The “Satan” Of The Bible

The Bible does NOT tell us that the one called the devil is named Satan.  “What?” you may ask!  Although the KJV and most of the translations we read have the word capitalized and treated as a proper name the Hebrew and Greek DO NOT give any indication of a need for capitalization or any indication of the original being a proper name.

The Hebrew word is satan, saw-tawn’,  H7854 in Strong’s.  It has the meaning of adversary, one who withstands.  The word is used of human adversaries as well as a spirit adversary.  The Hebrew satan is used 27 times in the Old Testament, only 19 are translated Satan.  In 2 of those Scriptures the original shows the translation to be “an adversary” and the other 17 to be “the adversary.”  The article “the” is very definitely used in all of those 17 places.  And, the article “the” is NEVER used with a proper name.  In the Hebrew it is not proper to say “the Jacob” or “the Moses.”  The translators have arbitrarily left out the article “the” and capitalized the word “satan” in English. 

The New Testament Greek word is satanas, sat-an-as’, #G4567 in Strong’s. This Greek form is derived from the Aramaic and Hebrew word satan, an adversary.  The meaning in Greek as well as Hebrew  is “adversary.”  All 36 places this word appears the translators have translated it into English as “satan” and have capitalized it, indicating it is a proper name.   31 of the 36 places the word is translated “satan” the Young’s Literal Bible shows the article “the” is in the original.  The other 5 places not having the article “the” it  indicates the translation would be more proper as “adversary.” Even Young’s and the Weymouth, which translate most of these as “adversary” have incorrectly capitalized the word, even though there is no grammatical reason to do so in the Greek

As mentioned, the Hebrew word satan means “enemy, adversary.”  It is used in this sense numerous times in the Old Testament to refer to human adversaries or enemies.  Let’s look at a few examples.  “And the Lord stirred up an adversary (Hebrew satan) unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite;...”(1 Kings 11:14) And again, verse 23, “And God stirred him up another adversary (Hebrew satan), Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah.”  Verse 25, “And he was an adversary (Hebrew satan) to Israel all the days of Solomon, ...”  In these 3 verses we see two individuals, Hadad and Rezon, were satans of Israel, that is, they were enemies and adversaries of Israel.  Did you know that King David was also a satan?  Notice 1 Samuel 29.  In verse 3 we see that David is being talked about, “Is not this David, the servant of Saul the king of Israel, ...”  Then in verse 4, “and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in battle he be an adversary (Hebrew satan) to us: ...”  They were concerned that David would turn against them in the middle of battle and become their enemy, their satan.  So, King David, the anointed of God, was a satan (enemy) to the Philistines.  There are quite a number of other Scriptures that you can look at that show the Hebrew satan being a human enemy, an adversary.    We see that a satan is quite simply an enemy, someone who hates and seeks harm.  A satan is not even necessarily evil since King David was a satan to the evil Philistines.

We do find many references to an angelic adversary.  Contrary to what Christianity has taught us “the adversary” has not been identified by name.  All we have from Scripture is a reference to an angelic adversary.  The first reference to an angelic satan (enemy or adversary) is in the account of the Gentile prophet Balaam.  Most of us are familiar with the account in Numbers 22.  Balaam had been invited by the Moabite king Balak to curse Israel but God instructed him not to agree to Balak’s request.   Balak would not take no for an answer and God eventually agreed that Balaam might go to meet with Balak but he was not to curse Israel.  But, as we know, Balaam had other ideas and set off to curse Israel.  God was displeased by this and sent an angelic satan against Balaam.  Notice Numbers 22:22, “And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary (Hebrew satan) against him...” We see here the angel of God  was a satan, and adversary or enemy, to Balaam.  In verses 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, and 35 we read that this angelic satan is “the angel of the Lord.”  Notice verse 32, “And the angel of the Lord said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times?  behold, I went out to withstand thee (marginal reading is ‘to be an adversary unto thee’ and the Hebrew is satan), because thy way is perverse before me:” 

Most of us have never heard that the “angel of the Lord” was satan have we?  This angelic satan is not out to win over millions in an unholy war against God.  He is God’s angel.  The Hebrew word for angel is mal’ach, which means “messenger.”  The representatives sent by Balak to Balaam are also called mal’achim, messengers (Num. 22:5).  The angelic satan in the account of Balaam is simply God’s messenger who does what God sends him to do.

It is also clear from the fact that he speaks the message of God both as himself, and as if he were God.  Numbers 22:35, “And the angel of Lord said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak...”  This angelic satan refers to the words that God will speak to Balaam as “the word that I shall speak unto thee.”  This is because he is speaking the words God told him to speak, which is the role of a messenger.  Balak’s messengers did the same thing.  In verse 5 they refer to Israel as a nation that “abide against me,” the “me” being Balak.  They spoke the words of Balak in the first person as if Balak was speaking, in the same way the angelic satan speaks the words of God in the first person as if God were saying them.  It was the practice of the ancient messengers to freely switch off between speaking their message as if they were the sender and speaking it as themselves. 

The angelic satan that was sent to harm Balaam did not desire for Balaam to sin.  He was not a tempter.  He actually ordered Balaam not to defy God.  He was simply a messenger of God, and like human messengers, he could speak the words of God in the first person as if he were God.  Clearly this angelic satan was not a rebellious angel seeking to establish a kingdom of evil.  We see that an angel that is sent to cause harm to human beings can be referred to as a satan (an adversary, an enemy).  The angelic satan was not an enemy of God, but His messenger.  An enemy or adversary causes harm so the angel that causes harm to human beings was called a satan.

Let’s look at another angelic satan, the account being found in the book of Zechariah.  The prophet Zechariah sees two angels standing near the high priest, “And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan (the satan, the adversary) standing at his right hand to resist ( to be a satan) to him.”  (Zech. 3:1) The vision continues, “And the Lord said unto Satan (the satan, the adversary, the enemy), The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan (satan, enemy, adversary); even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?” (Zech. 3:2) We see in this vision that the angelic satan wants to harm Joshua the high priest but God calls him off because it would cause harm to Jerusalem.  Joshua here is likened to a brand saved from the fire, that is, a stick of wood about to be burned up that is plucked from the bonfire.  Joshua was supposed to be burned up by God’s wrath, but God gave him a last minute reprieve, not for his own sake but for the sake of Jerusalem.  After saving him from his punishment we read that Joshua’s soiled clothes are removed and he is dressed in fine robes (verses 3-5).  The dirty clothes symbolized to be covered in sin and worthy of punishment.  The angelic satan had been sent to punish Joshua.  God forgave Joshua and cancelled the punishment, he called off the angelic satan.  The angelic satan in this account, like in the account of Balaam, was sent to punish when God’s wrath was burning (“a brand plucked from the fire”) and in both cases the mission to harm is cancelled at the last minute.

We read that God rebuked the angel.   Let us understand.  There is one other Scripture that speaks about an angelic satan on someone’s right hand.  In Psalms 109:6 King David asks God to punish those who have harmed him, “Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan (Hebrew a satan)stand at his right hand.”  King David is praying that his enemies be punished by God, “appointing” an evil human to rule over them or an angelic satan who will harm them.  The angelic satan who comes to the right hand to do harm is “appointed” by God.  We should not be surprised to see that God rebukes the very angelic satan He Himself appointed to harm Joshua the high priest.  The ability to rescind His own decree of punishment is said to be one of the merciful traits of God.  “But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.”  (Psa. 78:38)

God can “turn back His anger” and forgive, cancelling the punishment that He has already decreed.  We know He did this for the Israelites after they worshipped the golden calf.  (Psa. 106:23) He also did this for Joshua the high priest.  Joshua’s soiled clothes, picturing being covered in sin and worthy of punishment, are removed and he is dressed in fine robes (Zech 3:4).  When God rebukes the angelic satan this is an act of “turning back His anger.” The angelic satan was “appointed” on Joshua’s “right hand” to punish him for his sins.   God decided to forgive Joshua and cancelled the punishment and removed his sin. He recalled the angelic satan He had sent to execute His wrath.

In the examples we have looked at we have seen no indication of a “Christian concept Satan.”  There are, however, a number of instances in the Hebrew Scriptures in which an angelic satan does seek to lead men to sin.  Let’s look at some of them and see if we see the Satan pictured most often by Christianity. 

Let us look at the account of the census of King David.  The Torah required that each person participating in a census pay a half shekel of silver to the Temple as “a ransom (an atonement) for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.”  (Exodus 30:12) This was done by writing down the names of all who paid the half shekel and then counting the names on the list (Ex. 30:13; Num. 1:2).  To simply send around a census-taker to count the people was a grievous sin that would bring God’s wrath on the nation.  This is where the angelic satan enters the story.  “And Satan (the satan, the adversary, the enemy) stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.”  (1 Chron. 21:1) David, as we know from the story, gave in to the satan’s incitement or provocation and he counted Israel which resulted in a devastating plague that killed thousands.

David’s census is also mentioned in a parallel account in the book of 2 Samuel.  We know that many of the accounts in the books of Samuel and Kings are repeated in the books of Chronicles, sometimes verbatim, other times with additional information.  In the case of David’s census we find some additional information.  Let’s notice 2 Samuel 24:1.  “And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.”  Here we see that the one who incited, provoked, David was God!  We just read in 2 Samuel that it was a satan.  We saw in the Balaam account that angelic satans are messengers of God who do His bidding, even speaking His words in the first person, like human messengers or prophets.  So when we read in one book that God incited Israel and in the other that a satan was the one doing the inciting, we must conclude that this satan was acting on God’s behalf.  It is not unusual at all to attribute the actions of the messenger to the one who sent him.  The sender is credited with the actions of the messenger acting on his behalf.  The angelic satan provoked David on God’s behalf, so it can be said that God provoked David.  Chronicles informs us that He did it by sending an angelic satan.

I believe it is worth noting that David was not tempted by the angelic satan, but was incited or provoked.  To incite in the Hebrew means to urge or otherwise influence someone to do something wrong.  For example, “If thy brother...entice (incite) thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods” (Deut. 13:6) We can only guess how the angelic satan urged David to count the people.  From Joab’s reaction (2 Sam. 24:3; 2 Chron. 21:3) it seems that David may have suffered from a sense of inferiority and desired to know how many people he ruled over so he could feel mighty.  Possibly the angelic satan even planted this seed of inferiority within David at God’s behest.  David COULD HAVE controlled his desire to sin, but he chose to satisfy himself rather than obey God’s commandment.

Why did God incite David to sin?  The book of Samuel tells us, “And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them...”  (2 Sam. 24:1) God was angry at Israel so He sent an angelic satan to incite David to sin.  We will recall that the angelic satan was also sent against Balaam because God was angry with him.  When God was angry he often sent angelic satans to punish mankind.  Balaam was nearly punished by being struck down by the angel.  When God was angry at Israel, rather than immediately striking them down, He incited David to cause them to further sin and thereby receive greater punishment.  This also gave them an opportunity to resist sinning and to receive forgiveness.  This is exactly what God explained to Cain back in the book of Genesis.  “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted (forgiveness)? and if thou doest not well (do not do good, do what is right), sin lieth at the door (pictured as an animal or a beast, i.e. the angelic satan).  And unto thee shall be his desire (he will tempt you to further sin), and thou shalt rule over him (BUT you can resist and not sin). This calls to mind the New Testament Scripture, “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”  (James 4:7)

The most detailed account of the angelic satan in the Hebrew Scriptures is found in the book of Job.  In the first two chapters of the book we read about two encounters between God and the angelic satan, the enemy or the adversary.  The fact that this angel is called “the satan,” the enemy or the adversary, proves that “Satan” was not his name.  In Biblical Hebrew a proper noun (i.e. a name) cannot be preceded by the word “the.”  In Hebrew it is impossible to say “the David” or “the Jacob.”  The angel in Job is called “the satan,” which tells us that satan is a description of the angel, not his name.  The angel in Job is “the enemy,” that is, the enemy that was sent to harm Job.

“Now there was a day when the sons of God (angels) came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan (Hebrew the satan, the adversary) came also among them.”  (Job 1:6) God is described much as a king holding a royal court.  Instead of royal courtiers and officials, the heavenly court is attended by the “sons of God,” the angels, including the angelic satan that would be sent against Job.  The account continues with an exchange between God and the angelic satan.  God declares that Job is the most righteous man on earth and the angelic satan responds that this is only because God has protected him.  “But,” suggests the angel, “put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.”  (Job 1:11) God agrees to the satan’s suggestion and instructs the angelic satan, “Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand.”  (Verse 12) The angelic satan is given permission to destroy all that Job has but not to touch Job himself.  We see that this angelic satan proceeds to kill Job’s children and destroy his property.  The angel is called a satan  because he is an enemy who harms Job. 

In Job chapter two we read of a second encounter between God and this angelic satan.  This time the angelic satan suggests that God harm Job’s body, “But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.”  (Job 2:5)   How does God respond?  He grants the angelic satan permission to harm Job’s person, “Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.”  (Verse 6) What we see is God smiting Job by giving him over into the hands of his angelic satanic messenger.

Just to what extent is this angelic satan an independent creature?   Notice, he can only do what God allows him to do.  While Job was under God’s protection the angelic satan was powerless to do anything to him.  The angel complained to God, “Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side?”  (Job 1:10) When God was ready to test Job He removed His protection and turned him over to the angelic satan, just as He did to Balaam and David.  Yet the actions of this angelic satan are said to be God’s actions.  Remember we read in chapter one, verse 11, where the angel suggests to God, “But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath,...”  God puts forth His hand against Job and his property by giving it over to this angelic satan.

We find once again that the sender is credited with the actions of the messenger.  Like the “sin beast” in the Cain account lying at the door, Job’s angelic satan lay waiting for Job to sin.  This angelic satan’s mission from God was not simply to punish a man or mankind, but to try and get him to sin so the man or mankind could receive an even greater punishment.  The angelic satan DID NOT do this on his own account or initiative.  He was sent by God to wander to and fro in the earth and to tempt those who have sinned to sin further or to test those whom God wished to test.

From the Old Testament Scriptures we have seen several things.  “Satan” is not a fallen archangel named Lucifer. (See my article “Lucifer is not Satan!.”) Angelic satans are enemies of mankind.   They are simply messengers who do God’s bidding.  Some fulfill the role of a “sin beast” that crouches or lies at the door, waiting to pounce on the sinner.  The angelic satan in Chronicles fulfilled this role and was sent by God to incite David to sin.  In Job the angelic satan was at first helpless to cause Job to sin, because God protected Job (Job 1:10).  But when God wanted to test Job He did this by allowing the angelic satan to tempt him.  Despite the horrible things that happened to Job we find that he succeeded in ruling over the great temptation to sin.  Although he was turned over to the hands of the angelic satan, Job was able by acting righteously to rule over the angelic satan rather than be ruled by it.

But, surely, when we now come to the New Testament we will find a great personage named “Satan” who wars against God and mankind, right?  Wrong!  What we find is a continuation of what we found in the Old Testament.  The Greek word satanas directly corresponds to the Hebrew satan and means the same thing, adversary (one who opposes another in purposes or act).  Every place this word, satanas, Strong’s G4567, is used it is translated in the KJV as “Satan,” with the word being capitalized, although grammatically there is no reason for it.  31 times out of the 36 the word is used the Greek shows the definite article “the” is in the original, the satanas, the adversary. 

The other 5 times satanas is used the word would properly be translated as “adversary” or “enemy.”  Let us take a quick look at those 5 passages.  “Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, satanas (adversary), for it is written,” (Matt. 4:10) In the context here we see Jesus is going through His great temptation by “the devil,” verse 1.  Verse 2 calls him “the tempter.”  Neither “devil” or “tempter” is a name but a description.  Devil is from the Greek diabolos, Strong’s G1228, meaning slanderer, accuser.  Tempter is from the Greek peirazo, Strong’s G3985, meaning to try, make trial or test.  These two words are, as I said, descriptions and so is the word satanas, adversary.  The angelic satanas is also an angelic diabolos and an angelic peirazo.  Jesus describes him as adversary, slanderer and tempter.  A second passage is found in Luke 4:8.  It  is a parallel Scripture to this one in Matthew.

The third and fourth passages are parallel accounts.  Let us notice Matthew 16:23, “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me satanas (adversary): thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”  The parallel account is in Mark 8:33.  Jesus is addressing Peter.  He doesn’t call him “Satan” as a name.  He calls him an adversary.  Peter was an adversary or an enemy to Jesus at that time.

The fifth passage is located in the book of Revelation, chapter 20 and verse 2.  “And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the diabolos, and satanas, and bound him a thousand years.”  Here we see descriptions, not names.  Dragon, serpent, slanderer, adversary are descriptions of this angelic messenger from God.  These are all descriptions of the activities this angelic being has been given to do by God.

There is one other term or word that we read frequently in the New Testament, devils or demons.  There are 3 different Greek words, 2 being derivatives of the other one. G1142 in Strong’s is daimon, which means simply an evil spirit. G1140 is derived from G1142 and is daimonion and is the most frequently used of the three.  It again means evil spirits.  The third word used in reference to being possessed by an evil spirit is G1139, daimonizomai.  From Revelation 12:4 we do get an indication that about one third of the angels are “evil spirits,” and are referred to as the dragon’s angels, verses 7 and 9.
 
If the one referred to as the adversary isn’t a fallen archangel, once named Lucifer, just where did he come from?  I think we have clearly shown that the one called the adversary is an angel that was created by God.  But, surely He didn’t create an “evil spirit?”  Yes, most definitely He did.  We try to reason around the Scripture over in Isaiah 45:7, “I form the light (which we can agree with), and create darkness (okay with that): I make peace (yes, God is the Peacemaker), and create evil (What?): I the Lord do all these things.”  Yes, God says he created evil.  Interestingly enough, among the many definitions for the Hebrew word rah or ra’ah is “adversity.” The adversary, the one bringing adversity,  was created by God. Notice a very clear Scripture in which God tells us plainly that He created him, Job 26:13.  “By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.”  Revelation 20:2 tells us plainly “that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan,...” We know that it was the adversary in the form of a serpent that appeared to Eve in the garden.

God is sovereign.  He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.  He is able to do all; He knows all; He is present everywhere at the same time.  He is the producer of all.  Look at Romans 11:36, “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever.  Amen.”

God is able to do all. He is quite able to keep the adversary from going contrary to His intentions and He is able to have him do whatever is in accord with His intentions and plan.  God knows all, even the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10) and the adversary has never deceived Him.  God knew beforehand just what the adversary was going to do at all times.  God being present everywhere at the same time, the adversary has never been able to hide from God.  Since God made ALL things He is the creator and maker of the adversary.  God’s plans are not being thwarted by this angelic being.  Instead God uses him to carry out His plan. God brought the adversary into being, for all is out of God (Rom. 11:36), and God determined beforehand that sin would enter the universe through the acts of the adversary.  We must understand that it is God who is doing all things according to His purpose and will.  “...according to the purpose of him who worketh all things (this includes the adversary) after the counsel of his own will.”   (Eph. 1:11)

This adversary has been given great power and authority.   The only one having greater power and authority is the Messiah, who prepared for the trial from the adversary by fasting for forty days and nights.  It appears from Scripture that the adversary has one third of the angels assisting him in his job.  This also is according to the will of God. 

The adversary was on hand at the time of the creation of mankind.  God’s purpose for mankind included a need for adversity, a need for the tempter, a need for the deceiver, a need for the slanderer.  Do I understand just exactly why?  NO, not totally.  But, much is revealed within the Job account.  The testing and trials brought upon Job, as terrible and evil as they were, served God’s great purpose.  Each of us must be tried and tested, must be purified through fire.  God is using the adversary to blind mankind until such time as God desires to open each ones mind to truth. ( 2 Cor. 4:4; Matt. 13:15) He uses the adversary to deceive all of us, for His purpose

The adversary of mankind was on the scene from the beginning.  We find him referred to as a serpent in the garden tempting mother Eve.  He was there when Cain rose up and killed Abel.  Jesus reveals a bit about the adversary, recorded in John 8:44.  “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye do.  He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.  When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for the is a liar, and the father of it.”  God cannot lie (Titus 1:2) but He has created this adversary to whom He has given a job that involves lying, slandering and inciting to sins of all types.  God is responsible.  It is His plan and purpose that the adversary be here.  There is not some great fallen archangel and a bunch of rebellious angels that are thwarting God’s plan.   The adversary and his angels  are doing what God instructs them to do and no more. These messengers of God never operate beyond the parameters set by God.

Edited 9/2/19

Who Is The Prince of Tyrus? Is This Speaking of “Satan”?

Most of us  have been told that the account of the Prince of Tyrus, found in Ezekiel 28, is a record of “Satan’s fall” from a position of a perfect cherub.  Let us look at this account in some detail and come to understand it. 

But, before we turn to chapter 28 let us notice the whole context here.  This all begins back in chapter 26.  Verse 2, “Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said...”  Verse 3, “Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus,...”  Verse 4 speaks of Tyrus and also verse 7.  This whole chapter is a prophecy about the destruction of the city of Tyrus, or Tyre.  We know from history that it happened as God prophesied.  Chapter 27 continues with a lamentation against Tyrus, verse 2.  A lamentation is defined as a “funeral dirge.”  So, when we come to chapter 28 the context continues with the subject of Tyrus, this time addressed to the leader, the “prince” or “king.”

Chapter 28 and verse 2, “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:”  Then in verse 12 we read,   “Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus (prince of Tyrus, verse 2), and say unto him, “Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.”  This isn’t addressed to “satan.”  Verse 2 states, “thou art a man,” whose heart was lifted up and he had said unto himself, “I am God, I sit in the seat of God.”   Verses 3 and 4 tell us that he was very wise and through his wisdom and understanding he had gotten great wealth.  In verses 8-10 we read of his death. 

Now, let us read verse 12 again, “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.”  We have been taught and have assumed that since it says he was “full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” it must be speaking of satan.  “Perfect” is used in a relative sense when it isn’t speaking of deity, of God.  In this passage God is merely shoving this into the king’s face, as it was Tyrus who earlier had attributed to herself (the city) this claim of perfect beauty, not God!  Notice Ezekiel 27:2-3, “Now, thou son of man, take up a lamentation for Tyrus; And say unto Tyrus, O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, [which art] a merchant of the people for many isles, Thus saith the Lord God; O Tyrus, thou hast said, I [am] of perfect beauty.”

In verse 12 we find an interesting expression, “Thou sealest up...”  What does this mean?  Notice what some of the commentators tell us.

First, from Adam Clarke’s commentary of Ezekiel 28:12, “Verse 12.  Thou sealest up] This has been translated, ‘Thou drawest thy own likeness.’  ‘Thou formest a portrait of thyself; and hast represented thyself the perfection of wisdom and beauty.’  I believe this to be the meaning of the place.”

John Wesley’s comments, “Thou sealest up - Thou fanciest that fulness of wisdom, and perfection of beauty are in thee.”  And, from Jameison, Faucett and Brown: “12. Sealest up the sum–literally, ‘Thou art the one sealing the sum of perfection.’  A thing is sealed when completed (Dan. 9:24).  ‘The sum’ implies the full measure of beauty, from a Hebrew root, ‘to measure.’  The normal man–one formed after accurate rule.”

What God is saying in this passage is that it was the king of Tyrus who ascribed to himself the greatest wisdom and perfection of beauty.  It clearly is not God who is saying that this individual is “full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.”

Let us continue with verse 13 of Ezekiel 28.  “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 was created.”

We have been told that this verse is a “proof text” that this is speaking of satan.  After all, wasn’t he in the garden of Eden and wasn’t he a created being?  Let us understand.

The word translated “Eden” in this verse is the same word or root translated “Eden” about 20 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.  It does sometimes  reference the “garden” that God planted in the area of the country called Eden.  But, it sometimes references other lands near the area of Eden and not “the garden” of Eden.  It even refers to the “children of Eden” as in II Kings 19:12.  And, we all are aware, are we not, that Adam and Eve had NO CHILDREN while they were yet in the “garden of Eden.”  Amos 1:5 speaks of the “house of Eden.”  Again, this is the same Hebrew word translated “Eden” in every occurrence of this word in the Hebrew Manuscripts.  And, by the way, Eden is the name of several persons in Scripture.

So, we see that “Eden” can mean various things, even though Eden is always translated from the same Hebrew word, which is Strong’s H5731, Eden, ay’-den; the same as H5730, eden, ay’den, from H5727, pleasure. H5727, adan, aw-dan, to be soft or pleasant...to live voluptuously.

This is a word that has meaning, not just a name.  And, it is a word that does not need to be capitalized, nor is it capitalized or even translated “eden” in other Scriptures.  Let us notice a couple.  “Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am old shall I have pleasure [Hebrew translated ‘pleasure’ here is eden, ay-den] my lord being old also?”  (Gen. 18:12) “They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of your house; and you shalt make them drink of the river of your pleasures [Hebrew translated ‘pleasures’ here is eden, ay-den’].”  (Psa. 36:8)

So, I ask, why should it be capitalized in Ezekiel 28:13?  The answer is, it shouldn’t!  Here are a couple of translations which don’t capitalize it or even translate it “eden.”  “Thou wast in the pleasures [Heb. eden, ay-den’] of the paradise [or garden] of God.”  (Ezek. 28:13, The Holy Bible, Douay Confraternity) “In the luxury [Heb. eden, ay-den’] of the garden of Alueim [God] you come to be.”  (Ezek. 28:13, The Concordant Literal Old Testament)

What is this about “every precious stone was thy covering?”  Nine stones plus gold are mentioned.  If you will remember there was a very special privileged relationship that Tyre had with Israel.  King David of Israel had been a close friend of Hram, the king of Tyre.  2 Sam. 5:11 we read of Hiram sending messengers to David along with material and workmen and they built David a house.  Later Solomon had made an alliance with Hiram in which Hiram supplied materials for the building of the temple.  What we are reading here in Ezekiel is in reference to the Israelites worship of God and by implication suggests that this king of Tyre had divine favor resting on him because of his association with Israel.  Consider for a bit the following.

“Every precious stone was thy covering” (verse 13 that we just read); “thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire”  (verse 14 which we hadn’t yet come to).   This seems very much to be an allusion to the stones set in the breastplate of the high priest (Ex. 39:10-14; Ex.28:15-21)  Ezekiel refers to them as “stones of fire” because of the way they would shine.  They symbolized the twelve tribes of Israel.  The king of Tyre walked in the midst of these stones of fire when he moved among the children of Israel as they prepared the materials for the temple.  The position of Israel in God’s divine purpose provided a “covering” for Tyre.  We can base this on what we read in Genesis 12:3, as spoken to Abraham, “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee:...”  We know that God blessed the house of Potiphar in Egypt because of Joseph, “the LORD blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had in the house, and in the field.”  (Gen. 39:4) Similarly, Tyre was “covered” by the LORD.

(Note: Although there were twelve stones set in the breastplate in settings of gold the KJV lists only nine stones here.  However, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament lists all twelve here in Ezekiel 28, plus chrysolite and silver.)

 
Let us move to the end of  verse 13, “...in the day that thou wast created.”  This is speaking of a created being and therefore couldn’t it mean satan as opposed to the King of Tyrus who was born rather than created?  Not at all!

Whether a person is born of a woman or is created directly out of the dust of the ground as was Adam, they are both “creations of God.”  We find a number of Scriptures that shows that  “created” can be applied to those born of a woman.  “But now thus says the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed you, O Israel...”  (Isa. 43:1) “...bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by My name: for I have created him; yea, I have made him” (Isa. 43:6-7) “Thus says the Lord God concerning the Ammonites...I will judge you [Ammonites] in the place where you were created...”  (Ezek. 21:28 & 30) “Have we not all one father?  Has not one God created US [all mankind]” (Mal. 2:10)

But, what about verse 14?  Surely we have no further use of discussing this, surely this is not a human but a cherub.  Doesn’t this verse clearly prove that this is satan and not some human?  No!  It actually proves only that we have a very bad translation.  Let’s look at the verse.

Ezekiel 28:14,   “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. (KJV)

Let’s look at a few other translations of this verse.

“On the day you were created, I placed you beside the kherubs on the sacred hill of God; you walked amid the flashing thunder-stones.”  (Ezek. 28:14 A New Translation by James Moffatt)

“In the day of your creation they established the anointed cherub’s booth.  And I bestow you in the holy mountain of Alueim [God].”  (Ezek. 28:14  Concordant Version of the Old Testament)

“With an anointed cherub as guardian I place you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked among the stones of fire.”  (Ezek. 28:14 The New Revised Standard Version)

“With the Cherub I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God, walking among the fiery stones.”  (Ezek. 28:14 The New American Bible)

“I gave you your place with the winged one; I put you on the mountain of God; you went up and down among the stones of fire.”  (Ezek. 29:14 The Bible in Basic English)

“You were with the anointed cherub that shelters; and I have set you on the holy mountain of God; and you were safe in the midst of the stones of fire.”  (Ezek. 28:14 Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text, George M. Lamsa’s translation from the Aramatic of the Peshita)

Hopefully, two things become clear from reading these various translations: (1) This verse is a challenge to translate, and (2) the prince of Tyre was NOT the cherub but rather the cherub was placed as a guardian with or beside the prince of Tyre. 

Granted we do not know a great deal about cherubs or cherubim.  From Scripture we know that they are not cute little chubby babies with tiny wings holding bows and arrows but are spirit creatures with great power, and yes, with wings.  God placed cherubim at the garden of Eden to guard the way of the tree of life. They were carved and made of gold and placed on the cover of the ark of the covenant. They also were associated with the decorations of the tabernacle and later the temple.  And, we find them associated with the throne of God. 

We know that God has two groups of spiritual messengers.  One group carries out acts of good while the other carries out acts of deceit and wickedness, i.e. evil.  Notice I Kings 22:19; “...I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven (angelic beings) standing by him on his right hand (the good) and on his left (the evil).”  We are reminded of the account in Matthew 25 when Messiah returns He shall gather the nations and separate them as a shepherd divides the sheep and the goats.  Those on the right hand were to inherit the kingdom, but those on the left hand were told to depart into the fire.  (Matt. 25:31-41)

As mentioned, we find cherubim associated with the Throne of God and the possibility that there are cherubim associated with the throne of world leaders is very plausible.  Whatever their earthly function, as guardians, etc., there was a cherub associated with the king of Tyrus.  He was with or beside the king.  He was not the king.  And, there is absolutely no indication that the cherub was the adversary, the satan.

What about the statement “thou wast upon the holy mountain of God;”?  Doesn’t that indicate this individual had been in heaven?  No, numerous Scriptures plainly tell us that the mountain of God is Mt. Zion, here on earth.  Micah 4:2, “And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”  Joel 3:17, “So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more.”

Let us continue with verse 15 of Ezekiel 28.  “Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created, till iniquity was found in thee.”  We have been taught that this is speaking of a being that was created perfect, in other words a spirit being.  The Hebrew word translated “perfect” is H8549 in Strong’s, tamiym.  Some of the meanings given are “complete, whole, entire, sound, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity.”  This man, this ruler, this king, had integrity until iniquity, sin, was found in him.  And, what was that sin?  Of having his heart lifted up and saying that he was a God (verse 2).

Verse 16 continues, “By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.”

Let us begin to understand.  Notice again verses 4 and 5.  This man had “gotten thee riches,” verse 4 and “by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches,” verse 5.  Exactly what verse 16 is saying, “by the multitude of thy merchandise.”  “And thou hast sinned,” is what we read in verse 15, “till iniquity was found in thee.”

But, what about the last part of verse 16?  Is it the ruler, the king of Tyrus or the cherub that God says is going to die, to be destroyed?  Verses 8-10 seem quite plain that it is the man, the king of Tyrus that is to die but this verse seems to imply that the “covering cherub” is the one to be destroyed, doesn’t it?  Just as we saw in verse 14 that it was the cherub that was with the king we have a similar translation difficulty here.

Let us look at a couple of other translations.

First of all from the Revised Standard Version.  Ezek. 28:16,  “In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and the guardian cherub drove you out from the midst of the stones of fire.”

The Bible in Basic Engilsh renders it this way:  Ezekiel 28:16,  “Through all your trading you have become full of violent ways, and have done evil: so I sent you out shamed from the mountain of God; the winged one put an end to you from among the stones of fire.”

The language is poetic but it seems clear that the protection, the guardianship given by the cherub was to be removed.  Notice verses 17-19.  This man was to be laid before kings and they would behold him (verse 17).  He was to be brought to ashes (spirit beings can’t be turned into ashes) upon the earth in the sight of all that beheld him (verse 18).  Verse 19 says, “All they that know thee among the people,” (This isn’t a spirit being.)  “And never shalt thou be any more.”   One called “satan” is still around.

God gave Ezekiel these words (verse 1) regarding the prince or king of Tyrus.  The nineteen verses we have just looked at were to and about this individual.  Some of the language is poetic.  Some areas we find the translation has been difficult.  But, when we read  it with understanding we see that it is not talking about a spirit or angelic being but about a man.  These nineteen verses are a continuation of the prophecy and lamentation against Tyrus the city, and the prince or king.  Chapter 26, as we looked at in the beginning of this study,  is totally about Tyrus.   We found that chapter 27 is another lamentation for Tyrus, verses 1 and 2.  Chapter 28 continues with God’s words against this city and this king. Remember, originally there were no chapter breaks.  The narrative just continues from chapter 26:1 through chapter 28:19.  And, verse 20 continues with Tyre’s sister city Sidon or Zidon.  There is not anything here in these three chapters about a “perfect angelic being” rebelling against God and becoming satan.

revised 1/8/11

“Get Thee Behind Me, Satan.”

 

We read in Matthew 16:23 and in the parallel account in Mark 8:33 that Jesus said to Peter,  “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou are an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”  Was the Messiah calling Peter “Satan” or the devil?  No!  Not at all.  Let us understand just what is going on here.

The Greek word translated “Satan” is satanas and directly corresponds to the Hebrew satan and means the same thing, adversary.  That is, “one who opposes another in purposes or act.”  Every place that this word, satanas, Strong’s  G4567, is used it is translated in the KJV as “Satan,” with the word being capitalized, although grammatically there is no reason for it.  31 times out of the 36 the word is used the Greek shows the definite article “the” is in the original, the satanas, the adversary.

The other 5 times satanas is used the word would properly be translated as “adversary” or “enemy.”  Let us take a quick look at those 5 passages.   “Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, satnas” (adversary), for it is written,” (Matt. 4:10) In the context here we see Jesus is going through His great temptation by “the devil,” verse 1.  Verse 2 calls him “the tempter.”  Neither “devil” or “tempter” is a name but a description.  Devil is from the Greek diabolos, Strong’s G1228, meaning slanderer, accuser.  Tempter is from the Greek peirazo, Strong’s G3984, meaning to try, make trial or test.  These two words are, as I said, descriptions and so is the word satnas, adversary.  The angelic satanas is also an angelic diabolos and an angelic peirazo. Jesus describes him as adversary, slanderer and tempter.  A second passage in Luke 4:8 is a parallel Scripture to this one in Matthew.

The third and fourth passages are the ones we referenced in the opening paragraph, and which we will come back to in a moment.  Let us look at the 5th passage, Revelation 20:2.  “And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and satan, and bound him a thousand years.”  The dragon, serpent, diablos (devil) and satanas (satan) are all descriptions, none of these are names.

Now back to Matthew 16:23.  As we read, Jesus is addressing Peter.  Let us read it as it should be translated.  “...Get thee behind me adversary:” He doesn’t call him “Satan” as a name.  He calls him an adversary, one who is opposing Him in what He had to do.  At that moment Peter was an adversary or an enemy to Jesus.

This is just an unfortunate translation and one that has been perpetuated by most translators, yet it is common knowledge.  Here are just a couple of quotations from some common Bible commentators.

From Adam Clarke’s commentary of Matthew 16:23.  “Get thee behind me, Satan - (he gives the Greek which I won’t put in) Get behind me, thou adversary.  This is the proper translation of the Hebrew word satan, from which the Greek word is taken.  Our blessed Lord certainly never designed that men should believe he called Peter, Devil, ...”

Quoting from Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Matthew 16:23, “Get thee behind me, Satan - The word ‘Satan’ literally means ‘an adversary,’ or one who opposes us in the accomplishment of our designs.  It applies to the devil commonly, as the opposer or adversary of man; but there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus meant to apply this term to Peter, as signifying that he was Satan or the devil, or that he used the term in anger.  He may have used it in the general sense which the word bore as an adversary or opposer; and the meaning may be, that such sentiments as Peter expressed then were opposed to him and his plans....”

Again, the Messiah did not call the disciple Peter a dirty name, did not insensate that Peter was the great adversary or was possessed or influenced by that being.  He called him what he was at that moment, an adversary, one that was opposing what He, the messiah, had to do and face.

10/26/2013 with minor edits 9/1/19

Lucifer Is Not Satan!

 

 
I’ve been taught throughout my lifetime that the being we refer to as the devil was once an archangel named Lucifer and that he rebelled against God and became “satan.”  Where did that teaching come from?  Most of you will respond by telling me that Isaiah 14  reveals that to us.  Does this chapter really teach us that?  Does it support that teaching?  Let us look at this chapter and see if it really reveals that.

Before we turn to the Scriptures let us look at what some of the well known Bible commentaries tell us.  First from Adam Clarke’s commentary on Isaiah 14:12.

    “Verse 12. O Lucifer, son of the morning] The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render heilel as signifying Lucifer, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn.  And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet  as common to him as those of Satan and Devil.  That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed.  But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text.  O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented!  Besides, I doubt whether our translation be correct.  heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from yalal, yell, howl or shriek, and should be translated, ‘Howl, son of the morning;’ and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under halal.”

Let us look further at John Wesley’s comments in his commentary of Isaiah 14:12.

    “Fallen - From the height of thy glory.  Lucifer - Which properly is a bright star, that ushers in the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the mighty king of Babylon.  Son - The title of son is given in scripture not only to a person or thing begotten or produced by another, but also to any thing which is related, to it, in which sense we read of the son of a night, Jonah 4:10, a son of perdition, John 17:12, and, which is more agreeable, to the present case, the sons of Arcturus, Job 38:32.”

And, from one more commentary, Matthew Henry’s:

    “How hast thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer! son of the morning!  v. 11, 12.  The king of Babylon shone as brightly as the morning star, and fancied that wherever he came he brought day along with him; and has such an illustrious prince as this fallen, such a star become a clod of clay?  Did ever any man fall from such a height of honour and power into such an abyss of shame and misery?  This has been commonly alluded to (and it is a mere allusion) to illustrate the fall of the angels....”

Just reading these commentator’s words I think we have to begin to question the teaching we have grown up with.  So, let us begin our study by looking briefly at the verses in question in Isaiah 14.

“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!  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” (Isa. 14:12-14)

Let us first notice who God is addressing Himself to in this passage of Scripture.  Verse 4, “That thou shall take up this proverb against the king of Babylon...”

God is speaking of and to and about “the King of Babylon,” not Lucifer, not satan, not a cherub.  Drop down a few verses and we will see that God tells us of the end of this man’s reign, verse 11.

“Thy (referring to the king of Babylon) pomp is brought down to the grave, (satan never died or was placed into a grave) and the noise of thy viols (harps or lutes): the worm (or maggots) is spread under thee (maggots do not eat spirit bodies), and the worms cover thee.”

Your teaching and mine have been much alike and you are probably already parroting the old line, “ but the narrative jumps in verse 12 from the king of Babylon to the spirit being named Lucifer”.  Does it?  Is this “Lucifer” of verse 12 satan the devil?  What does the end of the king of Babylon, in verse 11, have to do with the beginning of satan?

Let us look at verse 12 again.  “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!”

We need to understand.  Notice again what we read in verse 4 that God says to take up this proverb against the “king of Babylon.”  Picking up this “proverb” in verse 10, which is after all the “trees” (different people which feared the king), spoken of in verses 6-8, are at rest because of the king’s demise.  We will see if this “Lucifer theory” fits into these verses without twisting and wresting the English language.

Verses 10-14 of Isaiah 14: “All they shall speak and say unto thee (king of Babylon), art thou (king of Babylon) also become weak as we?  art thou (king of Babylon) become like unto us (mortal men and not gods from heaven)?  Thy (king of Babylon) pomp is brought down to the grave, [and] the noise of thy (king of Babylon) viols; the worm is spread under thee (king of Babylon), and the worms cover thee (king of Babylon).  How art thou (king of Babylon) fallen from heaven, O Lucifer...”

Okay, what is this?  How can the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon(made reference to eight times in two sentences), suddenly turn into “Lucifer” in the middle of a sentence?  Is “Lucifer” a proper name?  Is “Lucifer” another name for the king of Babylon?  Is “Lucifer” an English word?  Is there a Hebrew word that can be translated “Lucifer?”

Doing a bit of research we find that this word “Lucifer” appears NO other place in all of Scripture.  Furthermore, “Lucifer” is not a Hebrew word, nor is it a English translation of a Hebrew word.  “Lucifer” is Latin!  And, it is related to a group of Latin derived English words including lucid, luciferin, and luciferose.  All of these words suggest brightness or shining.  “Lucifer” is the Latin Vulgate translation of the word “xosphoruos” in the Septuagint.  This Greek word “xosphoruos” is the root of the English words fluorescence and phosphorescence.  They also suggest brightness and shining.

Interestingly, there are no Hebrew or Aramaic text in which there is a word in this verse that corresponds.  What is found in ALL such texts is the word “hehlehl,” eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem “yah-iahl,” ill.  And what is the meaning of “ill?”  It means HOWL! 

So, where does this bring us?  There appears to be some confusion between a word meaning “brightness” and one meaning “howl.”  It has been suggested that the translators of the Septuagint may have overlooked the smallest of the Hebrew letters or perhaps were using a copy in which it had been inadvertently omitted.  Thus if the form of the word eill, as it occurs in this particular verse, were shortened to ell its meaning would be derived from a different root, in fact would be itself a different root, and the sense given in the Septuagint and the Vulgate would be at least understandable.  However, there is still one gigantic exception.  It could possibly mean “a shining one,” but there is ABSOLUTELY NO reason or rule of grammar for turning the word into a personal name such as “Lucifer.”  Doubtless the KJV translators followed the Vulgate as they did in most of their translating.

Following is a listing of all of the King James renderings of the word that is found in the “Hebrew” texts and transliterations of its various forms.  Every occurrence in the entire KJV is listed.  You can be the judge.  In ALL Hebrew or Aramaic texts of Isaiah 14:12 the only word found is “heh-lehl,” eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem “yah-lahl,” ill, meaning howl.  Here is Kittel’s Hebrew Text for the Hebrew stem ill–“yah-lahl”–HOWL:

    Isa 13:6    eiliu    Howl ye
     Isa 14:31    eili    Howl
     Isa 15:2    iilil    shall howl
     Isa.15:3    iilil    shall howl
     Isa.16:7    iilil    Howl
     Isa.16:7    iilil    shall howl
     Isa. 23:1    eililu    Howl ye
     Isa. 23:6    eililu    Howl ye
     Isa. 23:14    eilile    Howl ye
     Isa. 52:5    eililu    make to howl
     Isa. 65:14    eililu    shall howl
     Jer. 4:8    ueililu    Howl
     Jer. 25:34    eililu    Howl
     Jer. 47:2    ueill    and shall howl
     Jer. 48:20    eilili    Howl
     Jer. 48:31    ailil    will I howl
     Jer. 48:39    eililu    They shall howl (Howl ye)
     Jer. 49:3    eilili    Howl (Howl ye)
     Jer. 51:8    eililu    howl
     Ezek. 30:2    eililu    Howl ye
     Hos. 7:14    ililu    They howled
     Joel 1:5    ueililu    And howl
     Joel 1:11    eililu    howl
     Joel 1:13    eililu    And shall be howlings
     Amos 8:1    ueililu    and howl
     Micah 1:8    uailile    howl ye
     Zeph. 1:11    aililu    Howl
     Zech. 11:2    eill    howl
     Zech. 11:2    eililu    howl
     Isa. 14:12    eill    LUCIFER (??)

One need not be a Hebrew scholar to see at once that “Lucifer” is totally out of place in this listing.  The meaning of this word is exceedingly clear; eill is a verb that means “HOWL”, and not a noun that can be in any way twisted into a personal name such as “Lucifer”!

Please notice carefully that the Hebrew verb eill in Isa. 14:12 is the very same identical form of the first verb eill in Zech. 11:2.  Let us try substituting the personal noun “Lucifer” in place of the verb “howl” in the two places it occurs in Zech. 11:2.  (Note that here as in many Scriptures, the trees are likened to people who are crying out because of death and destruction.)

“Lucifer, fir tree; for the cedar is fallen; because the mighty are spoiled: Lucifer, O ye oaks of Bashan; for the forest of the vintage is come down.”

I think you will have to agree such a translation would be nonsense.  Let us try the same substitution back in Isaiah 14 where we find the word Lucifer in verse 12.  Notice how this word is translated in verse 31.  Instead of “Howl, O gate; cry, O city...”  We would have it read, Lucifer, O gate; cry, O city...”  Again, such a translation would be pure nonsense; just as it is also nonsense translated that way in Isa. 14:12.

In a footnote Kittel tells us that it is only the Septuagint (which is the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) that we find this word ell instead of eill.  This word was translated into eospearos, which Jerome translated into Lucifer with a capital “L” and which the King James translators carried over into our English Bible without checking the HEBREW manuscripts.  If they would have it would have solved this dilemma.  ALL of the Hebrew manuscripts have eill in Isaiah 14:12.  And, keep in mind that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, NOT Greek or Latin.

Let us read a few translations other than the KJV and see how they have dealt with this strange word ell which comes to us by way of the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.

“How you are fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!  You are hacked down to the earth, destroyer of nations.”  (New International Version)

“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!  (New Revised Standard Version) Note:  There is absolutely no reason to capitalize “day,” “star,” or “dawn” in this version.

A few translations have chosen to follow the Hebrew manuscripts rather than the Catholic Latin Bible.

“How you have fallen from the heavens!  Howl, son of the dawn!  You are hacked down to the earth, defeater of all nations.”  (Concordant Literal Old Testament)

“How are you fallen from heaven!  howl in the morning! for you have fallen down to the ground, O reviler of the nations.”  (Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text   George M.  Lamsa’s translation)

Another question that we need to address is just who was it that fell from heaven?  And does the phrase “fallen from heaven” prove that this individual had to have been at God’s throne or in heaven to “fall from heaven”therefore proving that this must have been a spirit being?  The answer is NO.  This is simply a figure of speech.  And, to prove this let us look to the words of our Saviour in Luke 10:15.   “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.”  So here we have a whole city being thrown down from heaven to hades, their grave.  And so it is with the King of Babylon whose “pomp is brought down to the grave” (Isa. 14:11) These two Scriptures have exact parallel thoughts.

From the context it is very clear that it is the king of Babylon who elevated himself to high heaven in the heavens of his own mind, and it is the same king of Babylon who has “fallen from the heavens,” and it is the same king of Babylon who is “hacked down to the earth,” and it is the same king of Babylon who was the “defeater of all nations,” and not a “perfect satan.”

Before we move on let us look at verses 13 and 14 of Isaiah 14.  Do we find any sign of satan here?

Isaiah 14:13  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Isaiah 14:14  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Many would have us believe this is speaking of a spirit being rebelling against God and attempting to displace Him.  As we have seen the context has been about a man and a system.  So, the language here shouldn’t be a surprise.  It is a continuation of Babylon, the same system that started at Babel, where they first thought to build “a tower whose top many reach into heaven.”  (Gen. 11:4)

Now verse 15:

15  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell (sheol–the grave), to the sides of the pit (cistern, hole, dungeon, or possibly crypt)

This is speaking of the demise, the death, of the king of Babylon, not the death of satan.

Maybe there is some sign of satan in verse 16.

Isaiah 14:16  They that see thee (has any man seen satan?) shall narrowly look (gaze) upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man (“man?”  This is no satan but a MAN!) that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

As one continues reading there are more references to a “man,” not a spirit being.  Verse 19, “But thou art cast out of thy grave...”  Verse 20, “Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial,...” 

We find in these verses that just like many of the Pharaohs and rulers of other nations who taught and thought that they were “gods” and who exalted themselves and their thrones to heaven, this king of Babylon was also just a MAN.  And, God Almighty tells him to “HOWL” because He is going to bring him “DOWN TO HELL,” (the grave.)  And, from history and archeology we find that is exactly what happened.

After looking at the context, understanding the unfortunate translation and capitalization used here,  and without making assumptions, it is quite clear that there was no archangel named Lucifer that rebelled against God and became the adversary, called “Satan,” being talked about here.   Isaiah 14 is speaking only of a man, the king of Babylon, not an archangel.

Updated 12/27/10