amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
may i add one more .
Good , thanks for allowing it .
THEY even lead a lot of christendom today and work through men and women to decieve this very generation .
Satan and his demons are real beings/entities (with personalities) not abstract evil within unregenerate man
- Thread starter WPM
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Good , thanks for allowing it .
THEY even lead a lot of christendom today and work through men and women to decieve this very generation .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Oh he sure do my f riend . Not only does he have access to earth
but to many churches as well . Just peek around and ye shall see many co workers of darkness
cloaked in wool and yet lead this people to perdition . Oh wait i nearly forgot
he has a lot convinced there is no lake of f ire . Did i ever say he does lie . He sure do my friend .
2 Corinthians 11:14-15 Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness,
o Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven, and they dwell among us (Isaiah 14:12, Ezekiel 28:17, Revelation 12:7-9, Luke 10:18, 1Peter 5:8-9).
o There are guardian angels on earth as well to protect us from them (Psalm 91:11-12, Matthew 18:10, Daniel 6:22, Acts 12:7).
o There are guardian angels on earth as well to protect us from them (Psalm 91:11-12, Matthew 18:10, Daniel 6:22, Acts 12:7).
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
just never pray to said angels or to any other , THAN GOD . always doing so IN JESUS name .
But yes God do look out for the sheep .
Let us notice what JESUS said concerning the angels .
Notice two key things .
HE said DO you not t hink that i can call UNTO MY FATHER and HE SEND twelve legions of angels .
Lets notice HE did not say , THINK not that i can call upon ANGELS . but rather MY FATHER .
Just a reminder that we do as JESUS DID and not as do others who do pray to saints , who do pray to mary
who do pray to angels and who knows what else they pray too .
I hope this be an encouragement to you my friend . I only look out for the good of all peoples .
TribulationSigns
Well-Known Member
- May 1, 2023
- 2,707
- 951
- 113
- 56
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
You may quote verses, but like many people here, you do not truly understand what they are talking about. You have been conditioned to believe there are literal angels behind every thought. .
Sad.
This is all gibberish. You are twisting Scripture to support your error. You make the Bible say what you want.
Last edited:
The Bible pattern is that stars represent angels. Hello! This forbids your teaching.
The king of Tyrus was not a type of a perfect Adam in the Garden. He is an example of a wicked tyrant who was full of pride who Satan worked through to do his evil. Tyrus was an example of what rebellion against God looks like. He is an example of fallen man not perfect man.
Op Note
Both Isaiah and Ezekiel describe the casting down of Satan and his banishment from the heavenly realm.
Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
Ezekiel 28:16 tells us: “I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee.”
This corresponds with Revelation 12:7-9: “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
The angels of heaven fought with Satan and his angels after Christ conquered sin, death, and hell. They marvelously defeated him and evicted him from heaven; Satan proved himself once again to be a loser.
Both Isaiah and Ezekiel describe the casting down of Satan and his banishment from the heavenly realm.
Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
Ezekiel 28:16 tells us: “I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee.”
This corresponds with Revelation 12:7-9: “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
The angels of heaven fought with Satan and his angels after Christ conquered sin, death, and hell. They marvelously defeated him and evicted him from heaven; Satan proved himself once again to be a loser.
TribulationSigns noted:
<You may have been conditioned to believe there are literal angels behind every thought.>
If you disagree with what I posted then I invite you to quote what I said and then explain why you disagree.
Jesus said,
"See that you do not despise one of the less little ones, for I tell to you that *their angels* always behold the face of my father who is in heaven." (Matthew 18:10).
<You may have been conditioned to believe there are literal angels behind every thought.>
If you disagree with what I posted then I invite you to quote what I said and then explain why you disagree.
Jesus said,
"See that you do not despise one of the less little ones, for I tell to you that *their angels* always behold the face of my father who is in heaven." (Matthew 18:10).
Last edited:
Marvelloustime
Well-Known Member
TribulationSigns
Well-Known Member
- May 1, 2023
- 2,707
- 951
- 113
- 56
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
You’re saying this because you haven't refuted anything I wrote concerning Revelation 9 with Scripture. It is a fact you do not like what you are hearing.
Surprise, Surprise.
Last edited:
TribulationSigns
Well-Known Member
- May 1, 2023
- 2,707
- 951
- 113
- 56
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
First you got wrong verse number quoted.
Second, read the context which is the parable of the Lost Sheep. Do you really understand what the Lord talked about here? Really? Do you realize that you CAN'T take single verse out of the context and assume God was talking about literal angels in heaven.
The context of Matthew 18 is about the “little ones” — young believers, weak believers, humble followers, spiritually immature Christians, or “babes in Christ” — who can go astray like sheep. The focus of the passage is protection, care, guidance, and restoration of vulnerable believers who are spiritually wandering.
So when Jesus says, “their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven,” who is He talking about?
The traditional interpretation claims Jesus is referring to heavenly created beings called “angels” assigned to watch over believers or children. That is the most common Christian understanding.
However, the Greek word angelos simply means “messenger,” and Scripture often uses it for human messengers, not supernatural beings.
For example:
- John the Baptist is called a messenger (angelos) in Mark 1:2 who protects his flocks and keep them right with God.
- The “angels” of the seven churches in Revelation 2–3 are understood by many to be human leaders or messengers responsible for caring for the flock.
Many people automatically assume every use of the word “angel” in the Bible refers to a winged supernatural being. But context determines meaning. One cannot build doctrine from tradition while ignoring the surrounding context of the passage.
Selah.
Last edited:
TribulationSigns noted:
<Greek word means "messenger.">
Yes, Greek ανγηλος = "messenger." Angels are messengers since they are often *sent* to perform tasks.
<The context of Matthew 18 is about the “little ones” — young believers>
The context is little children. They have guardian angels, they do not have personal human messengers.
<when Jesus says, “their angels do always behold the face of my Father ">
IMO this refers to the true temple in heaven, referenced in Hebrews 9:24.
>For example>
For your information:
o I had 4 years of Latin in high school.
o I had one year of New Testament Greek in college.
o I have the Oxford Greek Lexicon.
o I have the Oxford Latin Lexicon.
o I have the Koehler Baumgartner Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon.
<Greek word means "messenger.">
Yes, Greek ανγηλος = "messenger." Angels are messengers since they are often *sent* to perform tasks.
<The context of Matthew 18 is about the “little ones” — young believers>
The context is little children. They have guardian angels, they do not have personal human messengers.
<when Jesus says, “their angels do always behold the face of my Father ">
IMO this refers to the true temple in heaven, referenced in Hebrews 9:24.
>For example>
For your information:
o I had 4 years of Latin in high school.
o I had one year of New Testament Greek in college.
o I have the Oxford Greek Lexicon.
o I have the Oxford Latin Lexicon.
o I have the Koehler Baumgartner Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon.
Last edited:
It is all covered in the Op. You have not laid a punch on it.
Demons are fallen angels
Jud 1:6 “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”
2 Peter 2:4 closely correlates: “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Gr. tartaroo], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.”
This is talking about angels that sinned at the beginning and therefore fell. Adam and Eve were not angels. They are not held in "everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” God redeemed them. He made an atoning sacrifice for them in the Garden and gave them a righteous covering. Who else is this speaking about than Satan and his demons?
Revelation 12:1-4 shows Satan and his devils being eternally evicted from heaven. Interestingly the demonic angels are depicted as “stars.” It reads: “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon ... And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth.”
In Revelation 12:4, 1/3 of the angels sided with Satan in his rebellion. They sided with him when he fell, and are part of the kingdom of darkness.
Job 38:4-7 tells us, speaking about the beginning of time, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
Revelation 9:1 says: “I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the abyss.”
It seems correct to view the flying star in view here as an elect angel. Remember, the key or authority no longer belongs to Satan. He was defeated. Christ and His angels exercise that now within the invisible realm. We exercise it upon the earth.
It is clear that stars are used by John in Revelation as symbols of angels. A falling star is a common easily-recognized natural symbol that is used in a spiritual way here to describe an elect angel descending from heaven before the end of time to open the pit to release Satan and his demons from their restraint in order to restrict the great commission.
Most of us carry an image of Lucifer as an angel of light — radiant, proud, the most glorious of all created beings — falling from heaven like lightning. Is that image actually in the text of Isaian 14 or did tradition teach us that? Or did we bring it with us?
This passage deserves to be examined fully — because what’s at stake isn’t an understanding of Satan. It’s the question of how an entire narrative got constructed from a text that doesn’t contain it.
Few interpretations in Christian theology have been more widely assumed — and less carefully examined — than the identification of Lucifer in Isaiah 14 as Satan. The traditional narrative is familiar: with what we grew up with in the Church, a preeminent angel, radiant with glory, falls from heaven through pride and becomes the adversary of God. This interpretation has become so embedded in the tradition that it is often assumed to arise directly from the passage. Yet when the passage is read in its own literary context, that conclusion is not explicitly stated. The question of whether the construct is derived from this text, or applied to it after the fact, is one this chapter examines directly.
The Word Itself: Heylel and the Latin Lucifer
The word Lucifer appears exactly once in the entirety of the Bible — Isaiah 14:12 in the King James Version. The name requires examination before the passage is considered, because it carries more interpretive weight than is often recognized. The name Lucifer isn’t in the Hebrew but Latin.
Lucifer is a Latin word. It is the only Latin word in the Old Testament, introduced by the translators of the Latin Vulgate to render the Hebrew word heylel. Heylel means shining one or bright star — a descriptive term, not a noun. The Hebrew text gives no indication that this is a proper name. The Latin translators treated it as one, and that decision has shaped popular Christian imagination ever since.
The Amplified Bible contains a candid note: Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan is erroneous, even though it is commonly taught to that effect. Lucifer, the light bringer, is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word phosphoros, which is used as a title of Christ in 2 Peter 1:19 and corresponds to the name bright morning star in Revelation 22:16, which Jesus called Himself. The application of the name Lucifer has only existed since the third century AD.
The title that popular Christianity assigns to Satan — the shining one, the light bringer — is the very title Jesus applies to himself in Revelations. That creates an immediate tension with the traditional identification.[1]
Isaiah 14: Reading the Text in Its Own Context
The Controlling Context: A Taunt Against Babylon
Isaiah 14:4 Thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon.
The passage explicitly introduces itself in verse 4 as a taunt against the king of Babylon Which is the context for everything that follows. The narrative describing the fall of the heylel is situated within a recognized prophetic genre — poetic satire directed at a human ruler whose pride has reached cosmic proportions. The imagery is elevated, even celestial, but this is characteristic of prophetic rhetoric. Within that genre, the fall from heaven functions as poetic depiction of political and personal collapse rather than literal cosmological event. Isaiah 14:16 identifies the subject as human.
Isaiah 14:16 Is this the man who made the earth tremble, that did shake kingdoms?
The Hebrew term ish provides significant contextual weight. It was identifying its subject. A man. Not a fallen angel. A man. A reading that moves from this text to a pre-temporal angelic rebellion introduces a layer that extends beyond the identification the text supplies.[2]
The King of Babylon in His Context
The King of Babylon was, in his day, the most powerful ruler on the face of the earth. In ancient Near Eastern royal ideology, kings were routinely compared to celestial bodies — they were the light bringers of civilization. The king of Babylon had claimed all of this for himself, and Isaiah borrowed that very language to describe his fall. Archaeological discoveries have confirmed that Babylonian and Assyrian kings regularly used this exalted language in their royal inscriptions — claiming divine status, asserting authority over heaven and earth. The passage does not describe a cosmic rebellion but it is mocking the language such kings used for themselves, to be expose as empty boasting
The prophetic use of cosmic imagery to describe historical rulers is not unique to Isaiah 14. Ezekiel uses Eden imagery to describe both the king of Tyre and Pharaoh of Egypt — without anyone arguing that either of these historical rulers was actually present in the Garden of Eden. The imagery is poetic intensification of historical reality, not an ontological description. Isaiah 14 points to a human king, described in the elevated language his own culture used for kings, brought low by the judgment of God.
[1] The Amplified Bible (La Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1987), note on Isaiah 14:12. The note acknowledges the scholarly dispute over applying the name Lucifer to Satan and points out that the Latin title lucifer (light-bringer) corresponds to the Greek phosphoros, a title applied to Christ in 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 22:16. The term entered Christian usage as a proper name for Satan only from the third century onward, through the influence of Tertullian and Origen; see Jeffery Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), pp. 131–134.
[2] The Hebrew term ‘ish (man, human being) is the standard word for an adult male person throughout the Hebrew Bible; see Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, trans. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (London: Samuel Bagster, 1846), entry ‘ish, p. 44. For the broader scholarly consensus that Isaiah 14 addresses the king of Babylon as a historical figure, see John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 320–322; and John D.W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1985), pp. 209–211.
Taken from the book I'm in the process of writing... Yea, I know... Big deal!
What the Text Is Not: The Absence of Satanic Biography
The traditional interpretation of the subject as Satan moves beyond what the immediate text establishes — it is a theological construction rather than a direct exegetical conclusion. The text does portray something dark and adversarial at work in creation. but the reading belongs to the history. When we ask what the New Testament says about Satan — rather than what Isaiah 14 has been brought to say — the picture points in a different direction from the traditional narrative.
John 8:44 He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
1 John 3:8 The devil has been sinning from the beginning.
From the beginning, the adversary is a murderer and a liar. As Neil Forsyth observes, these statements describe a persistent condition rather than a transition from holiness to rebellion. The traditional narrative — former glory, dramatic fall, subsequent corruption — introduces a narrative that extends beyond what these texts themselves establish. That narrative is drawn from Isaiah 14, where it belongs to the level of synthesis rather than explicit statement.[1]
It is important to note that weather Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 carry any secondary resonance beyond their immediate historical referents is a question this chapter leaves unresolved — it does not resolve it. Typological and intertextual readings have a legitimate place in Biblical interpretation. The argument here is more limited: these texts, read on their own terms, do not explicitly establish the cosmic biography tradition has drawn from them. They establish the baseline against which any secondary reading must be tested. Tradition has often reversed that order — treating the inference as the primary meaning. This chapter seeks to restore the sequence and whether further theological extension is warranted, remains a judgment for each reader to make.
Why Later Texts Do Not Override Immediate Context
The strongest counterargument to the reading advanced in this chapter deserves to be stated directly before it is answered. It runs as follows: even if Isaiah 14 was originally addressed to the king of Babylon, the New Testament writers may have perceived a deeper typological dimension in the passage — a resonance pointing beyond the historical referent to the spiritual adversary behind earthly powers. In this view, what matters is not the original context but the canonical whole where later Scripture is permitted to expand and redefine the meaning of earlier texts. If the New Testament connects Isaiah 14 to the figure of Satan, that construct carries interpretive authority regardless of what the eighth-century prophet intended. This coherent hermeneutical position is held by many serious interpreters. The question is not whether it is internally consistent, but whether the New Testament texts cited in its support actually establish what they are claimed to establish.
Does the New Testament redefine the meaning of the Old? This question must be addressed directly, because it is the strongest version of the counterargument. Luke 10:18 — where Jesus says “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” — is often cited as confirmation that Isaiah 14 describes Satan’s primordial fall. Three observations bear on that reading. First, Luke 10 does not quote or cite Isaiah 14. The verbal connection is assumed, not demonstrated. Second, the statement has a specific present-tense context: the disciples have just returned reporting that demons submitted to them in Jesus’s name. Jesus is affirming their present spiritual authority — a reading that does not require reaching back to Isaiah’s ancient taunt against Babylon. Third, the aorist tense of “I saw” is consistent with a visionary or prophetic past that does not require identification with any specific Old Testament passage. Luke 10:18 can be read adequately without appealing to Isaiah 14. It should be acknowledged that the cosmic reading of Luke 10:18 has a serious scholarly defender in Richard Bauckham, whose argument deserves direct engagement rather than a passing note.
Bauckham reads the aorist “I saw” as a visionary aorist — Jesus reporting a witnessed event in the heavenly realm rather than describing what is happening as the disciples return. On this reading, the sudden, total character of the fall “like lightning” cannot be adequately explained as a gradual erosion of demonic power through the disciples’ ministry; it points instead to a decisive cosmic event that grounds and authorizes their earthly authority. This is a coherent reading and cannot be set aside on grammatical grounds alone. What it does not establish, however, is the claim this chapter is actually contesting: that Isaiah 14 describes that event. Even if Luke 10:18 refers to a real cosmic fall, the connection to Isaiah 14 remains an inference — the verbal parallel is assumed, not demonstrated by citation or textual signal. Furthermore, the fall Bauckham’s reading envisions — from prior glory into defeat — sits in direct tension with John 8:44, where Jesus states that Satan “has not stood in the truth” and “was a murderer from the beginning”: not from a moment of subsequent rebellion, but from the beginning. Luke 10:18 can affirm a cosmic dimension to Satan’s defeat without requiring Isaiah 14 to have described his origin.[2] The same observation applies to Revelation. Revelation draws on cosmic imagery from many Old Testament sources without providing systematic interpretations of those sources. Shared imagery introduces a further layer beyond explicit citation. Where the New Testament genuinely reinterprets an Old Testament passage, it typically does so by explicit citation or clear textual signal. Intertextual resonance and intertextual reinterpretation are different categories.
A similar pattern appears in Ezekiel 28, where language that extends beyond ordinary human description has likewise been interpreted as evidence of a supernatural, pre-historical referent. As in Isaiah 14, the issue is not whether broader theological readings are possible, but whether the text actually demands them.
[1] The exegetical argument that John 8:44 and 1 John 3:8 describe a persistent condition rather than a transition from prior righteousness is developed in Neil Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 4–9. Forsyth notes that the New Testament does not narrate a primordial angelic rebellion but rather treats the adversary’s opposition to God as characteristic from the outset. The identification of Isaiah 14 as the source of the traditional Satan-biography is traced in Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (New York: Random House, 1995), pp. xvi–xviii.
[2] Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993). This is the primary source for Bauckham’s visionary aorist argument on Luke 10:18 and his treatment of cosmic events preceding their earthly enactment. See also Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), where the broader divine-identity Christology argument is developed.
The traditional interpretation of the subject as Satan moves beyond what the immediate text establishes — it is a theological construction rather than a direct exegetical conclusion. The text does portray something dark and adversarial at work in creation. but the reading belongs to the history. When we ask what the New Testament says about Satan — rather than what Isaiah 14 has been brought to say — the picture points in a different direction from the traditional narrative.
John 8:44 He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
1 John 3:8 The devil has been sinning from the beginning.
From the beginning, the adversary is a murderer and a liar. As Neil Forsyth observes, these statements describe a persistent condition rather than a transition from holiness to rebellion. The traditional narrative — former glory, dramatic fall, subsequent corruption — introduces a narrative that extends beyond what these texts themselves establish. That narrative is drawn from Isaiah 14, where it belongs to the level of synthesis rather than explicit statement.[1]
It is important to note that weather Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 carry any secondary resonance beyond their immediate historical referents is a question this chapter leaves unresolved — it does not resolve it. Typological and intertextual readings have a legitimate place in Biblical interpretation. The argument here is more limited: these texts, read on their own terms, do not explicitly establish the cosmic biography tradition has drawn from them. They establish the baseline against which any secondary reading must be tested. Tradition has often reversed that order — treating the inference as the primary meaning. This chapter seeks to restore the sequence and whether further theological extension is warranted, remains a judgment for each reader to make.
Why Later Texts Do Not Override Immediate Context
The strongest counterargument to the reading advanced in this chapter deserves to be stated directly before it is answered. It runs as follows: even if Isaiah 14 was originally addressed to the king of Babylon, the New Testament writers may have perceived a deeper typological dimension in the passage — a resonance pointing beyond the historical referent to the spiritual adversary behind earthly powers. In this view, what matters is not the original context but the canonical whole where later Scripture is permitted to expand and redefine the meaning of earlier texts. If the New Testament connects Isaiah 14 to the figure of Satan, that construct carries interpretive authority regardless of what the eighth-century prophet intended. This coherent hermeneutical position is held by many serious interpreters. The question is not whether it is internally consistent, but whether the New Testament texts cited in its support actually establish what they are claimed to establish.
Does the New Testament redefine the meaning of the Old? This question must be addressed directly, because it is the strongest version of the counterargument. Luke 10:18 — where Jesus says “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” — is often cited as confirmation that Isaiah 14 describes Satan’s primordial fall. Three observations bear on that reading. First, Luke 10 does not quote or cite Isaiah 14. The verbal connection is assumed, not demonstrated. Second, the statement has a specific present-tense context: the disciples have just returned reporting that demons submitted to them in Jesus’s name. Jesus is affirming their present spiritual authority — a reading that does not require reaching back to Isaiah’s ancient taunt against Babylon. Third, the aorist tense of “I saw” is consistent with a visionary or prophetic past that does not require identification with any specific Old Testament passage. Luke 10:18 can be read adequately without appealing to Isaiah 14. It should be acknowledged that the cosmic reading of Luke 10:18 has a serious scholarly defender in Richard Bauckham, whose argument deserves direct engagement rather than a passing note.
Bauckham reads the aorist “I saw” as a visionary aorist — Jesus reporting a witnessed event in the heavenly realm rather than describing what is happening as the disciples return. On this reading, the sudden, total character of the fall “like lightning” cannot be adequately explained as a gradual erosion of demonic power through the disciples’ ministry; it points instead to a decisive cosmic event that grounds and authorizes their earthly authority. This is a coherent reading and cannot be set aside on grammatical grounds alone. What it does not establish, however, is the claim this chapter is actually contesting: that Isaiah 14 describes that event. Even if Luke 10:18 refers to a real cosmic fall, the connection to Isaiah 14 remains an inference — the verbal parallel is assumed, not demonstrated by citation or textual signal. Furthermore, the fall Bauckham’s reading envisions — from prior glory into defeat — sits in direct tension with John 8:44, where Jesus states that Satan “has not stood in the truth” and “was a murderer from the beginning”: not from a moment of subsequent rebellion, but from the beginning. Luke 10:18 can affirm a cosmic dimension to Satan’s defeat without requiring Isaiah 14 to have described his origin.[2] The same observation applies to Revelation. Revelation draws on cosmic imagery from many Old Testament sources without providing systematic interpretations of those sources. Shared imagery introduces a further layer beyond explicit citation. Where the New Testament genuinely reinterprets an Old Testament passage, it typically does so by explicit citation or clear textual signal. Intertextual resonance and intertextual reinterpretation are different categories.
A similar pattern appears in Ezekiel 28, where language that extends beyond ordinary human description has likewise been interpreted as evidence of a supernatural, pre-historical referent. As in Isaiah 14, the issue is not whether broader theological readings are possible, but whether the text actually demands them.
[1] The exegetical argument that John 8:44 and 1 John 3:8 describe a persistent condition rather than a transition from prior righteousness is developed in Neil Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 4–9. Forsyth notes that the New Testament does not narrate a primordial angelic rebellion but rather treats the adversary’s opposition to God as characteristic from the outset. The identification of Isaiah 14 as the source of the traditional Satan-biography is traced in Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (New York: Random House, 1995), pp. xvi–xviii.
[2] Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993). This is the primary source for Bauckham’s visionary aorist argument on Luke 10:18 and his treatment of cosmic events preceding their earthly enactment. See also Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), where the broader divine-identity Christology argument is developed.
Ezekiel 28: Another Human King
Another passage used to construct the Lucifer story is Ezekiel 28. First, read what God says right at the beginning:
Ezekiel 28:2 Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God... yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God.
The passage states that the subject of Ezekiel 28 is the king of Tyre — another ancient ruler, over a great trading empire on the Mediterranean coast. The King of Tyre had grown so rich and powerful that he was calling himself God. Ezekiel was sent to tell him exactly how far short of God he fell. The passage then uses rich poetic language to describe the king's glory and his fall. He was in Eden, the garden of God. He was covered with precious stones and He was the anointed cherub. He was perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him.
Is this passage describing a mere human king? Consider that the prophet Ezekiel uses exactly the same Eden imagery in chapter 31 to describe Pharaoh of Egypt. The Eden language was prophetic poetry describing a ruler who had been given extraordinary, God-given favor — and who then was corrupted by pride. It is the story of human corruption, not the story of a supernatural being.
The Verse That Seems Most Difficult
A difficult verse to apply to a human king is Ezekiel 28:14: Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth. Many conclude the subject must be an angel.
Yet, the verse says before that: the text has already declared thou art a man. Reading the passage as poetic imagery compliments an identification the text supplies. A man can be described in royal, even celestial terms in prophetic poetry — especially a man who had been given such extraordinary, God-given position as the king of Tyre. The poetic language expresses the magnitude of what was lost.
Moreover, nowhere in all of Scripture is Satan ever associated with the cherubim. The cherubim guard holy things, Such as the entrance to Eden and the mercy seat. They are associated with the holiness and the presence of God. Jesus said that Satan has been a murderer from the beginning and has never stood in the truth (John 8:44). A murderer is not an anointed guardian of holy space.
Never Shalt Thou Be Any More
Ezekiel 28:19 says of this figure: thou shalt be terrified, and never shalt thou be any more. Yet, Satan is not nonexistent. Revelation tells us he continues to operate until he is finally cast into the lake of fire.
If the passage is speaking of the king of Tyre and the civilization he represented — as the historical and literary context indicates — then the verse finds its fulfillment in recorded history. The ancient city of Tyre was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and later by Alexander the Great, who built a causeway to the island city and destroyed it completely. The Phoenician trading empire never rose again. The text’s narrative and the historical record coincide.
What the Bible Says About Satan
If Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 do not explicitly establish a satanic referent, what does the New Testament itself say about the adversary — without appeal to those passages? The picture is more limited, and more consistent, than the tradition suggests.
John 8:44 He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
1 John 3:8 The devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
From the beginning, Satan has been a murderer and a liar. These texts do not describe a prior period of holiness for this figure. Jesus does not say Satan fell from holiness — He says Satan has never stood in truth at all.
The only verse that connects Satan with the word light is 2 Corinthians 11:14, which says Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. The Greek word there is not transform — it is masquerade. It describes an actor putting on a costume, not a being who genuinely possesses what he is pretending to be. What is Satan's origin then? Genesis 3:1 tells us that the serpent was one of the beasts of the field that the LORD God had made. God made him. Job 26:13 says: his hand hath formed the crooked serpent. Isaiah 54:16 is perhaps the most striking statement of all:
Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
God created the waster. What that means for the relationship between divine sovereignty and moral evil is precisely the question the text raises without fully resolving — and by the presupposition of this book, that open question should be preserved rather than closed. The interpretive shift extend beyond any discussion of Satan’s origin. Once the origin of the adversary is questioned, the broader question of the origin and function of evil within the Biblical framework must also be re-examined. That question is taken up directly in the passages that follow.
But dismantling the traditional Lucifer story raises an immediate question that most readers will feel before they can articulate it. If Satan didn't create evil — if he never had that kind of independent power — then where did evil come from? And what does that mean about God? The answer the text gives is unsettling and disruptive to what most of us were taught.
Guess you have to wait until my book comes out...
Another passage used to construct the Lucifer story is Ezekiel 28. First, read what God says right at the beginning:
Ezekiel 28:2 Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God... yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God.
The passage states that the subject of Ezekiel 28 is the king of Tyre — another ancient ruler, over a great trading empire on the Mediterranean coast. The King of Tyre had grown so rich and powerful that he was calling himself God. Ezekiel was sent to tell him exactly how far short of God he fell. The passage then uses rich poetic language to describe the king's glory and his fall. He was in Eden, the garden of God. He was covered with precious stones and He was the anointed cherub. He was perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him.
Is this passage describing a mere human king? Consider that the prophet Ezekiel uses exactly the same Eden imagery in chapter 31 to describe Pharaoh of Egypt. The Eden language was prophetic poetry describing a ruler who had been given extraordinary, God-given favor — and who then was corrupted by pride. It is the story of human corruption, not the story of a supernatural being.
The Verse That Seems Most Difficult
A difficult verse to apply to a human king is Ezekiel 28:14: Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth. Many conclude the subject must be an angel.
Yet, the verse says before that: the text has already declared thou art a man. Reading the passage as poetic imagery compliments an identification the text supplies. A man can be described in royal, even celestial terms in prophetic poetry — especially a man who had been given such extraordinary, God-given position as the king of Tyre. The poetic language expresses the magnitude of what was lost.
Moreover, nowhere in all of Scripture is Satan ever associated with the cherubim. The cherubim guard holy things, Such as the entrance to Eden and the mercy seat. They are associated with the holiness and the presence of God. Jesus said that Satan has been a murderer from the beginning and has never stood in the truth (John 8:44). A murderer is not an anointed guardian of holy space.
Never Shalt Thou Be Any More
Ezekiel 28:19 says of this figure: thou shalt be terrified, and never shalt thou be any more. Yet, Satan is not nonexistent. Revelation tells us he continues to operate until he is finally cast into the lake of fire.
If the passage is speaking of the king of Tyre and the civilization he represented — as the historical and literary context indicates — then the verse finds its fulfillment in recorded history. The ancient city of Tyre was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and later by Alexander the Great, who built a causeway to the island city and destroyed it completely. The Phoenician trading empire never rose again. The text’s narrative and the historical record coincide.
What the Bible Says About Satan
If Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 do not explicitly establish a satanic referent, what does the New Testament itself say about the adversary — without appeal to those passages? The picture is more limited, and more consistent, than the tradition suggests.
John 8:44 He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
1 John 3:8 The devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
From the beginning, Satan has been a murderer and a liar. These texts do not describe a prior period of holiness for this figure. Jesus does not say Satan fell from holiness — He says Satan has never stood in truth at all.
The only verse that connects Satan with the word light is 2 Corinthians 11:14, which says Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. The Greek word there is not transform — it is masquerade. It describes an actor putting on a costume, not a being who genuinely possesses what he is pretending to be. What is Satan's origin then? Genesis 3:1 tells us that the serpent was one of the beasts of the field that the LORD God had made. God made him. Job 26:13 says: his hand hath formed the crooked serpent. Isaiah 54:16 is perhaps the most striking statement of all:
Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
God created the waster. What that means for the relationship between divine sovereignty and moral evil is precisely the question the text raises without fully resolving — and by the presupposition of this book, that open question should be preserved rather than closed. The interpretive shift extend beyond any discussion of Satan’s origin. Once the origin of the adversary is questioned, the broader question of the origin and function of evil within the Biblical framework must also be re-examined. That question is taken up directly in the passages that follow.
But dismantling the traditional Lucifer story raises an immediate question that most readers will feel before they can articulate it. If Satan didn't create evil — if he never had that kind of independent power — then where did evil come from? And what does that mean about God? The answer the text gives is unsettling and disruptive to what most of us were taught.
Guess you have to wait until my book comes out...
Similar threads
