Satan and his demons are real beings/entities (with personalities) not abstract evil within unregenerate man

[rwb]

Is Lucifer a name for Satan?​

The name 'Lucifer' only appears in Isaiah 14:12. The Hebrew word is 'helel', meaning 'the shining one'. In the Septuagint (LXX), the translation of the OT into Greek, it was translated 'heosphoros', meaning 'the light-bearer'. The first time it was translated as 'Lucifer' was in the Latin Vulgate Bible (AD 382-404), “Quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer, qui mane oriebaris?”. In Latin, 'Lucifer' was the name of the planet Venus, the morning star, from a word meaning 'bright light' or 'light-bearer'. Venus is the brightest planet in the sky (brighter than any of the stars), and is still known as the morning star.

In English translations, Wyclif was the first to translate Isaiah 14:12 as 'Lucifer', presumably because he translated from the Latin Vulgate, “A! Lucifer, that risidist eerli, hou feldist thou doun fro heuene;”. (In more modern English, it would read as follows: Ah! Lucifer, that rises early, how you have fallen down from heaven). This translation was followed by the KJV, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”, and more recently by the NKJV, “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”

Other translations translate it as 'day star', or 'bright morning star'. The RV: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of the morning!”, the RSV: "How you are fallen from heaven O Day Star, son of Dawn!”, the NEB: “How you have fallen from heaven, bright morning star”, the NRSV: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!”, the NIV: "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!”, and the GNB: "King of Babylonia, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven”. Luther translated it into German, “du schöner Morgenstern”, meaning, “you beautiful morning star”.

Isaiah uses it as a name for the king of Babylon who had set himself among the gods. Babylonian worship was strongly based on astrology. Both the Babylonians and the Assyrians personified the morning star (Venus) as Ishtar. The message of Isaiah is that none of the Babylonian gods are able to save the king, as all gods are powerless before the One True God. In the Ancient Near East it was common practice for kings to believe they were incarnations of gods. So, when a king was defeated in battle and his city was captured, it was a sign that their god had also been defeated by the more powerful god of the victorious enemy. The enemy would normally tear down images of the god, and take them captive, placing them in the temple of their own god to demonstrate its superior power. This would explain why the Philistines placed the captured ark of the covenant in the temple of their god Dagon (1 Sam 5:1-2). Jesus calls himself “the bright morning star” in Rev 22:16, and is referred to as “the morning star” in 2 Peter 1:19.

Isaiah 14:12-20​

Isaiah chapters 13 to 23 contain prophecies against the pagan nations. Chapters 13 and 14 are prophecies specifically against the pride of Babylon, made 150 years before the rise of the empire. The most significant king of Babylon was Nebuchadnezzar. The kings who followed him were insignificant, with there only being five kings in a period of 23 years. The prophecies in Is 13-14 fit the character of the Babylonian empire, specifically king Nebuchadnezzar, perfectly.

Chapter 14:2-23 is a taunt against the king of Babylon, which Israel should take up after they have been restored to the land and have rest from their pain and turmoil (14:1-3). There is peace on earth, but Sheol (the land of the dead) is stirred up (14:9) as the dead world leaders are astonished when they greet the king of Babylon, saying that he has become as weak as they. His pomp has been brought down to Sheol. The passage often claimed to be a description of the fall of Satan is contained in this taunt. The one who laid the nations low (v12) will also be brought down to Sheol (v15), where the dead will ponder over him, asking if this is the man who made the earth tremble (v16).

The king of Babylon was the one who, “laid the nations low” (14:12). This is precisely what Nebuchadnezzar did when he expanded his empire by conquering the known world. Isaiah said that he said in his heart that, “I will ascend to heaven” (14:13). This is translated as the “tops of the clouds” in the NIV. This phrase does not necessarily speak about Satan exalting himself to heaven, but is often used poetically to describe excessive pride, as seen in the following examples: Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar: "Your greatness has increased and reaches to heaven." (Dan 4:22). Jesus asked Capernaum, "Will you be exalted to heaven?" (Mt 11:23).

There are five statements of the king exalting himself, each saying, “I will ...” (14:13-14). These also fit Nebuchadnezzar’s character perfectly, so it does not have to be describing an angelic being. Isaiah says that he is “brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit” (14:15). Sheol was the place of the dead in the OT. This verse describes Nebuchadnezzar’s death and the surprise of the dead kings in Sheol who greeted him, rather than Satan being brought down to earth. The same picture is given in the previous oracle, when the dead kings express surprise of Nebuchadnezzar becoming as weak as them (14:9-11).

He is described as, “he man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms?” (14:16). Nebuchadnezzar certainly did this through military conquest. It is difficult to see how Satan could be described as a man who shook kingdoms. He also, “made the world a desert and overthrew its cities” (14:17). Famine and starvation accompanied the invading armies of Nebuchadnezzar, when many cities through the Middle East, including Jerusalem, were overthrown. He was also the one, “who would not let his prisoners go home” (14:17). This fits the policy of Nebuchadnezzar who deported captured peoples and made them settle in camps outside the city of Babylon (Ezek 1:1).

continued

 

[rwb]

Ezekiel 28:11-19​

Ezekiel chapters 25 to 32 are also prophecies against pagan nations. Chapters 26 to 28 are specifically against Tyre, a major city, important port and wealthy commercial centre at that time, under its ruler Ethbaal III (c.590 - c.573). Ezekiel described Tyre’s trading with other nations (27:12-25), and gave dramatic oracles about the ships and sailors of Tarshish wailing over the fall of Tyre (27:25-36).

The king of Tyre is described as, “the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” (28:12). Many say only Satan could be this, not a king or a city. However, elsewhere in these same oracles against Tyre, Tyre claimed this for itself: "O Tyre, you have said, 'I am perfect in beauty'" (27:3), “Your heart is proud and you have said, ‘I am a god’” (28:2). The prince of Tyre's wisdom, trade and great wealth are described in (28:4-5). The prince of Tyre compared his mind with the mind of a god (28:6). The Hebrew here is 'elohim', which can either mean 'God', or pagan gods (plural), so translations vary. Ezekiel also prophesies that “the most terrible of the nations shall draw their swords against the beauty of your splendour” (28:7).

He was, “in Eden, the garden of God” (28:13). This probably does not refer to Satan's presence in the garden of Eden in the account of the fall in Genesis 3, as Eden is often used poetically in the scriptures to depict a fertile place of great plenty. Elsewhere in Ezekiel, Egypt was likened to a cedar of Lebanon: “the cedars in the garden of God could not rival it ... the envy of all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God” (Ezek 31:8-9). Ezekiel also predicts that when Israel is restored, people will say, “This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden.” (Ezek 36:35). Joel said this about the locust swarm, “Before them the land is like the garden of Eden and after them a desolate wilderness” (Joel 2:3), and in Genesis, “Lot ... saw that the plain of Jordan was well watered like the garden of the Lord” (Gen 13:10).

The description continues by saying that, “every precious stone was your covering” (28:13). This does not have to be a description of Satan, as throughout history kings have worn richly decorated garments. There is also a similarity with the list of precious stones on the breastplate of the high priest (Ex 28:17ff).

God says that, “With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you” (28:14). The NRSV has a footnote saying that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. The KJV has: “Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so”. A cherub (plural - cherubim) is one of the four living creatures described in Ezekiel chapter 1 and Revelation chapter 4, whose job it is to guard the throne of God and to worship God. They are associated with God's glory and judgement. Other than this passage in the KJV, Satan is never described as a cherub in the Bible, neither are the archangels Michael or Gabriel, so this verse cannot be used to claim that Satan was once an angelic being.

The king of Tyre's judgement and fall were due to the abundance of its trade filling them with violence (28:16). Tyre was renowned around the ancient Near East as a important port and commercial centre.

One common argument used to support the view that Satan is a fallen angel says that Ezekiel 28 distinguishes between the prince of Tyre (v2), who they say was the physical ruler of Tyre, and the king of Tyre (v12), who they say is Satan. However, a study of Ezekiel's use of the words 'king' and 'prince' shows that they are used interchangeably. For example, David is called king in 37:29, but prince in 34:24 and 37:25. Jehoiakim is called king in 1:2, but chapter 19 is a lamentation for the princes of Israel, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, all of whom were kings. In 7:27 king and prince are used in the parallelism: "the king shall mourn, the prince shall be wrapped in despair".

What do we know about the origin of Satan?​

A simple answer is that we don't know, and probably are not meant to know. God does not reveal everything, and it is important not to speculate on what God chooses not to reveal to us, or to make additions to the Biblical revelation. We have to be satisfied with what information we have. In the end, does it matter? We know Satan exists and that he is a deceiver and liar; that is enough. We also know he is defeated by Jesus' death on the cross and his resurrection (Col 2:15, 1 John 3:8b). We also can be certain of his destiny of eternal torment in the lake of fire and sulphur (Rev 20:10). I'm sure that Satan enjoys people being taught about his glorious past, so that people think that he was some glamorous figure, rather than the liar, deceiver, adversary, accuser, condemner, that he really is. The Bible has nothing positive to say about him at all.

There are only two clues about his origin in the Bible. Jesus told the Pharisees, “You are from your father the devil ... He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth” (Jn 8:44). 'From the beginning' probably means for all the time he has existed. Also in John’s first letter, “Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning” (1 John 3:8). These passages would indicate that the devil has always been a sinner and a murderer, and that he has no great and beautiful past.

Even though it causes philosophical problems, on a practical level there is very little difference between something that was created evil and something that was created good and became evil. The significant matter is that Satan exists and is evil now. Again, this is a question that is not answered in the Bible. God either created Satan as an adversary, or Satan later became an adversary, the end result is the same. One of the reasons for Satan's existence is so that humans as God's created beings should endure some testing. It is never God's will that we sin, but it is God's will that we are tested and tempted. Consistently through the New Testament it is taught that testing is part of the Christian walk (eg. James 1:2-4), so that we learn patience, our faith is strengthened, our love for God proven. Our love for God has to be a positive response and choice. In order to choose to love God, it is necessary to have opposite influence to choose to reject.

continued

 

[rwb]

What the commentaries and Bible handbooks say​

I have yet to find a commentary which, by looking at the whole book and the relevant passages in context, teaches with any degree of certainty that either Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28 describe the fall of Satan. However, there are plenty of topical books on spiritual warfare that quote these passages, saying that they definitely describe Satan's fall.

In the Keil-Delitzsch commentary, the fall of Satan mentioned and rejected in Is 14, and not mentioned in Ezek 28. Matthew Henry makes no mention of Satan in either Is 14, or Ezek 28. In the Expositors Bible Commentary, Geoffrey Grogan writing on Isaiah 14 says it points to Satan indirectly as working through world rulers, but not describing the fall of Satan. Also in the Expositors Bible Commentary, Ralph Alexander writing on Ezekiel says it is difficult to understand this passage as describing the fall of Satan. He says that Satan was the force behind the King of Tyre (as he is behind all anti-Christian governments), but that there is no scriptural backing for using this as a description of Satan's fall.

In an older edition of the one volume New Bible Commentary, Derek Kidner sees the similarity between Isaiah 14 and the pride and downfall of Satan in Lk 10:18, but sees the biblical descriptions of Satan's fall as the break-up and destruction of his kingdom, not his fall from grace. In the same volume, when commenting on Ezekiel chapter 28, G.R. Beasley-Murray makes no mention of Satan. In the one volume International Bible Commentary, David Payne writing on Isaiah says that it is inappropriate that Lucifer is a name for Satan, and F.F. Bruce writing on Ezekiel says that this passage contributed some details to the traditional picture of the fall of Satan, but makes no other comment.

In his commentary on Isaiah, Calvin makes some strong statements. He says that saying Lucifer refers to Satan, “has arisen out of ignorance, as the context clearly must be understood in reference to the King of Babylon.” He continues by saying, "But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the prophet (Isaiah) gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables."

In his three volume commentary on Isaiah, Edward Young dismisses any idea of Satan being mentioned in Is 14. He sees this passage describing the downfall and removal of a tyrannical king (Babylon), rather than Satan falling from heaven.

John N. Oswalt commenting on Isaiah 14 mentions that certain of the church fathers taught that this passage taught the fall of Satan, but that the reformers dismissed this when the book is studied in context. He says this passage describes human pride, rather than angelic pride, and says that the day star (Lucifer) is the planet Venus.

Barry Webb tries to seek a balance when he wrote this about Is 14:3-23: “The cosmic sweep of the poem led some early interpreters, and many since then, to see here a symbolic description of the fall of Satan. But if this reads too much into the text (and I think it does), it is equally misguided to reduce it to a description of the fall of a particular earthly monarch. The King of Babylon here, like Babylon itself in ch 13, is a representative figure, the embodiment of that worldly arrogance that defies God and tramples on others in its lust for power.”

Alec Motyer notes that in chapter 14, Isaiah is alluding to a Canaanite myth of Helal or Ishtar who attempted a heavenly coup but failed. However, he makes no mention of this being a description of Satan.

In his two volume commentary on Ezekiel, Daniel I. Block makes this comment: “Since the time of Origen many conservative Christians in particular have equated the king of Tyre with Lucifer (= Satan) ... Accordingly, Ezekiel’s prophecy is thought to recount the circumstances of the original fall of Satan, who had previously been one of the cherubim attending the throne of God. But those who interpret the oracle historically reject this approach. Ezekiel’s prophecy is indeed couched in extravagant terms, but the primary referent within the context is clearly the human king of Tyre. In any case, for this prophet and his professional colleagues, as well as for the Hebrew historiographic narrators, human rebellion is problem enough. A detailed treatment of the origin of the demonic is not to be expected from the Old Testament.” In a footnote he also gives a list of books which use this passage in Ezekiel to teach the fall of Satan.

In his commentary on Ezekiel 28, John Taylor makes no mention of Satan. In both Halley’s Bible handbook, and the Lion handbook of the Bible, no mention of Satan is made when comment is made on either Isaiah 14, or Ezekiel 28. It is only the Hodder Bible Handbook, which is published as Unger’s Bible Handbook in USA, which says that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 give revelation of the fall of Satan, but no justification is given for this opinion.

conclusion below

 

[rwb]

Conclusions​

Taking these two passages in their literary and historical contexts, it is a very questionable interpretation to claim they are describing the fall of Satan. This teaching is very popular, but was rejected by the Reformers and by most evangelical scholars in modern commentaries. The Bible appears to give little or no information about the origin of Satan or of evil, but very clearly describes the defeat of Satan through the death and resurrection of Jesus, and predicts his final judgement with great certainty.

It is not necessary for teaching on spiritual warfare to include an explanation of the origin of Satan. Spiritual warfare is real, and it is important to develop a biblical understanding of it. The existence of evil beings is assumed in the Bible, and their work consistently mentioned, particularly in the New Testament. Christians are given the assurance of Jesus’ victory over the powers of darkness, even though they are still active in this world until the time of the final judgement.

Note​

Bible quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), unless otherwise noted.

Abbreviations
GNB Good News Bible
KJV King James Version
NEB New English Bible
NIV New International Version
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
RSV Revised Standard Version
RV Revised Version

Bibliography
Alexander, D & P. The Lion Handbook to the Bible. Lion Tring 1973.
Bruce, F.F., ed. New International Bible Commentary. IVP Leicester1986.
Gaebelein, F., ed. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations and Ezekiel. Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Zondervan Grand Rapids 1986.
Halley, H.H. Halley’s Bible Handbook. Zondervan Grand Rapids 1965.
Keil-Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Hendrickson 1989.
Motyer, A. Isaiah. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. IVP Leicester 1999.
Oswalt, J.N. The Book of Isaiah, chapters 1-39. The International Commentary on the Old Testament. Eerdmans Grand Rapids 1986.
Taylor, J.B. Ezekiel. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. IVP Leicester 1969.
Unger, M.F. & Larson, G.N. The Hodder Bible Handbook. Hodder 1984.
Webb, B. The Message of Isaiah. The Bible Speaks Today. IVP Leicester 1996.
Wheaton, D.H, Lucifer, in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (volume 2). IVP Leicester 1980.
Young, E. The Book of Isaiah (3 volumes). Eerdmans Grand Rapids 1992.

Web-sites
Calvin's commentary on Isaiah Work info: Commentary on Isaiah - Volume 1 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Latin Vulgate Translation Vulgate: Isaiah: Isaiah Chapter 14 | Internet Sacred Text Archive
Matthew Henry's commentary Work info: Commentary on the Whole Bible Volume IV (Isaiah to Malachi) - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Milton. Paradise Lost Paradise Lost and Regained: Paradise Lost: Book 1 | Internet Sacred Text Archive
Origen. De Principis Philip Schaff: ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Origen. Against Celsus Philip Schaff: ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Tertullian. Against Marcion Philip Schaff: ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Wyclif’s translation http://sbible.boom.ru/wyc/isa14.htm

 

[rwb]

To set the record straight, I bowed out of this discussion not because I did not have an answer from Scripture for what I believe regarding Satan, but because this post became so hostile toward fellow Christians, and I too engaged in a manner that did not bring glory and honor to God.

 

[JLB]

What the commentaries and Bible handbooks say​

I have yet to find a commentary which, by looking at the whole book and the relevant passages in context, teaches with any degree of certainty that either Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28 describe the fall of Satan. However, there are plenty of topical books on spiritual warfare that quote these passages, saying that they definitely describe Satan's fall.

In the Keil-Delitzsch commentary, the fall of Satan mentioned and rejected in Is 14, and not mentioned in Ezek 28. Matthew Henry makes no mention of Satan in either Is 14, or Ezek 28. In the Expositors Bible Commentary, Geoffrey Grogan writing on Isaiah 14 says it points to Satan indirectly as working through world rulers, but not describing the fall of Satan. Also in the Expositors Bible Commentary, Ralph Alexander writing on Ezekiel says it is difficult to understand this passage as describing the fall of Satan. He says that Satan was the force behind the King of Tyre (as he is behind all anti-Christian governments), but that there is no scriptural backing for using this as a description of Satan's fall.

In an older edition of the one volume New Bible Commentary, Derek Kidner sees the similarity between Isaiah 14 and the pride and downfall of Satan in Lk 10:18, but sees the biblical descriptions of Satan's fall as the break-up and destruction of his kingdom, not his fall from grace. In the same volume, when commenting on Ezekiel chapter 28, G.R. Beasley-Murray makes no mention of Satan. In the one volume International Bible Commentary, David Payne writing on Isaiah says that it is inappropriate that Lucifer is a name for Satan, and F.F. Bruce writing on Ezekiel says that this passage contributed some details to the traditional picture of the fall of Satan, but makes no other comment.

In his commentary on Isaiah, Calvin makes some strong statements. He says that saying Lucifer refers to Satan, “has arisen out of ignorance, as the context clearly must be understood in reference to the King of Babylon.” He continues by saying, "But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the prophet (Isaiah) gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables."

In his three volume commentary on Isaiah, Edward Young dismisses any idea of Satan being mentioned in Is 14. He sees this passage describing the downfall and removal of a tyrannical king (Babylon), rather than Satan falling from heaven.

John N. Oswalt commenting on Isaiah 14 mentions that certain of the church fathers taught that this passage taught the fall of Satan, but that the reformers dismissed this when the book is studied in context. He says this passage describes human pride, rather than angelic pride, and says that the day star (Lucifer) is the planet Venus.

Barry Webb tries to seek a balance when he wrote this about Is 14:3-23: “The cosmic sweep of the poem led some early interpreters, and many since then, to see here a symbolic description of the fall of Satan. But if this reads too much into the text (and I think it does), it is equally misguided to reduce it to a description of the fall of a particular earthly monarch. The King of Babylon here, like Babylon itself in ch 13, is a representative figure, the embodiment of that worldly arrogance that defies God and tramples on others in its lust for power.”

Alec Motyer notes that in chapter 14, Isaiah is alluding to a Canaanite myth of Helal or Ishtar who attempted a heavenly coup but failed. However, he makes no mention of this being a description of Satan.

In his two volume commentary on Ezekiel, Daniel I. Block makes this comment: “Since the time of Origen many conservative Christians in particular have equated the king of Tyre with Lucifer (= Satan) ... Accordingly, Ezekiel’s prophecy is thought to recount the circumstances of the original fall of Satan, who had previously been one of the cherubim attending the throne of God. But those who interpret the oracle historically reject this approach. Ezekiel’s prophecy is indeed couched in extravagant terms, but the primary referent within the context is clearly the human king of Tyre. In any case, for this prophet and his professional colleagues, as well as for the Hebrew historiographic narrators, human rebellion is problem enough. A detailed treatment of the origin of the demonic is not to be expected from the Old Testament.” In a footnote he also gives a list of books which use this passage in Ezekiel to teach the fall of Satan.

In his commentary on Ezekiel 28, John Taylor makes no mention of Satan. In both Halley’s Bible handbook, and the Lion handbook of the Bible, no mention of Satan is made when comment is made on either Isaiah 14, or Ezekiel 28. It is only the Hodder Bible Handbook, which is published as Unger’s Bible Handbook in USA, which says that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 give revelation of the fall of Satan, but no justification is given for this opinion.

conclusion below

Moreover the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD:
“You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
Was prepared for you on the day you were created.
“You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.
Ezekiel 28:11-15

• You were in Eden, the garden of God;

• You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you.

This is referring to an angel, an anointed cherub, who was in heaven with God on His holy mountain, until iniquity was found in him.



We also know that Satan caused one third of the angels to be removed from heaven with him.


And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 12:3-9

 

[Davidpt]

To set the record straight, I bowed out of this discussion not because I did not have an answer from Scripture for what I believe regarding Satan, but because this post became so hostile toward fellow Christians, and I too engaged in a manner that did not bring glory and honor to God.

I haven't been following this thread myself. So I have no clue what all the hostility you mentioned was in regard to, unless it was towards insisting satan was not a created being. I can see someone taking issue with that, since I certainly take issue with it myself. We have to keep in mind that Jesus was tempted of the devil, thus conversing back and forth with him, and that Jesus wasn't conversing with Himself. I view it as heresy, that satan is not a created being. I don't know how else to view it since it is absurd that satan isn't a real being that had a beginning. One can't have a beginning without being created first. But that doesn't mean the moment he was created he was a murderer. It makes zero sense to be a murderer before there are even any humans first. After all, it is humans that can die not angels. Therefore, the beginning meant is meaning the beginning of mankind not the beginning of satan.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female

 

[rwb]

I haven't been following this thread myself. So I have no clue what all the hostility you mentioned was in regard to, unless it was towards insisting satan was not a created being. I can see someone taking issue with that, since I certainly take issue with it myself. We have to keep in mind that Jesus was tempted of the devil, thus conversing back and forth with him, and that Jesus wasn't conversing with Himself. I view it as heresy, that satan is not a created being. I don't know how else to view it since it is absurd that satan isn't a real being that had a beginning. One can't have a beginning without being created first. But that doesn't mean the moment he was created he was a murderer. It makes zero sense to be a murderer before there are even any humans first. After all, it is humans that can die not angels. Therefore, the beginning meant is meaning the beginning of mankind not the beginning of satan.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female

The following is the reason this post became so hostile.

What the Scripture nowhere support is that the Devil is a supernatural being that was once a good angel in Heaven, but was cast out of heaven and now (sorta) omnipresent where he is able to inhabit reptiles and billions of unsaved people on Earth simultaneously...

Look ... Christ talked to and rebuked so many evil spirits in men when He came to Israel to redeem them, all symbolizing not that there was a bunch of supernatural beings that had taken over their bodies making these people insane, physically ill or they were physically necromancers, but that in their spirit they were evil.

Truth is that I've come to believe lately is that God did not create Satan at all. Not as evil, nor as angel of God who disobeyed God and became an evil spirit.

I do NOT deny Satan is spirit, not a spirit, but spirit.
The only personhood that Satan can and does achieve is when he takes up residence within the hearts and minds of humans.

The serpent — also called Satan or the Devil — represents the spirit of man, the spirit of disobedience.

what is called “Satan” in each person is their own rebellious spirit — the nature inherited from Adam’s fall. It is not “one great red dragon” controlling everyone, but the collective manifestation of human depravity.

WPM replied: This is more in line with modern liberal Atheistic Psychology thinking today or established Christadelphianism than biblical Christianity.

The modern psychological model

The modern psychological model views the symptoms described in biblical narratives—such as speaking in multiple voices, exhibiting different personalities, and displaying extreme behavioral changes—as consistent with dissociative identity disorder rather than literal demonic possession. This interpretation is not universally accepted, as some theological perspectives maintain that demon possession is a real spiritual phenomenon distinct from psychological conditions.

Christadelphians

Christadelphians do not believe in a supernatural, personal devil, but rather view the "devil" and "Satan" as personifications of sin, evil human nature, and temptation. They interpret these terms to represent the sinful inclinations within individuals, or sometimes a group of people or a political power acting as an opponent. According to this belief, sin originates from within a person's own desires, and the "devil" is not an external being with magical powers, but a metaphorical representation of the struggle against God's will. -end quote-



The labeling of other Christians is never well received. When reading reply #21 and beyond you can see this poster as well as my posts do not deny the existence of this evil spirit, called Satan or Devil. Truth is this false accusation is leveled in an attempt to discredit, and to argue Satan was created a good angel of God and became this evil spirit Satan.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't deny the existence of the spirit being, Satan! What I've argued against is the belief that Satan is a fallen angel!

Did someone say otherwise? I am aware of your particular argument and we have discussed it. But, your buddy TribulationSigns often denies that the spirit being named Satan exists (he denies the existence of angels and spirit beings altogether) and you have liked several of his posts where he has indicated as such. So, it's understandable if someone mistakenly thought you believed the same if they didn't read all of your posts on the subject.

Tertullian (160 - 220) was the first of the church fathers who taught that Satan was a fallen angel, by quoting Ezekiel 28 (Against Marcion 2:10).

The Fall of Satan - Does the Bible teach it?​

Julian Spriggs M.A.​

The purpose of this article is to study the two passages in the Old Testament that are frequently used to teach that Satan is a fallen angel. The intention is to consider the two passages, setting them in their literary and historical context, to see whether this is a legitimate interpretation.

The two passages are: 1) Isaiah 14:12-15, a taunt against the king of Babylon. 2) Ezekiel 28:11-19, a lament about the king of Tyre. Because Satan is not specifically named in either passage, we should be cautious about making any claim that they are describing Satan. This would be an interpretation of the text, which is open to different opinions, rather then a direct observation. It is also important to note that both of these passages are written in poetry, using the vivid picture language and imagery typically employed by the OT prophets.

The popular teaching on the fall of Satan​

The popular teaching about the fall of Satan normally follows this, or a similar, outline: Satan was once a beautiful angel, the greatest of all created beings. He rebelled against God and became the devil before man was created. Originally there were three archangels, Michael, Gabriel and Lucifer; each ruled one third of the angels. Michael and Gabriel remained faithful to God, but Satan rebelled, taking one third of the angels with him, who became the demonic forces.

Some teach that Satan was the heavenly choirmaster, with musical instruments built into his body. This is supported from Ezekiel 28:13: "the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created". However this translation is only found in the King James Version (KJV). The NKJV is very similar. The NRSV renders it: "and worked in gold were your settings and your engravings", with a foot-note indicating that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. The NIV is as follows: “Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.”, also with a footnote saying that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.

Some also teach that there was a population of humans on the earth before Adam, known as the pre-adamic race, which Lucifer was given authority over. They rebelled and were judged by a flood, and Lucifer became Satan. After judgement, the earth was remade as described in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. This is part of the 'gap theory', which is an attempt to combine the Genesis account with the theory of evolution by saying there was a very long gap in time between the first two verses in Genesis.

Two other passages of scripture are used to support this teaching. The first is Luke 10:18, He (Jesus) said to them (the seventy sent out into the harvest-field), "I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning”. However when studied in context, this does not refer to a fall of Satan before the beginning of time, but to the effect the mission of the seventy had on the powers of darkness, when they said, “Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!” (Lk 10:17).

The second is Revelation 12:1-12, in which John sees a vision of the great red dragon, who is identified as, “that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan” (v9). Michael and his angels fought against Satan, the deceiver of the whole world, who was thrown down to earth and his angels with him. The timing of this dramatic event is indicated in verse 10, when the loud voice in heaven says: "now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Messiah, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down". This did not happen at the beginning of time, but at the cross, where Jesus brought salvation, demonstrated the power of the kingdom and defeated the enemy. Jesus made a similar statement shortly before his death, “Now is the judgement of the world; now the ruler of this world (Satan) be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth (on the cross), will draw all people to myself” (John 12:31).
It is questionable whether either the Luke 10, or the Revelation 12 passage describe a fall of Satan from heaven before the beginning of time, but more apparent that both describe the defeat of Satan achieved by the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.

There are references to fallen angels in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4, but no indication is given that Satan was associated with them or that he fell at the same time. Both these passages are more probably referring to the rather mysterious account of the time when the sons of God lusted after the daughters of men (Gen 6:1-4). Both Peter and Jude use this event as a warning about false teachers. There are no other passages in the Bible which give a clear and unambiguous teaching about the origin of Satan, or of a fall of Satan from a place of glory.

continued

Why would you acknowledge the existence of fallen angels, but deny that Satan could be one himself? As for Ezekiel 28, this is clearly not a description of a human being...

Ezekiel 28:11 Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created. 14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. 15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you.

This is describing an "anointed cherub", which is an angel. It indicates that this being was created perfect in his ways and was "full of wisdom and perfect in beauty". But then "iniquity was found" in him, which shows that he was fallen from his former status as "the anointed cherub who covers". And it says he was "in Eden, the garden of God". That's where scripture says the serpent, Satan, was. So, it makes a lot of sense that people associate this passage with Satan.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I haven't been following this thread myself. So I have no clue what all the hostility you mentioned was in regard to, unless it was towards insisting satan was not a created being. I can see someone taking issue with that, since I certainly take issue with it myself.

Yes, that is what several of us took issue with in this thread. The belief that Satan is not a created being is one that TribulationSigns promotes every chance he gets. He claims that Satan refers to the spirit of man in general rather than to an actual evil spirit being.

We have to keep in mind that Jesus was tempted of the devil, thus conversing back and forth with him, and that Jesus wasn't conversing with Himself. I view it as heresy, that satan is not a created being. I don't know how else to view it since it is absurd that satan isn't a real being that had a beginning. One can't have a beginning without being created first. But that doesn't mean the moment he was created he was a murderer. It makes zero sense to be a murderer before there are even any humans first. After all, it is humans that can die not angels. Therefore, the beginning meant is meaning the beginning of mankind not the beginning of satan.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female

Agree.

 

[rwb]

Did someone say otherwise? I am aware of your particular argument and we have discussed it. But, your buddy TribulationSigns often denies that the spirit being named Satan exists (he denies the existence of angels and spirit beings altogether) and you have liked several of his posts where he has indicated as such. So, it's understandable if someone mistakenly thought you believed the same if they didn't read all of your posts on the subject.

When I read again reply #21 from TS he writes "there can be no communion of the spirit of Satan and the Spirit of God in the same Temple" also "But if you mean do I believe the spirit of devils possesses people and thus they do terrible and wicked things, then YES. Absolutely!"

If there is not a spirit of Satan, devils as TS has written, could it not be you're misunderstanding of some other things he has said? TS clearly does not deny "the spirit being named Satan exists" when you compare EVERYTHING he's said and stop taking parts of his replies to make it appear he doesn't believe in evil spirits. It's not that he denies the existence of spirits, rather he understands how badly many translations have translated 'angel'. Angel is literally translated 'messenger' that could be angel, spirit, demon, or human being. In that way the student of the Word through context and cross referencing could determine who/what the 'messenger' truly is, whether angel of God, demonic spirit of Satan, or human messengers of God or Satan.

Why would you acknowledge the existence of fallen angels, but deny that Satan could be one himself?

I don't know what you're talking about? I've never acknowledged the existence of fallen angels! The spirit being called Satan has never been an angel of God, but has from the beginning always been a liar and murderer.

This is describing an "anointed cherub", which is an angel.

Prove from the Word of God that cherubim are angels!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

When I read again reply #21 from TS he writes "there can be no communion of the spirit of Satan and the Spirit of God in the same Temple" also "But if you mean do I believe the spirit of devils possesses people and thus they do terrible and wicked things, then YES. Absolutely!"

If there is not a spirit of Satan, devils as TS has written, could it not be you're misunderstanding of some other things he has said?

You are the one misunderstanding what he said. He has explicitly denied the existence of a spirit being named Satan and of spirit beings called angels and demons many times. How can you not know that? He often has pointed out that the Greek word means "messenger" and any reference to "angels" refer to human messengers. Do I really need to prove this to you? I will do that if you don't believe me about this.

TS clearly does not deny "the spirit being named Satan exists" when you compare EVERYTHING he's said and stop taking parts of his replies to make it appear he doesn't believe in evil spirits.

LOL. How can you be this naive? How about you ask him if he believes in the existence of an evil spirit being named Satan and see what he says? And ask him if he believes in the existence of spirit beings called angels. @TribulationSigns can you please confirm to rwb that you do not believe in the existence of a non-human evil spirit being named Satan and that you do not believe in the existence of evil spirit beings called demons or in spirit beings called angels at all?

It's not that he denies the existence of spirits, rather he understands how badly many translations have translated 'angel'. Angel is literally translated 'messenger' that could be angel, spirit, demon, or human being. In that way the student of the Word through context and cross referencing could determine who/what the 'messenger' truly is, whether angel of God, demonic spirit of Satan, or human messengers of God or Satan.

You are incredibly naive. He has explicitly denied the existence of an evil spirit being named Satan several times, as well as denying the existence of spirit beings called angels and demons. You even quoted him yourself and you still don't understand what he believes? You showed these quotes from him:

The serpent — also called Satan or the Devil — represents the spirit of man, the spirit of disobedience.

what is called “Satan” in each person is their own rebellious spirit — the nature inherited from Adam’s fall. It is not “one great red dragon” controlling everyone, but the collective manifestation of human depravity.

It couldn't be more clear. He believes that Satan is "the spirit of man, the spirit of disobedience". He said that Satan is "in each person...their own rebellious spirit" and that Satan is "the collective manifestation of human depravity". That is not what scripture teaches. Scripture teaches that Satan is an evil spirit being who is the leader of the other evil angels (Rev 12:9, Matthew 25:41).

I don't know what you're talking about? I've never acknowledged the existence of fallen angels! The spirit being called Satan has never been an angel of God, but has from the beginning always been a liar and murderer.

I said that based on the following from your post, but after looking again, I see that was still part of what you quoted that was written by Julian Spriggs.

There are references to fallen angels in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4, but no indication is given that Satan was associated with them or that he fell at the same time. Both these passages are more probably referring to the rather mysterious account of the time when the sons of God lusted after the daughters of men (Gen 6:1-4). Both Peter and Jude use this event as a warning about false teachers. There are no other passages in the Bible which give a clear and unambiguous teaching about the origin of Satan, or of a fall of Satan from a place of glory.

I thought you were saying this, but I see now that Julian Spriggs, whoever he is/was, said it.

Prove from the Word of God that cherubim are angels!

What else could they be? Are you claiming that cherubim are humans? It says he was created perfect. It gives the impression that he was created as a mature being rather than having been born. The description in Ezekiel 28 is not the description of a human being, which is my point. If cherubim are different kinds of beings than angels, then that is besides the point I'm making.

 

[rwb]

What else could they be? Are you claiming that cherubim are humans? It says he was created perfect. It gives the impression that he was created as a mature being rather than having been born. The description in Ezekiel 28 is not the description of a human being, which is my point. If cherubim are different kinds of beings than angels, then that is besides the point I'm making.

The lamentation is directed to the King of Tyrus, a human, it is he who is once was called the "anointed cherub"! If you don't know what cherubim are, do you think it wise to guess? I don't read the cherub being called 'he' in the lamentation to king Tyrus. According to the Hebrew dictionary Cherubim are of uncertain derivation; a cherub or imaginary figure:—cherub, (plural) cherubims.

Did you give any consideration to the commentary I posted, or did you simply ignore it? While trying to force the anointed cherub to be depicting Satan as a fallen angel of God, you might want to consider that cherubim cover the mercy seat with their wings. To be consistent will you also argue the cherubim covering the mercy seat are depictions of the fallen angel called Satan where the LORD told Moses He would commune with him from between the two cherubim?

Exodus 25:18-22 (KJV) And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

"Ezekiel chapters 25 to 32 are also prophecies against pagan nations. Chapters 26 to 28 are specifically against Tyre, a major city, important port and wealthy commercial centre at that time, under its ruler Ethbaal III (c.590 - c.573). Ezekiel described Tyre’s trading with other nations (27:12-25), and gave dramatic oracles about the ships and sailors of Tarshish wailing over the fall of Tyre (27:25-36).

The king of Tyre is described as, “the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” (28:12). Many say only Satan could be this, not a king or a city. However, elsewhere in these same oracles against Tyre, Tyre claimed this for itself: "O Tyre, you have said, 'I am perfect in beauty'" (27:3), “Your heart is proud and you have said, ‘I am a god’” (28:2). The prince of Tyre's wisdom, trade and great wealth are described in (28:4-5). The prince of Tyre compared his mind with the mind of a god (28:6). The Hebrew here is 'elohim', which can either mean 'God', or pagan gods (plural), so translations vary. Ezekiel also prophesies that “the most terrible of the nations shall draw their swords against the beauty of your splendour” (28:7).

He was, “in Eden, the garden of God” (28:13). This probably does not refer to Satan's presence in the garden of Eden in the account of the fall in Genesis 3, as Eden is often used poetically in the scriptures to depict a fertile place of great plenty. Elsewhere in Ezekiel, Egypt was likened to a cedar of Lebanon: “the cedars in the garden of God could not rival it ... the envy of all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God” (Ezek 31:8-9). Ezekiel also predicts that when Israel is restored, people will say, “This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden.” (Ezek 36:35). Joel said this about the locust swarm, “Before them the land is like the garden of Eden and after them a desolate wilderness” (Joel 2:3), and in Genesis, “Lot ... saw that the plain of Jordan was well watered like the garden of the Lord” (Gen 13:10).

The description continues by saying that, “every precious stone was your covering” (28:13). This does not have to be a description of Satan, as throughout history kings have worn richly decorated garments. There is also a similarity with the list of precious stones on the breastplate of the high priest (Ex 28:17ff).

God says that, “With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you” (28:14). The NRSV has a footnote saying that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. The KJV has: “Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so”. A cherub (plural - cherubim) is one of the four living creatures described in Ezekiel chapter 1 and Revelation chapter 4, whose job it is to guard the throne of God and to worship God. They are associated with God's glory and judgement. Other than this passage in the KJV, Satan is never described as a cherub in the Bible, neither are the archangels Michael or Gabriel, so this verse cannot be used to claim that Satan was once an angelic being.

The king of Tyre's judgement and fall were due to the abundance of its trade filling them with violence (28:16). Tyre was renowned around the ancient Near East as a important port and commercial centre.

One common argument used to support the view that Satan is a fallen angel says that Ezekiel 28 distinguishes between the prince of Tyre (v2), who they say was the physical ruler of Tyre, and the king of Tyre (v12), who they say is Satan. However, a study of Ezekiel's use of the words 'king' and 'prince' shows that they are used interchangeably. For example, David is called king in 37:29, but prince in 34:24 and 37:25. Jehoiakim is called king in 1:2, but chapter 19 is a lamentation for the princes of Israel, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, all of whom were kings. In 7:27 king and prince are used in the parallelism: "the king shall mourn, the prince shall be wrapped in despair"." end quote

 

[rwb]

Did someone say otherwise? I am aware of your particular argument and we have discussed it. But, your buddy TribulationSigns often denies that the spirit being named Satan exists (he denies the existence of angels and spirit beings altogether) and you have liked several of his posts where he has indicated as such. So, it's understandable if someone mistakenly thought you believed the same if they didn't read all of your posts on the subject.

That's only because he views the spirit in mankind as being the spirit/Spirit in them. It's not denying the existence of spirit beings but recognizing these spirits only exist through the humans they inhabit. When our spirit is inhabited by the spirit of evil, we, through natural spirit are children of the devil. As his children we are defined as being one with him. And when our Spirit is inhabited by the Spirit of Christ, we, through Christ's supernatural Spirit are children of God. As His children we are defined as being one with Him.

 

[rwb]

The belief that Satan is not a created being is one that TribulationSigns promotes every chance he gets. He claims that Satan refers to the spirit of man in general rather than to an actual evil spirit being.

Scripture does NOT tell us that Satan was created either as an angel of God, or the spirit of all evil. Satan acts through man's natural spirit. If man had never fallen into sin and become destined to die, where would Satan be found? He only exists through the humans he inhabits since the fall of mankind.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The lamentation is directed to the King of Tyrus, a human, it is he who is once was called the "anointed cherub"!

The King of Tyre was heavily influenced by Satan, so that is why it describes Satan who the king of Tyre emulated with his evil behavior. It says the anointed cherub was created perfect in his ways, full of wisdom and full of beauty. That does not describe any human. Since Adam and Eve, all humans have been born with a natural sinful nature and certainly not perfect in all their ways. It doesn't fit the description of a human baby, but rather a being that was created in fully mature form like Adam and Eve were.

If you don't know what cherubim are, do you think it wise to guess?

I don't have to guess that cherubim are not human beings. If you think Ezekiel 28:12-19 describes a human being, then you are not even paying attention to what is written there. No human being could be described as an anointed covering cherub being perfect in all his ways on God's holy mountain.

I don't read the cherub being called 'he' in the lamentation to king Tyrus. According to the Hebrew dictionary Cherubim are of uncertain derivation; a cherub or imaginary figure:—cherub, (plural) cherubims.

It's not addressed to the human king of Tyre, it's addressed to the spiritual king of Tyre, which was the anointed covering cherub who was perfect in all his ways. He is called a king, so it does described a "he".

Did you give any consideration to the commentary I posted, or did you simply ignore it?

I don't come here to read commentaries of people who don't post here. I've said that many times. That's why I don't watch videos that people post here or to go links that people post here. I'm not here for that. I'm talking to you, not whoever wrote that commentary.

While trying to force the anointed cherub to be depicting Satan as a fallen angel of God, you might want to consider that cherubim cover the mercy seat with their wings. To be consistent will you also argue the cherubim covering the mercy seat are depictions of the fallen angel called Satan where the LORD told Moses He would commune with him from between the two cherubim?

Exodus 25:18-22 (KJV) And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

"Ezekiel chapters 25 to 32 are also prophecies against pagan nations. Chapters 26 to 28 are specifically against Tyre, a major city, important port and wealthy commercial centre at that time, under its ruler Ethbaal III (c.590 - c.573). Ezekiel described Tyre’s trading with other nations (27:12-25), and gave dramatic oracles about the ships and sailors of Tarshish wailing over the fall of Tyre (27:25-36).

The king of Tyre is described as, “the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” (28:12). Many say only Satan could be this, not a king or a city. However, elsewhere in these same oracles against Tyre, Tyre claimed this for itself: "O Tyre, you have said, 'I am perfect in beauty'" (27:3), “Your heart is proud and you have said, ‘I am a god’” (28:2). The prince of Tyre's wisdom, trade and great wealth are described in (28:4-5). The prince of Tyre compared his mind with the mind of a god (28:6). The Hebrew here is 'elohim', which can either mean 'God', or pagan gods (plural), so translations vary. Ezekiel also prophesies that “the most terrible of the nations shall draw their swords against the beauty of your splendour” (28:7).

He was, “in Eden, the garden of God” (28:13). This probably does not refer to Satan's presence in the garden of Eden in the account of the fall in Genesis 3, as Eden is often used poetically in the scriptures to depict a fertile place of great plenty.

This is not a convincing argument. This is clearly a biased commentary by denying that the king of Tyre's location "in Eden, the garden of God" does not refer to the garden of Eden. I can't take this seriously.

Elsewhere in Ezekiel, Egypt was likened to a cedar of Lebanon: “the cedars in the garden of God could not rival it ... the envy of all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God” (Ezek 31:8-9). Ezekiel also predicts that when Israel is restored, people will say, “This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden.” (Ezek 36:35). Joel said this about the locust swarm, “Before them the land is like the garden of Eden and after them a desolate wilderness” (Joel 2:3), and in Genesis, “Lot ... saw that the plain of Jordan was well watered like the garden of the Lord” (Gen 13:10).

The description continues by saying that, “every precious stone was your covering” (28:13). This does not have to be a description of Satan, as throughout history kings have worn richly decorated garments. There is also a similarity with the list of precious stones on the breastplate of the high priest (Ex 28:17ff).

God says that, “With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you” (28:14). The NRSV has a footnote saying that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. The KJV has: “Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so”. A cherub (plural - cherubim) is one of the four living creatures described in Ezekiel chapter 1 and Revelation chapter 4, whose job it is to guard the throne of God and to worship God. They are associated with God's glory and judgement. Other than this passage in the KJV, Satan is never described as a cherub in the Bible, neither are the archangels Michael or Gabriel, so this verse cannot be used to claim that Satan was once an angelic being.

So, it appears that you understand that cherubim are not human beings, so who do you think this cherub described in Ezekiel 28 is, if not Satan? At the very least, you should acknowledge that cherubim are capable of having fallen, if you continue to claim that angels could never have fallen, since that passage describes a fallen cherub.

The king of Tyre's judgement and fall were due to the abundance of its trade filling them with violence (28:16). Tyre was renowned around the ancient Near East as a important port and commercial centre.

One common argument used to support the view that Satan is a fallen angel says that Ezekiel 28 distinguishes between the prince of Tyre (v2), who they say was the physical ruler of Tyre, and the king of Tyre (v12), who they say is Satan. However, a study of Ezekiel's use of the words 'king' and 'prince' shows that they are used interchangeably. For example, David is called king in 37:29, but prince in 34:24 and 37:25. Jehoiakim is called king in 1:2, but chapter 19 is a lamentation for the princes of Israel, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, all of whom were kings. In 7:27 king and prince are used in the parallelism: "the king shall mourn, the prince shall be wrapped in despair"." end quote

This is all over the place, so let me just ask you a question. Do you think Ezekiel 28:12-19 is describing a human being who is called an anointed cherub and perfect in all his ways or do you think it is describing a non-human cherub?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Scripture does NOT tell us that Satan was created either as an angel of God, or the spirit of all evil. Satan acts through man's natural spirit. If man had never fallen into sin and become destined to die, where would Satan be found? He only exists through the humans he inhabits since the fall of mankind.

You are being as clear as mud here, so let me ask you a few clarifying questions. Are you saying that you don't believe that Satan exists as a separate evil spirit being who can roam around the earth seeking who he may devour? You are saying you think he is always inhabiting (possessing) a human being at all time and can't exist apart from possessing a human being? Are you saying you don't believe that Satan existed before Adam and Eve sinned?

 

[talons]

The only personhood that Satan can and does achieve is when he takes up residence within the hearts and minds of humans.

Jesus was tempted in the wilderness , explain how that works with what you said above .

Is Lucifer a name for Satan?

No .
You might like to read this .

THE NAME LUCIFER HAS NEVER BELONGED TO SATAN

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's only because he views the spirit in mankind as being the spirit/Spirit in them. It's not denying the existence of spirit beings but recognizing these spirits only exist through the humans they inhabit.

Nonsense! Why are you doing this? He does deny the existence of spirit beings who have existence apart from human beings. He says that Satan and demons refers to the evil spirit within man and not to separate spirit beings who possess the spirit of people. You know that human beings have a spirit, right? He believes the spirit of unsaved people is what scripture calls Satan and demons. He denies that they are separate spirit beings from humans who can influence the spirits of humans. He thinks they ARE the spirits of humans.

When our spirit is inhabited by the spirit of evil, we, through natural spirit are children of the devil. As his children we are defined as being one with him. And when our Spirit is inhabited by the Spirit of Christ, we, through Christ's supernatural Spirit are children of God. As His children we are defined as being one with Him.

It looks like you are very close to agreeing with him that Satan and demons are not real spirit beings who exist separately from humans, but can influence humans. That is not what scripture teaches. In your view that you are describing, Satan is not an individual spirit being who can roam around the earth seeking who he may devour, but you are describing Satan as only existing within human beings and not as an individual being who is separate from human beings.

 

[rwb]

The King of Tyre was heavily influenced by Satan, so that is why it describes Satan who the king of Tyre emulated with his evil behavior.

It's true that king Tyrus was under the influence of evil, however the lamentation is directed to the king, not a fallen angel called Satan.

It says the anointed cherub was created perfect in his ways, full of wisdom and full of beauty.

No, read it more carefully. The lamentation is directed to the king of Tyrus, calling him the anointed cherub and perfect in his ways etc. it is not about the spirit being called Satan, you ASSUME was once an angel of God and became Satan.

It's not addressed to the human king of Tyre, it's addressed to the spiritual king of Tyre, which was the anointed covering cherub who was perfect in all his ways. He is called a king, so it does described a "he".

Ezekiel 28:1-2 (KJV) The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

Ezekiel 28:11-14 (KJV) Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 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. Thou 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.

I don't come here to read commentaries of people who don't post here. I've said that many times. That's why I don't watch videos that people post here or to go links that people post here. I'm not here for that. I'm talking to you, not whoever wrote that commentary.

That doesn't surprise me! Because you also show yourself to be closed minded to anyone posting with another opinion that does not agree with you! I posted the commentary because I have already beat this horse to death, showing how and why I believe Satan was not an angel of God before he became Satan.

This is not a convincing argument. This is clearly a biased commentary by denying that the king of Tyre's location "in Eden, the garden of God" does not refer to the garden of Eden. I can't take this seriously.

Again, no surprise here! Unless the commentary agrees with you, just discard it without showing why you cannot take it seriously!

So, it appears that you understand that cherubim are not human beings, so who do you think this cherub described in Ezekiel 28 is, if not Satan?

Prove using the Bible why you believe cherub is a fallen angel that became Satan! Where does Scripture ever speak of Satan being a cherub?

At the very least, you should acknowledge that cherubim are capable of having fallen, if you continue to claim that angels could never have fallen, since that passage describes a fallen cherub.

Why would I acknowledge something that cannot be proven from the Word of God? Cherubim angels/fallen? Again, prove cherub/cherubim are angels or were angels of God fallen or otherwise???

This is all over the place, so let me just ask you a question. Do you think Ezekiel 28:12-19 is describing a human being who is called an anointed cherub and perfect in all his ways or do you think it is describing a non-human cherub?

Do you know how to read/understand poetic prose, because lamentations are written using poetic prose, not to be taken literally? Imagery and Metaphor: Biblical poetry is rich in vivid imagery and metaphor, which convey deep spiritual truths. So too biblical lamentations are replete with imagery (anointed cherub) and metaphor ("thou wast upon the holy mountain of God;").