The following is a short course we hope you will feel free to use when attempting to teach others, or show them, that the reference to Lucifer in Isaiah 14 and, similarly, the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28, is really a reference to Satan, an evil spirit, fallen angel, and arch-enemy of the Most High God, Yahweh.
How
to prove that “Lucifer” is Satan in Isa. 14:12-14
& that the King of Tyre is really Satan in Ezekiel 28:11-19
Concerning: (We include, for the sake of convenience, the reference scriptures below.)
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!
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:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Ezekiel 28:11 ¶ Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
12 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.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14
Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou
wast upon the holy
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16
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
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
A
Quick Review of the two scriptures, then we will answer the “objections”
offered up by opponents of this doctrine.
To
begin with, first let’s look closely at Isa. 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!
The very first thing we need to make note of is that whomever or whatever this Lucifer is, he is being cut down from of all places “HEAVEN”!
Some have just stopped here and declared, “What else do we need- this Lucifer was “in” heaven!” But, in the interest of civility and decency, and veracity and resolve, we must look at more than the use of just one word before establishing and believing a doctrine.
How many of us have ever been in heaven? None, right?! So, by default, it is reasoned that this must be a reference to a spirit being who obviously held a rather important position (as we also glean from elsewhere).
Secondly, this “Lucifer” is cut down to the “ground”. Most people are not aware of this, but the Hebrew word translated to “ground” in this particular verse is “erets” and is only translated to the word “ground” a mere 98 times. However, the same word erets is also translated to “earth” 712 times- a significant difference, and for this “Lucifer” to be cut down to erets, or- “the earth”, makes perfect sense since he was “in” heaven.
Some would be tempted to stop here, supposing again- what else needs saying, but because veracity is so insistent upon thoroughness, we need to scrutinize as much as we can- whether to answer the call to defend a position or to establish one in the first place. Either way, it is incumbent upon each of us to be able to present this issue with sufficient detail to win the day in truth.
Verse 13 continues: 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:
Again, some would say, “How could a human even expect he would be able to ‘ascend into heaven’?” Again, a sign to some that this Lucifer is a spirit being capable of entering heaven.
Next, we find this spirit being, Lucifer, has a throne. Since it does not say anything here, we can surmise that the throne was given to him by a superior force or entity- the only possible choice- by God himself. Not only does he have a throne, which means power and dominion over a realm of some sort, but he also wanted to extend it to be “above” the stars of God himself. Now, whatever those “stars” may or may not be, this is surely blasphemous vain thinking! Would it not be totally fair to state that this line of thinking reveals to us that this Lucifer is full of vanity? He thought he was pretty hot stuff. This point is used to further support the premise that Lucifer is indeed Satan.
Finally, verse 14 states that this Lucifer intends to rise up over the clouds. Since he was banished to earth, that would appear to be simple enough to understand- but notice that it reads, “I will be like”. Here, the verb is in the Hithpael Verb Stem in Hebrew and specifically means: “to make oneself like”. This “being” is so vain that he thinks he can be as God to the earth and its inhabitants! We might notice that this verb does not mean that he will become God, just that he will appear to be God to others.
Yes, to some of us it is quite easy to see that this Lucifer, the subject of these verses, is really Satan. But, before I get into the “objections” raised by the opponents to this understanding (and answering them) I need to quickly review the Ezekiel exchange.
Beginning with verse 11 we see a new subject or section being introduced. Let’s see what it will tell us.
Ezekiel 28:12 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.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14
Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou
wast upon the holy
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
A couple of things to note- the “Son of man” here is a reference to Ezekiel. He is instructed to “take up,” which in the Hebrew Verb Stem of Qal, simply means that Ezekiel must be the bearer of this message, or in this case- dirge, which is a lamentation. This, of course, is what makes this a prophecy to this King of Tyre, since it has not yet happened, but will. This “lamentation”, or dirge, or funeral song, is about the end of this King’s realm.
That this King cannot be a mere mortal becomes more apparent to some of us as we continue. Consider, God even says that this King “seals up the sum”- meaning he was the epitome of what a King should be. He was “full of wisdom”- how many humans are “full” of wisdom? He was “perfect in beauty”- who or what else, but a spirit being could be “perfect in beauty”?
Next, we see that this King was actually “in” the
Garden of Eden. This is written centuries after Adam and Eve, yet we see this
“King” had a presence in
Then, it happened! This King became vain and was kicked out
of “heaven” from over the
Now, does that pretty well explain it the way you see it? Next I will go through the various objections raised by those who believe that Lucifer might be a human and that the King of Tyre was also just a human being- a man- like the rest of us.
The
Objections:
Lucifer
is not “Lucifer”!
Actually,
the very first objection to cover is one that almost no one realizes. In Isaiah
14: 12 we see the appearance of the name “Lucifer”. The Hebrew word (for
Lucifer) in that verse is “heylel”, which only appears once in the entire
bible. Yet, the root word from which it is derived appears often. First, we need
to note and ask what appears to be a glaringly obvious question, “What is a
Latin term doing in an English translation of the Hebrew bible?”
The answer may astonish those who have never examined this aspect or problem. It was used in the Latin Vulgate and found it way into the English from there. Thus, under the Roman Emperor, it was Jerome who introduced this Latin term into the Vulgate bible. But, is it correct? May I suggest, for a full examination of that question, you can read the article, “The Name Lucifer,” which is found on the Israel of God website (www.israelofgod.org) at: www.israelofgod.org/lucifer.htm Please be sure and read all the way to the end- especially the section entitled: Stop- Read This!
Also, you might find the article “Sin and Satan” – also on the Israel of God website, of very special interest. The Link- www.israelofgod.org/sinsatan.htm
So, unless you, the reader, can provide more information, I must concede the point as presented in the aforementioned article. The name Lucifer is a complete mistranslation! Thus, the evil being Satan was never really named Lucifer!
Continuing on, what about “heylel”? As it turns out, I must concede another point here. It seems that while the root word can have either a good or bad (positive or negative) meaning or usage, it nowhere can be shown to have the slightest thing to do with "Star" or "Day" or "Morning" or "Bringing" or "Carrying." The bottom line, unfortunately, is that this verse would be more accurately translated to: “O Boastful One, son of the morning”. The problem with accepting this point is that it does open a crack in the door to those who believe Lucifer to be a human… but let’s continue.
“Son of the morning” simply means, “product of dawn”. The word “son” (ben in Hebrew) does not carry with it a genesis or origin requirement as in lineage, but more in line with the idea of attributes. My “son” looks like me- because I produced him. Of course, he might look like his grandfather or mother or grandmother, or uncle, or…, but the point is that “ben” nowhere demands a bio-genesis. We need to look elsewhere to find out what this refers to. Let’s set it aside for the moment, since no one really knows what to object to here anyway.
Heaven
is not “heaven”!
Heaven!
We all know what that word means, right? It is the domain of God in the spirit
realm… isn’t it? Well, maybe we need to examine the biblical usage a little
bit before confirming that. Since this is from the Old Testament, let me stick
with the Old Testament. That way we can remain with the Hebrew.
Some will claim that “heaven”, which is “shamayim” in Hebrew, is not a reference to the spirit realm of God, but just a reference to the physical realm and either an elevated physical location or metaphorically an elevated physical position of power, dominion, or reign.
One of the quickest references I can find on this issue is a comparison of:
Exodus 19:20 And the LORD came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the LORD called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.
Here, and feel free to read the entire chapter for context, we see that YHWH (God) was on the top of the physical mountain from where he spoke and gave the 10 Commandments.
And next:
Exodus 20:22 ¶
And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of
Since “heaven” here was simply the top of the mountain in chapter 19, we must at least begin to consider that the Hebrew use of the term translated to “heaven” is not the same as the Greek paganistic cultural understanding.
A rather interesting point concerning “heaven” needs to be made here. The Hebrew word is a plural in every single appearance in the bible. Furthermore, the Hebrew use of “heaven of heavens” or “the highest heavens” as it appears in some English translations is simply a way of expressing a higher elevation- within the sky. For example, the bible frequently speaks of the fowls of the air, with the word “air” usually as “shamayim” (heavens, remember- plural). Then we find that the clouds are in this same “heavens” and higher than the birds. Elsewhere, we may find where the stars are in the highest heaven(s), but this only means that as the clouds are above where the birds fly, so too are the stars above the clouds. While there is much more to examine, you can do so in other articles on the Israel of God site, especially the series on the “New Heavens and New Earth” and the one on Genesis 1:1-2 about Creation.
The bottom line here is, again, the biblical use of the word translated to “heaven” has no inherent requirement to be a reference to a spirit world realm. Actually, after doing some further research on this point, it is now seen that it never is a reference to a spirit world location. It is either always a reference to an elevated physical location, or a metaphorical application to a higher state of being or rank, or authority, but always with respect to the human or physical realm.
The
earth is not Earth!
When
it reads that the “Boastful one” was cut down to the “ground”- ground
being translated from erets, we must concede that the word erets
is translated to the word “land” 1,543 times. A study into this word reveals
that the understanding of the English word “earth” to mean “Earth”, is
completely without merit and totally unfounded. The word erets can
never be shown in the entirety of scripture (it appears 2504 times), to
be a reference to the planet “Earth”! That is right- not one time! This
creates an entirely new way at looking at the use of “erets” (land)
in scripture.
Before moving to verse 13 let me mention that when it says this Boastful One “weakened” the nations, the word for weakened can apply to physical distress brought on by other humans. Such is the case with the identical word being used in Exodus 17:13 And Joshua discomfited (weakened) Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.
The word simply means he conquered them, which would certainly allow for a human king to do so in Isaiah, since even Joshua did so to Amalek in Exodus.
The
stars are not Stars!
Since we can’t really defend the verse 13 “ascend into heaven” anymore (because “heaven” is not required to mean the spirit realm as commonly thought), let’s next examine the, “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:”
At this point, just from prior evidence, we can no longer demand that the “throne” be a spirit derived throne- as it could perfectly well be a human throne on earth (the land). So, unless we can ascertain otherwise from other scriptures elsewhere, we need to side step this minor point.
At any rate, let’s ask the question, “Who or what are the stars of God”?
Well, again, what could they be? One place we can look is Genesis 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
This one leaves us with the possibility that the stars
of God is
Since it was obvious to Jacob that the stars of heaven
were the twelve sons (hence, the twelve tribes of Israel) and that the sun and
moon were Joseph’s father and mother (consider the appearance of same in
Revelation 12), then we must concede that the Hebrew has utterly no requirement
at all to mean that the stars in Isaiah are spirit beings or angels of some
sort. If they do mean that- then we must find that meaning elsewhere- and
be able to prove it is valid here. But, for now, it seems I am without
defense- these stars in Isaiah could very well be a reference to
So,
who then is the “mount” of what “congregation”?
Well, without getting into it too much, it would now seem
that the “mount”, as in so many references in the Hebrew, is a reference to
the leadership, in this case, kingly line, over
Well, I am convinced. I was wrong to assume that the Boastful One was anyone other than the King of Babylon- a human being. I suppose the real clinchers for me were the following two verses. In verse 15 the Boastful One is told he is going into the “grave”, which means his life is over. Then in verse 16 the Boastful One is called a “man”.
An examination of Daniel 2 and Daniel 5 with regard to Isaiah 14 should also further illuminate the issue to reveal that unquestionably this Boastful One was a human king.
Well, there is still Ezekiel 28! But, I must admit- It isn’t looking good for the home team.
OK, so you got me.
If you have read this far it should be pretty obvious that not only is Lucifer not a name for Satan, but that there is no Satan in Isaiah 14:12. Furthermore, it would be unwise to continue reading and expect me to “prove” that the King of Tyre is really a coded reference for Satan.
However, for those who would like to see what we do with the verses, read on
Ezekiel
28:12 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.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
Let’s simply review other verses and see if anything in chapter 28 makes this King anything other than human.
The series in verse 12 is very similar to another series no one questions as referring to a human:
Eze 28:2 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:
Eze 28:3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:
Eze 28:4 With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures:
Eze 28:5 By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:
It would seem that either the Prince of Tyre is also Satan, or the basis for making the King- Satan- is a little “weakened”?
This is all by the same prophet with the same style and the same inspiration. Is there a reason we should not find the same uses, applications and understandings for the same words?
Eze 27:3 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.
Eze 27:4 Thy borders are in the midst of the seas, thy builders have perfected thy beauty.
I suppose that pretty well takes care of verse 12, even though there is more- should anyone wish to argue the point.
Now, verse 13.
The
garden of Eden is not the Garden of Eden!
Same writer, etc. Consider the use of
Eze
31:9 I have made him fair by the
multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of
Eze
31:16 I made the nations to
shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that
descend into the pit: and all the trees of
Eze
31:18 To whom art thou thus like
in glory and in greatness among the trees of
Ezekiel is using poetic imagery and symbolism to represent
his subject. Is there a valid reason that would force us to alter chapter 31’s
application of
Created
does not mean “Created”!
Bara, the Hebrew here for “created”, is used here in the Niphal Verb Stem. This word, bara, according to Brown, Driver, Briggs, in general means “to fashion or shape”, thus into something. The Hebrew word- in this Verb Stem (Niphal)- according to “The Brown- Driver- Briggs” lexicon- is specifically a reference to “birth.” Compare the use here with another verse just a little earlier by the same author- also in the Niphal Verb Stem- found in: Eze 21:30 Shall I cause it to return into his sheath? I will judge thee in the place where thou wast created (bara), in the land of thy nativity. So, regardless of one’s understanding of the use of bara, it cannot be required to mean “created by fiat”, in Ezekiel 28- or anywhere in scripture, and if it is in the Niphal form- it does not!
The
covering cherub is not the “Covering Cherub”!
At this point, should anyone still contend that the king was a spirit being called Satan, let me reference the JFB Commentary, since they are well aware of the imagery we have been discussing:
covereth—The imagery employed by Ezekiel as a
priest is from the Jewish temple, wherein the cherubim overshadowed the mercy
seat, as the king of Tyre, a demi-god in his own esteem, extended his protection
over the interests of Tyre. The cherub—an ideal compound of the highest kinds
of animal existence and the type of redeemed man in his ultimate state of
perfection—is made the image of the king of Tyre, as if the beau ideal of
humanity. The pretensions of Antichrist are the ulterior reference, of whom the
king of
The holy
The rest of this can be gone through on your own, at your own leisure. It would appear that enough of a dent has been made in the doctrine that Satan is discussed in those two chapters that anyone can continue from here. It is hoped that you did find some, and maybe all, of the information presented in this paper to be of value, if not eye-opening!
Well, I guess that bad old Satan the Devil is not to be found in Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28. I wonder if we should look into this Satan thing and see where he really did come from and where he is now? Stay tuned! I hope to really be able to defend that position!
Richard Fix
July 2006
Teachings - more articles