satan. The description certainly seems to apply to the latter.

[dizerner]

There is a lot of "could" in your former post.

I never meant to imply the probability of the could. You had used that particular passage as some kind of counter to the idea that the others could be figurative. I merely pointed out for you to do that was not a logical argument; I was not speaking of the merits of either side. I can if you like: for me your so-called "normal" reading does not match up with figurative descriptions of human beings even by a stretch of the imagination. I also see a lot of cross-referencing that supports the opposing theory. So I can't see it being pure speculation out of thin air. bless

[steve7150]

on the other hand if Eden is literally referred to by Ezekiel then Satan seems to be in mind.

steve replied:

Are you saying the cherub in Eden—mentioned in Gen.3:24—could have been the devil? It is far more reasonable to identify the serpent with Satan, isn't it? In Ezekiel 28:13-14, there are two features borrowed from the early chapters of Genesis: the Garden of Eden and the cherub that God placed there to guard the way to the tree of life. One might reasonably take both of them literally, or take both of them figuratively. If we take the Garden of Eden literally (here, and in Ezekiel 31), then it would seem necessary to take the cherub (Ezekiel 28:14) and the tree (Ezekiel 31:9) as literal as well.

This would be following a literal hermeneutic. This become more difficult, however, when we read that the Assyrian was not only a tree in Eden, but also in Lebanon (31:3). Does this tree move about, or must we choose between Eden and Lebanon as the "literal" location of the tree? If both are taken figuratively, then all problems vanish.

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. So no I'm not saying the cherub in Eden was Satan, although the serpent certainly was. Some of the language sounds like it's referring to something greater then just a human entity. "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created" (28.15). Normally for a human wouldn't we say they were born rather then created and are humans called "perfect"? Certainly other language in this chapter does sound like it's describing a human king. Chap 31 references to the Assyrian are clearly symbolic but that's a different subject in a different chapter.
This type of writing 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.