OK...thanks.

So, it goes from being about a human-born, earthly king to being about God's spirit-born arch nemesis over a matter of centuries....interesting.

Below is from the same source I quoted above...

Quote:

Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King"). The scholars authorized by King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness. So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...." Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say, "this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king... How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star. How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded." Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".

A number of years ago, I did a study of Ezekiel 28:11-19, which had then caught my interest, and I was intrigued as to why Christian commentators often say that, although this passage is addressed to the King of Tyre, God was speaking beyond the King of Tyre, and directly to Satan.

This possibility is exemplified by Matthew 16:24 and Mark 8:33, where it may be understood that the Lord is speaking beyond Peter, and directly to Satan, when he turns to Peter and orders, "Get behind me, Satan!"

Another example, though less explicit, may be observed at Genesis 3:15, in the revelation of emnity between Satan and the Christ, as prophesized in type by the emnity between the woman and the serpent. Revelation 12:9 identifies this so-called "ancient serpent" as none other than Satan himself.

Both of these are examples of the Lord addressing Satan through another.

While completing this study, I deferred to J. Vernon McGee's commentary on Ezekiel in hopes for some insights on this subject, and to my disappointment, I noted that, as soon as Mr. McGee gets to verse 11, he suddenly begins to preach Satan, and in his entire discussion of those attributes mentioned between v.11-19, he ascribes each one to Satan, without ever explaining how this connection is even made.

Unfortunately, McGee typifies the perspective from which most folks address this passage: They assume it speaks of Satan, and never seem to go into the details of why.

And so I pressed forward with my own investigation.

Perhaps the most interesting discovery that I made was that the classic Jewish interpretation actually agrees that the passage is speaking beyond the King of Tyre: But rather than tie the discussion to Satan, it is believed that the intended subject here was none other than Adam.

Curious to learn more about the Jewish perspective on this passage, I deferred to my Tanach, by ArtScroll, and immediately observed that theirs was a significantly different rendering of v. 12b-13:

Quote:

"Are you [Adam] the culmination of perfection, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty? Were you in the Eden, the garden of God; Was your canopy of every precious stone -- Odem, pitedah and yahalom; tarshish, shoham and yashfeh; sapir, nophech and barkas -- and gold?" Ezekiel 28:12b-13 (ArtScroll Tanach)

I found it curious that the ArtScroll version would interpret these verses as rhetorical questions (casting these traits in anti-type), while every other English translation that I checked portrayed these verses as statements (casting these traits in prototype).

Although my knowledge of Hebrew was not even at the elementary level, I knew from past exposure that the original manuscripts do not contain any punctuation marks, such as we find them in English. And so, as I wondered what to make of the ArtScroll translation, I decided to solicit the input of my colleages on the B-Hebrew Mailing List.

One gentleman on this mailing list enlightened me to the fact that there are indeed certain markers that can be found in the sentence structure of the written Hebrew language, which indicate when a question is being asked. These markers appear in what described the "classic case" of questioning, found in Job 38-41, but these markers do not appear in Ezekiel 28:12b-13. (The man even gave me a little demonstration of what he meant, but since it required him to deal with the written language itself, he totally lost me in his prooftext.)

The same gentleman also made another significant point which was a bit less sophisticated in terms of Hebrew scholarship, so it was actually one that I could comprehend a little better:

Quote:

And the word of Yahweh [came] to me saying, "Son of man, take up a dirge over the King of Tyre" More colloquially this could be rendered, The word of Yahweh to me was, "Man, deliver a eulogy regarding the King of Tyre"

The point here being: It doesn't seem logical that one would ask questions in a eulogy. It makes more sense that this eulogy was meant to recap the life of this fallen king by listing milestones and other significant events.

And so the verses in question here do indeed seem to be part of the prototype.

The Hebrew word that is often translated "created" (Ezekiel 28:13, 15) is the very same word that is used in Genesis 1:27, when God created Adam. In my own simple word study, I noted that every time this word is used in Scripture, it is used to describe something new, in the sense that it was different from anything that preceded it.

Quote:

1. The creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). 2. The creation of the first great creatures of the sea, the first of every living and moving thing with which the water teems, and the first of every winged bird (Gen. 1:21). 3. The creation of the first man (Gen. 1:27). 4. "Before all your people I will do wonders never before done..." (Ex. 34:10). 5. "...if the Lord brings about something totally new..." (Numbers 16:30). 6. "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth" (Isa. 65:17). 7. "The LORD will create a new thing on earth..." (Jeremiah 31:22).

And so the use of this word, in my opinion, seems to suggest that the subject of Ezekiel 28:13, 15, was among the first of his kind, and therefore a prototype of Adam, which ties in well with the Jewish interpretation.


The Adam View of Ezekiel 28

Here are some things to consider in favor of this view:

1. Adam was created, the first man, and he was unique from any creature that preceded him.

2. Prior to the inception of sin, Adam was a model of perfection.

3. Adam was full of wisdom. It is implied from Scripture that Adam had been endowed with a knowledge of the ancient Hebrew language, and God assigned him the task of naming the animals.

4. Adam was cast in the image of God, and must therefore have been perfect in beauty.

5. Adam was in Eden, the garden of God, where he communed with God face to face.

6. Adam was blameless in all his ways from the day he was created until wickedness was found in him, insomuch as his disobedience to God may be construed as a form of wickedness.

7. Adam was expelled from Eden, where he had communed with God face to face. Ezekiel says, "I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God". This term, "mount of God", calls to mind the face to face communion that later took place between God and Moses at a place identified as the "mountain of God".

It's also worth noting that this view is regarded as the classic Jewish interpretation.

However, there are a few problems with this view: (1) Adam was a man, not a cherub. (2) Scripture does not seem to describe Adam as someone being filled with violence. (3) Scripture does not seem to describe Adam as having become proud. (4) When was Adam ever made a spectacle before kings?


The Satan View of Ezekiel 28

This seems to be the prevailing view within the realm of Christendom, but the view is not without its share of problems.

Outside of this passage, I have not been able to find even one passage of Scripture that directly speaks of Satan having been created perfect in beauty. The best I've been able to come up with is simply a vague parallel found in the typology of Absalom. The superlative language used to describe Absalom's appearance (2 Samuel 14:25-26) is similar in tone to what we find described in Ezekiel 28. It's also interesting to note that one-third of David's men joined Absalom's rebellion (1 Samuel 23:13 and 2 Samuel 15:2-11, cf. Revelation 12:3-4a), which would link us to Satan, so far as the prototype is concerned.

And there is of course 2 Corinthians 11:14, where we learn that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, which probably speaks more to his character than to his physical appearance.

Another idea usually derived from Ezekiel 28 is that Satan's initial sin was pride, and 1 Timothy 3:6 seems to support this view.

Ezekiel 28:17 says "...so I threw you down to the earth...", or literally, "I cast you to the ground", and this seems to reconcile nicely with the idea that Satan was cast out of heaven. Jesus told "the seventy-two" that he witnessed Satan fall like lightning from heaven (Luke 10:18 ), and two verses later he emphasizes the importance of securing your place in heaven. The understanding that Satan and his angels lost their place in heaven is reiterated in Revelation 12.


The King of Tyre View of Ezekiel 28

Last but not least, there is the plain view of Ezekiel 28, but even this view leaves a number of "loose ends".

1. The King of Tyre was "but a man" (v. 9), and does not seem to fit the bill of being created the first of his kind, as Adam had been, or perhaps even Satan (presuming that he preceded the other angels in the created order).

2. The King of Tyre was "but a man" (v. 9), and so how could he have been appointed as a guardian cherub? (A cherub is an angelic creature.)

3. How is it that a man of Adam's fallen race can be described as perfect, and with such a superative tone?

4. Why does this passage seem to suggest that the king's perfect wisdom was bestowed upon him on the day of his creation? A characteristic of procreated man is that he must grow and learn. This stands in contrast to Adam, who was immediately endowed with intelligence and understanding.

5. How could the King of Tyre have been in the Garden of Eden?

To resolve this mystery, some suggest that the language here is actually figurative in tone, and that what we see in Ezekiel 28:11-19 is the language of the Baal myths being applied to one of the adherents of Baal, that being the King of Tyre. In Ugaritic mythology, Baal ascended to the heights of Mt. Zaphon (literally, the North mountain), where he received power to rule over men and gods. He was given tribute by the other gods and acknowledged as superior in every way. This imagery seems to be recycled in Ezekiel and applied to the King of Tyre. But even though this passage may cast him in the shadow of Baal, those who hold this view insist that the passage does not have anyone in view but the King of Tyre himself.

--

Personally, I'm inclined to side with the plain view, but I do acknowledge the possibility that the language of this passage may go beyond the King of Tyre, and may possibly point to Adam, or quite possibly Satan.

On this matter, your guess is just as good as mine.

Joe

Somehow, I knew Joe would show up and post something nice and in-depth...thanks Joe!