The identity of Lucifer

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by Paidion » Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:58 pm

Dizerner, you may also wish to view the 1944 film "The Battle of China." The URL follows this description taken from youtube:

This motion picture film explores Japanese aggression. In Reel 1, Japanese planes bomb Shanghai; citizens flee. Describes Chinese development of the compass, printing, astronomy, gunpowder, and porcelain. The reel shows views of the Gobi Desert, sampans, and types of architecture and statuary. Japanese artillery fires and cavalry advances. The reel also describes Japanese plans for world conquest; contrasts Japanese unity with Chinese disunity. Footage also shows Emperor Hirohito.

Reel 2 shows Sun Yat-sen and uprisings against the Manchu dynasty. Students go abroad. Hospitals, highways, schools, and factories are constructed. Children play at school. Emperor Hirohito reviews Japanese troops; tanks roll down a street. The reel shows a Japanese munitions factory, a Japanese fleet at sea, troops marching, the Army occupying Manchuria, views of the League of Nations as the action is condemned, the Great Wall of China, the puppet premier Pu-Yi, Japanese attacking Chinese at Marco Polo Bridge in 1937, and Chiang Kai-shek.

Reel 3 shows street and harbor scenes in Shanghai, the bombing and naval bombardment of the city, street fighting, and the city's capture by Japanese units. Japanese troops advance toward Nanking. The gunboat Panay is bombed in the Yangtze. The reel also shows fighting in and around Nanking.

In Reel 4, the battle continues. Footage describes Japanese atrocities during the rape of Nanking and shows dead and injured civilians. Chinese demonstrate against Japan. Chiang Kai-shek speaks. Hordes of Chinese emigrate to the West carrying their belongings with them.

Reel 5 shows the establishment of the new Chinese capitol at Chungking. Air raid shelters are dug; the city is bombed. The reel shows an underground factory, fires being fought, recruits for the Chinese Army, the "Flying Tigers" taking off, and Japanese units occupying the Chinese coast.

In Reel 6, coolies repair and expand the Burma Road by hand; trucks move over it. Dikes on the Yellow River are blown up to stem a Japanese offensive on Chengchow. Guerrillas ambush a Japanese patrol. Japanese planes attack Pearl Harbor. Footage shows the Japanese high command.

In Reel 7, Japanese units advance against Changsha, their supply lines are cut forcing their withdrawal, and the Chinese infantry advances. Footage shows Generals Douglas MacArthur and Joseph Stilwell. Madame Chiang Kai-shek addresses the U.S. Congress. The Ledo Road is constructed; transport planes fly over "the Hump." The "Flying Tigers" bomb Japanese airfields in China.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIkrgOmsbVY
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by steve7150 » Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:09 am

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.








OK then it sounds like Satan is a fallen angel or fallen something. I am wondering where Paul got the idea that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Is it reasonable to think he got the thought from Eze 28? If not where?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by steve » Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:46 am

I am not sure what connection Paul would see between a "guardian cherub" and an "angel of light"—especially in the absence of any biblical association of the former with Satan. A chrub seems to have the specific role of a guardian (not a communicator), while the word "angel" means a "messenger"—placing emphasis on the role of communicating. The two are never linked in scripture.

I think that Paul is simply saying that Satan disguises himself as a messenger (Gr. aggelos) of light to compare this with the fact that his agents also disguise themselves as true Christian preachers (2 Cor.11:14-15). The specific disguise that Paul had in mind might very well be a reference to the serpent in the garden. This was, no doubt, a beautiful creature, who claimed to be offering enlightenment ("your eyes will be opened" Gen.3:5).

dizerner

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by dizerner » Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:34 pm

Is it reasonable to think he got the thought from Eze 28? If not where?
Satan is called the father of lies and the great deceiver by the Apostle John. It seems to be a common NT understanding. I think it's apparent Eze. 28 would support that view in the light of the Hebrew meaning of "trafficking" alternately meaning "spreading lies." But even stronger is 1 Tim 3:6 "and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil." An original sin of the devil that included becoming conceited and incurring condemnation.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by steve » Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:57 pm

Satan is called the father of lies and the great deceiver by the Apostle John. It seems to be a common NT understanding. I think it's apparent Eze. 28 would support that view in the light of the Hebrew meaning of "trafficking" alternately meaning "spreading lies."
To say that the devil is a liar, and that the king of Tyre is also a liar (if we choose your translation) falls very short of providing an identification of one with the other. A great many liars are out there (Psalm 116:11). We would be leaping to very inappropriate conclusions if we were to say that every liar mentioned in scripture is another reference to Satan.
But even stronger is 1 Tim 3:6 "and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil." An original sin of the devil that included becoming conceited and incurring condemnation.
Like many others, you have become the victim of translator/paraphrasers. There is no words corresponding to "incurred by" in the Greek text. The last phrase in the verse should read "the condemnation of the devil." It parallels the last phrase in the next verse: "the snare of the devil." The genetive may speak of: a) that which belongs to the devil [that is, his own personal condemnation, and the snare into which he has fallen], or b) that which comes from the devil [by which he condemns and ensnares others]. The two possibilities provide very different suggested meanings to the verses.

In the first instance (v.6), either meaning would make sense, but in the second instance (v.7), only the second mean can naturally be considered. Since the repetition of the phrase "of the devil" in the two successive verses, is apparently deliberate, the likelihood is that both would have the same sense. If both are taken in the first sense, then the condemnation and the snare would both be something to which the devil succumbed. On the other hand, if both are taken in the second sense, the condemnation and the snare would refer to what the devil brings upon the persons in question

On balance, the second option seems less problematic, since we do not know what snare the devil may be said to have been ensnared by (or who may have laid the snare that caught him!), while the snares laid by the devil are numerous and well-known.

What I am suggesting is that "the condemnation of the devil" more probably means the condemnation brought upon the believer from the devil. However, even if we took it the other way, to say that someone will suffer "the same condemnation as" that which the devil will experience [adding the words "same" and "as" to the text, as the NKJV wrongfully does], even this would be saying little other than what we are similarly told in Matthew 25:41, where sinners are cast into the fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels. That is, if people experience the same condemnation as the devil experiences, then we only know that all end up in the same fire. There is no suggestion, in any case, that the devil's sin resembled the sins of the parties who share his condemnation. The shared experience is the condemnation, not a particular type of sin.

In summary, the passage probably does not speak of the devil's experience or personal history at all, and if it does, it only refers to his future condemnation—not his specific past sin. Thus, there is no direct reference to Satan being prideful in this passage (or any other).

dizerner

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by dizerner » Thu Nov 12, 2015 9:57 pm

Steve thanks for your balanced input. It occurs to me I should be more humble and respectful of others' diligent labors in the Word and their attempt to be as unbiased as possible. I've had a bit of youthful zeal in my positions and where that has bordered on—a novice puffed up with pride fittingly enough—I can only apologize.

First in defense of Eze. 28 I would point out that I have Biblical precedence for God addressing a man with the name of the demon behind him. Christ said to Peter "Get behind me Satan!" However if you a priori assume God could never speak symbolically like this I suppose no argument in the world could confuse you otherwise. I can't see logically how calling a man a cherub is any more or less normal than using a condemnation of a man to condemn the demon behind him. Neither one is straight-forward in my view—so I can't justify myself seeing one or other as more "normal." Perhaps that's just me, though.

In your view of 1 Timothy 3:6, despite the lengthened and reasoned response, I have to respectfully protest at a few things. First off, I don't think you can make the argument it is an exact parallel; are the human-sided sins exact parallel? Is "a novice being puffed up with pride" the same sin restated as "having a good testimony to those outside"? In this case I think "the judgment of the devil" and the "snare of the devil" can't really necessarily be argued to have that kind of parallel in meaning either. If anything the parallel would be that the two secondary descriptions would both be parallel with the first; that is the "human's" sins are parallel with the "devil's" sins. That is taking it, then, that the snare the devil fell into was him not maintaining an honorable testimony among the angels. To support your view that the condemnation is something the devil is doing (which I can't find any major English translation supporting except the NLT and NET, both poor translations) I think you would need to show me a verse where the devil is said to actually judge Christians (and not just accuse them). Notice that in Rev. 12:10, Zech 3:1, Job 2:6 Satan is not allowed to judge, but only accuse. Yet here a strong word for judgment is used (krima).

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by steve » Fri Nov 13, 2015 12:55 am

dizerner,

I guess the question boils down to interpretive instincts. I do not see your arguments as likely, and you don't see mine as likely.

Stalemate.

One thing I would make as clear as possible, however, is this: If no one had ever put it into our heads that the devil is a fallen angel, we would never have been able to draw that idea from any of the texts that are being discussed. Once the view is implanted in the brain, many passages can be made to appear supportive. I know. I used all those same passages when that idea was implanted in my brain, too. It was not until I actually asked myself, "but where is the place in the Bible that actually presents the view that I am stretching all of these passages to justify?" that I was able to see that the emperor was in no condition to go out in public.

The passage about falling into "the condemnation of the devil," does not say anything about falling into the same sin as the devil. People guilty of different sins may be subject to the same condemnation. If we had never been told that the devil sinned through pride, we would never have thought that 1 Timothy 3:6 was teaching anything about the devil being proud. It does not address the devil's sin at all—only his condemnation.

If we had not been told that Ezekiel 28 was about Satan, nothing in the chapter would have given us such an impression. Even if we took "cherub" in the chapter to mean a literal cherub, there would be nothing to link this cherub to Satan, who is never called a cherub in scripture. If we decided that there must have been a cherub (otherwise unmentioned) who went bad, we still would not know if this might be Satan, or a demon, or some creature long since banished from the universe. The passage would give us no clue—nor would any other passage.

I have no agenda to prove any particular views about Satan. I know what he is, even if I don't need to know what he may once have been. My agenda is to get Christians into the habit of exegeting scripture, rather than assuming in advance what a scripture will be found to mean, and then finding innovative ways to argue for those meanings. Too many of our doctrinal notions have arisen and are sustained by the latter practice. If, as Jesus said, the truth will make us free, then maybe we should have a more disinterested attitude in examining and discovering what the scripture really does and does not teach as truth.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by steve7150 » Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:21 am

One thing I would make as clear as possible, however, is this: If no one had ever put it into our heads that the devil is a fallen angel, we would never have been able to draw that idea from any of the texts that are being discussed. Once the view is implanted in the brain, many passages can be made to appear supportive. I know. I used all those same passages when that idea was implanted in my brain, too. It was not until I actually asked myself, "but where is the place in the Bible that actually presents the view that I am stretching all of these passages to justify?" that I was able to see that the emperor was in no condition to go out in public.





I think a lot of things have been put into our heads but eventually we try to assimilate the information and make sense of it. We all have different degrees of speculation that we are willing to accept because the bible seems to be silent or unclear about the source of evil in our world. Evil is clearly a huge topic so that's why it is difficult to read about it with a disinterested attitude. One way or the other however Satan does appear to be a fallen entity, even if he was a tester that chose to go outside the limits that God gave him. So we understand that God allows mankind a lot of free will because it originates from his love, but why allow Satan free will when he gets destroyed in the lake of fire anyway. We have little tidbits of clues like in the parable of the Wheat & Tares which says if the tares are destroyed during this age it would damage the wheat, but we are never told why?

dizerner

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by dizerner » Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:57 am

One way or the other however Satan does appear to be a fallen entity, even if he was a tester that chose to go outside the limits that God gave him.
Exactly, steve7150. To believe God is good is to believe Satan is fallen; one needn't go to elaborate doctrinal yoga to show that is a difficult position.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The identity of Lucifer

Post by steve » Fri Nov 13, 2015 12:26 pm

We have little tidbits of clues like in the parable of the Wheat & Tares which says if the tares are destroyed during this age it would damage the wheat, but we are never told why?
As I have understood this, the question is whether God's servants should attempt to forcibly remove the non-Christians ("tares") from the world ("the field is the world" — Matt.13:38). This would suggest efforts to create a uniformly Christian society, other than the church, which thrives alongside the secular society throughout the present age. This will be the task of angels, not men. Any premature attempt to eliminate unbelievers (like that attempted through the Inquisitions) risks the misidentification of real believers (or future believers) as non-believers.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”